Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: Syt on January 09, 2021, 07:46:24 AM

Title: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 09, 2021, 07:46:24 AM
What will/should the party do post Trump-presidency?

Will they be able to normalize themselves again, or will the stay their extreme course?

Will there be a new, more moderate conservative party that will become the new mainstream right of center alternative?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/08/end-of-republican-party-whigs/

QuoteThis Republican Party needs to go the way of the Whigs

If any good could possibly come of the Trump-incited mob's murderous attack on the United States Capitol, and the people's representatives therein, it would be the demise of this Republican Party.

Even as Trump-inspired barbarians overran Capitol Police Wednesday, fatally injuring one, to defile and plunder the Capitol, official word came that Democrats had won the second Georgia Senate seat, exiling Republicans to the political wilderness for the first time in a decade, without control of the White House, House or Senate.

And, at the same time, the whole world saw the defeated leader of this Republican Party use the awesome powers of the presidency to instigate an insurrection against the legislature — a coup attempt, plain and simple. After the last time Republicans lost the presidency, in 2012, they famously held an "autopsy" to see what had gone wrong. This time, President Trump went straight to the cremation, throwing the Capitol, with Vice President Pence in it, onto the funeral pyre.

So many sounded the alarm for so long about Trump's authoritarian instincts and violent rhetoric. For years, he instigated threats and violence against journalists ("enemy of the people"), racial and religious minorities, immigrants and Democrats. Yet Republicans excused him, defended him, enabled him. Now, in defeat, the autocrat showed the world his true colors and mobilized violence against Congress, Republicans included, and his own vice president.

What Trump's mob did to the Capitol — the first time the seat of American government had been sacked since the War of 1812 — was evil. It was murder. It was domestic terrorism. It was sedition. And, yes, it was treason.

Yet what Trump's Republican allies were doing inside the chambers of Congress at the time of the attack — Trump's justification for inciting the riot — was just as seditious: They were attempting to overturn Joe Biden's election as president, overrule the voters and install Trump, by fiat, for another term.

This Republican Party needs to go the way of the Whigs.

The GOP was born, from the ashes of the Whigs, under similar circumstances. The Whigs in 1848 jettisoned their core principle — limited presidential power — in favor of political expediency. Instead of nominating one of their legendary statesmen — Daniel Webster or Henry Clay — the Whigs went with celebrity war-hero Zachary Taylor, an enslaver who was popular with Southerners but had no governing experience and no fealty to Whig principles. Taylor won, but he savaged Whig leaders and Whig doctrine. The party, split over slavery, dissolved.

In 2016, McGill University historian Gil Troy, presciently noting the parallel deal with the devil Republicans made with Trump, wrote in Politico: "Many Republicans might want to consider what is worse: the institutional problems mass defections by 'Conscience Republicans' could bring about — or the moral ruin that could come from the ones who stay behind, choosing to pursue party power over principles."

Today's morally ruined Republican Party knows the answer. "The ultimate challenge to the Republican Party is: Do they want to find their soul again? Do they want to be patriots again?" Troy told me this week. It comes down to whether "there are enough people in the party to say, 'We've gone to the brink. How do we pull back?'"

Trump administration officials now announcing last-minute resignations, after excusing similar abuses for years, are hardly profiles in courage. Eleventh-hour epiphanies from the likes of chief Trump enablers Pence, Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), though welcome, are unpersuasive. They have the ability to remove Trump from power immediately; any further damage he does is on them.

But the seditious actions this week in Congress to overturn the election and overthrow the incoming Biden presidency provide a useful delineation: which Republicans have followed Trump off the cliff of authoritarianism and which still have some respect for democratic principles.

In the Senate, there are signs of hope. After the insurrection in the Capitol, several senators proposing to overturn the election results reconsidered, leaving only eight Republican senators beyond all salvation: ringleaders Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Josh Hawley (Mo.), with blood on their hands; and Rick Scott (Fla.), John Neely Kennedy (La.), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.) and Roger Marshall (Kan.).

In the House, prospects for Republican redemption are dimmer. Even after Trump's mob brought siege and death to the Capitol, two-thirds of Republicans voted to overturn the election. They weren't just the usual nutters — Jim Jordan (Ohio), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Lee Zeldin (N.Y.) — but also House Republican leaders Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Steve Scalise (La.).

As long as such people remain in positions of honor, trust or profit under the United States, the Republican Party will not be a participant in constitutional democracy, but rather an entity dedicated to its destruction.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on January 09, 2021, 07:49:14 AM
Posted this in the Trump thread, but looks like the GOP are just fine with Trump, thank you very much: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/trump-republican-national-committee.html
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 09, 2021, 07:53:37 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 09, 2021, 07:49:14 AM
Posted this in the Trump thread, but looks like the GOP are just fine with Trump, thank you very much: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/trump-republican-national-committee.html


I think that fits in-line with the op-ed headline. It can't be salvaged only disbanded.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 09, 2021, 07:56:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2021, 07:53:37 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 09, 2021, 07:49:14 AM
Posted this in the Trump thread, but looks like the GOP are just fine with Trump, thank you very much: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/trump-republican-national-committee.html


I think that fits in-line with the op-ed headline. It can't be salvaged only disbanded.

Personally, I don't see this happening unless they're losing seats, governorships, etc. As long as they feel they are winning (or can win) they'll keep going.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on January 09, 2021, 07:58:15 AM
Whatever happens to the party the politicians and voters will still be there.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 09, 2021, 07:59:41 AM
Indeed. Pundits who are endlessly seeing "signs of hope", and "change of tone" are either utterly clueless or hopelessly married to their past narratives.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on January 09, 2021, 08:00:41 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 09, 2021, 07:56:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2021, 07:53:37 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 09, 2021, 07:49:14 AM
Posted this in the Trump thread, but looks like the GOP are just fine with Trump, thank you very much: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/trump-republican-national-committee.html


I think that fits in-line with the op-ed headline. It can't be salvaged only disbanded.

Personally, I don't see this happening unless they're losing seats, governorships, etc. As long as they feel they are winning (or can win) they'll keep going.

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens. Lots of MAGA types are now swearing that they will never vote for GOP again.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2021, 08:18:15 AM
The Tarpeian Rock is close to the Capitol...  :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tamas on January 09, 2021, 09:05:29 AM
I don't see any quick way back to the centre from where they are. Yet, it seems being the party of raving fascists can keep them almost at the level of Democrats' support, so continuing on the Trumpist way shall offer livelihood and power for a lot of people.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 09, 2021, 11:44:24 AM
The Whigs were destroyed by Slavery and the Republicans. Without an ideological underpinning for a realignment, I don't see them going anywhere.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 09, 2021, 12:42:17 PM
I don't see a political reason to change. My bet would be that question 1 in the first GOP primary debate in 2023 will be "Is Joe Biden's presidency legitimate?" and my guess is the eventual winner will say no in some way or other.

Until there's a political motivation I don't see why there'd be a change. That may happen - I think the 2020 map is really interesting, as was the Georgia Senate results, but it's not clear what it means yet.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on January 09, 2021, 01:04:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2021, 12:42:17 PM
I don't see a political reason to change. My bet would be that question 1 in the first GOP primary debate in 2023 will be "Is Joe Biden's presidency legitimate?" and my guess is the eventual winner will say no in some way or other.

Until there's a political motivation I don't see why there'd be a change. That may happen - I think the 2020 map is really interesting, as was the Georgia Senate results, but it's not clear what it means yet.

I agree.  Nov 3 2020 - Jan 5 2021 was a disappointment for the Republicans in many arenas, but not disastrous in that they actually picked up House seats.

The leadership knows that they need to keep up the fantasy of Republican rebels fighting the evil Democratic Empire to remain viable as a party; the only thing they have to offer the lumpen is the illusion that this is an existential struggle between God's forces (Republicans) and the Devil's forces (everyone else).  No one would logically vote for today's Republican agenda, but 75 million will emotionally vote for it.  So long as that is working, why change?

Meanwhile, the rich get richer.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 09, 2021, 01:30:42 PM
The history in the OP on the Whigs is wrong; Taylor does not bear blame for the fate of the party.

The Whigs were never an anti-slavery party; there were always split between northern and southern factions with the southern faction including some of the most rabid pro-slavery polticians of the era, like Robert Toombs.  That split, which was inherent in the party's formation, was what made the party's dissolution inevitable ion the 1850s, when slavery became the dominant issue in US politics. No shuffling of leadership personnel could fix that problem.

The Whigs always struggled to compete in Presidential elections; the Democrats pretty consistently had a structural majority in that era.  The only time the Whigs won Presidential elections were the two times they nominated nationally popular war heroes with vague political views, first Harrison then Taylor.  In both cases, they died shortly after taking office and were succeeded by unpopular VPs disliked by many in the Whig party.

Taylor was a slaveholder but he actually opposed expansion of slaveholding in the territories, his views when in office were closer to northern whigs than southern.  His biggest shortcoming was dying early; IMO it's silly to blame him for the demise of the party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on January 09, 2021, 02:45:12 PM
The demographics are against them but they've a few fair years left, especially in hick states.
The danger is people forget, which looking at the UK for a lesson I think they probably will.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on January 09, 2021, 02:47:26 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2021, 02:45:12 PM
The demographics are against them but they've a few fair years left, especially in hick states.

I don't share your optimism regarding the decline in relative numbers of ignorant and hateful people.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Savonarola on January 09, 2021, 04:51:13 PM
I live in a deeply red Congressional district.  My congressman, Bill Posey, was one of the ones who voted to sustain the objections to Pennsylvania and Arizona votes.  From his standpoint, assuming his goal is to get re-elected, he made the right decision.  He'll never lose to a Democrat in the general election1.; his only possible challenge is in the primary.  Primary voters tend to be more extreme in there views than the average voter; so his only real risk is from a challenger even further to the right than he is.  Voting to sustain the objections demonstrated that he's sufficiently right-wing; while voting against might make him a suspected crypto-RINO, and therefore open him to a primary challenge.

For this reason I doubt the Republican Party will change very much from the events of this week.  A lot of districts simply aren't all that competitive, so there's no reason to change and every reason not to.

Trump himself might lose his influence, if his upcoming trials are embarrassing enough; similar to the way the Klan fell out as a political power in Indiana in the 1920s due to the DC Stephenson trial.

The Democrat party might change a little from this week, though, as I see CNN is writing human interest stories on the officers who were injured (and the one who was killed) during the riots.  I expect "Defund the Police" is no longer going to be an acceptable position (or at least not for a few years.)

1.)  Unless he's caught on camera saying something truly despicable; like "California oranges taste better than Florida oranges."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 09, 2021, 04:56:21 PM
Sadly, I have to agree with those who say a change in the Republican Party, or its dissolution, is not likely in the near term as a result of Trump.

Change will only come when they start massively losing elections on a large scale, at the local level.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on January 09, 2021, 06:17:31 PM
I remember a similar thread to this not to long ago where I proposed that the republicans will become sans when the Democrats finally feel secure to go socialist.
In the two party system you have two options, either both fight for the centre, which we really aren't seeing in the US, or one tries to push things heavily whilst the other is moderate.
The moderate path is fairly closed off to the republicans whilst the Democrats hold that ground. Especially in light of all the bridges burned with trump. But as the far right becomes less of a concern the Democrats can become less about holding the Fort and more about change which will open ground for Liberal conservatives to come back from the dead.


Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2021, 02:47:26 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2021, 02:45:12 PM
The demographics are against them but they've a few fair years left, especially in hick states.

I don't share your optimism regarding the decline in relative numbers of ignorant and hateful people.

The studies I've seen are promising.
Millennials to a small extent and digital natives to a huge extent are a lot more Internet savvy than the boomers. They generally don't fall for the same anything written on the Internet is true nonsense.

I remember an article on this being posted here not so long ago. The far right enjoys their peak success a few decades after a new communication medium is introduced, long enough for it to become part of everyone's life but not long enough for everyone to have grown up with it and inherantly understand it.

Hopefully with brekshit and trump we've hit the peak of the reactionary push back. The demographics point this way and in the US at least so too the election results.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on January 09, 2021, 10:44:27 PM
Once again, it looks like the Republicans have decided to double-down: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-trump-impeachment-attack/2021/01/09/62e4aea0-5289-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2021, 11:11:02 PM
paywalled
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on January 10, 2021, 12:53:58 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2021, 11:11:02 PM
paywalled

You are not missing anything.  The article is mostly about how nobody's doin' nothin'.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 10, 2021, 12:57:54 AM
I mean, it kind of makes sense.

They don't want to be primaried by Trumpists for sticking their head out too far. They don't want to give the Dems any kind of advantage or bludgeon that can be used against them. They don't have any moral fibre.

So they keep their heads down, waffle a bit, hope it goes away, that the pendulum will swing back at some point, and that they can still use their dogwhistles a little louder in the future.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 10, 2021, 01:00:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2021, 11:11:02 PM
paywalled

QuoteRepublicans largely silent about consequences of deadly attack and Trump's role in inciting it

Three days after a mob attack on the U.S. Capitol carried out in President Trump's name, Republican leaders have yet to outline plans to hold anyone accountable or to alter a platform and priorities lashed to the outgoing Republican president.

Trump and some congressional Republicans, meanwhile, stepped up their efforts Saturday to head off Democratic efforts to impeach Trump over what they call his incitement of violence.

Behind closed doors, Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner have encouraged allies to fight against a potential impeachment by issuing statements on social media or elsewhere that discourage or condemn the move, people familiar with the calls said.

It was not clear whether those efforts were having much success. Republican allies of the president were mainly muted Saturday, as pressure continued to mount among Democrats to try to force Trump from office before his term expires Jan. 20.

Meanwhile, a small group of Republicans who had voted to certify President-elect Joe Biden's victory released a letter Saturday calling on Biden to try to head off impeachment.

"In the spirit of healing and fidelity to our Constitution, I am asking that @JoeBiden formally request that Speaker Pelosi discontinue her efforts to impeach President Trump a second time," tweeted Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), sharing a copy of the letter signed by seven lawmakers.

A Biden spokesman on Saturday referred to the president-elect's comments the day before, when he said he would leave impeachment decisions to Congress.

Senate Republicans have not moved to investigate the assault on their workplace, which forced Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to flee with the help of his security team while Vice President Pence was whisked to a secure location.

Democrats are pushing to rapidly impeach the president a second time in less than two years — hoping to force Trump from office even a few days early.

Removing Trump by impeachment or by invoking the 25th Amendment governing unfitness for office remains a high hurdle, however, with less than two weeks remaining in his presidency. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has not made a formal determination to move forward with a second impeachment.

Pelosi said in a letter to Democratic members Saturday night that "it is absolutely essential that those who perpetrated the assault on our democracy be held accountable" and that there "must be a recognition that this desecration was instigated by the President." She did not specify an impending impeachment but told members to be ready for action.

"I urge you to be prepared to return to Washington this week," she said.

A draft impeachment resolution set to be introduced Monday garnered 180 cosponsors as of Saturday afternoon, according to Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), one of its authors.

McConnell (R-Ky.) is circulating a memo to Republican senators that outlines how a potential Senate trial would work in proceedings that would all but certainly occur after Trump leaves the White House.

Relatively few Republicans have publicly disavowed Trump, who was received enthusiastically during a phone-in appearance at a members-only gathering during the Republican National Committee meeting the morning after the mob attack.

Former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, for example, criticized the president's actions since the election during a speech at the RNC. But she also embraced much of his presidency and praised his work in office, including his record on judicial appointments and the economy.

"And it's a real shame, because I am one who believes our country made some truly extraordinary gains in the last four years," she said. "President Trump and Republicans deserve great credit for that. We should not shy away from our accomplishments."

She tweeted Saturday that the "shameful display of the riots" was a gift to America's enemies and should never be allowed to recur, with no mention of the president's role in inciting the attack. She separately tweeted opposition to the actions of Twitter and other social media companies, who have banned Trump from their platforms for allegedly fomenting the threat of violence.

A seven-point strategy memo from the Republican Study Committee released Friday made no mention of the attack and recommitted to themes Trump has championed, including the investigation of alleged voter fraud.

"As we move forward, we have an opportunity now more than ever to show the freedom-loving American people we represent that we are here fighting for them!" Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) wrote.

"People are right to be frustrated with the way that states conducted the 2020 election. The rules were changed in the 11th hour in a way that sowed mistrust in our democratic process and many feel as if their votes weren't counted. That can't happen again," Banks wrote.

Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) said Saturday that he believes Trump has "committed impeachable offenses," adding during an interview on Fox News that he is not sure what, if anything, his colleagues will do in coming days.

"I don't know what's going to land on the Senate floor, if anything," he said, referring to articles of impeachment expected to be voted on in the House next week. He did not directly call for Trump's removal and tempered his view about Trump's role.

"I don't know what they are going to send over, and one of the things that I'm concerned about, frankly, is whether the House would completely politicize something," Toomey said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) remains the lone Senate Republican to call for Trump's resignation over what she told the Anchorage Daily News on Friday were his failures before and after the Capitol assault. The attack during certification of Biden's victory left five people dead, including a Capitol Police officer.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) has said he would consider impeachment.

While key lawmakers, Democrat and Republican, have called for a bipartisan and bicameral review of Wednesday's events, there has been no decision yet on what form the investigation will take. Several congressional committees have announced they intend to investigate, and a special joint panel could be created to handle the probe.

So far the response from lawmakers regarding the security implications of Wednesday's breach has been mostly free of political finger-pointing. But Republicans appear prepared to resist any attempt to expand a congressional probe beyond the scope of a security review and do not favor including the actions of Trump and other leaders who may have had a role in inciting the riot.

In a signal of how the investigation could become partisan, a freshman House Republican, Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana, sent a letter to Pelosi on Friday, noting that the top House security official, the sergeant at arms, "works under the direction of the Speaker."

"Please advise what processes were directed by you to provide enhanced security . . . in light of the known and anticipated major public demonstration on January 6th," she wrote. Spartz made no mention of the Senate sergeant of arms, who works under the Republican majority leader.

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Friday called the assault "un-American," and said he had told Trump on Wednesday that "he had a great responsibility to intervene to quell the mob and start the healing process for our country."

McCarthy said nothing about Trump's culpability in falsely claiming victory and urging supporters to help him overturn the election, or in encouraging thousands to march on the Capitol. He was among the majority of House Republicans who voted to overturn the election after the siege.

"Over the coming weeks we will work with law enforcement to bring anyone responsible for the violence to justice. Lawlessness and extremism have no place in our way of life," McCarthy said in Friday's statement, urging that "partisans of all stripes" come together around a peaceful transfer of power.

"Impeaching the President with just 12 days left in his term will only divide our country more," McCarthy said.

In McConnell's impeachment memo, obtained by The Washington Post, the majority leader's office noted that the Senate will not reconvene for substantive business until Jan. 19, which means the earliest possible date that an impeachment trial could begin would be the day before Biden is inaugurated.

Although the Senate will hold two pro forma sessions next week, on Jan. 12 and Jan. 15, it is barred from conducting any kind of business during those days — including "beginning to act on received articles of impeachment from the House" — without agreement from all 100 senators. With a cadre of Trump-allied senators in the Republican conference, that unanimous consent is highly unlikely.

Trump has not spoken to Pence since before the assault, when he urged Pence to try to block congressional certification of Biden's victory, according to two people familiar with the relationship, who like others interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the president's actions on the record. Trump remains angry at Pence for refusing to do as Trump wished.

Pence plans to attend Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20, a person familiar with his plans said Saturday. Trump has said he will not attend, breaking a long-standing tradition.

Trump remained out of sight Saturday, and unnaturally silent. Twitter had permanently revoked his account on Friday evening, removing his accustomed direct broadcast system to nearly 90 million followers.

Trump spent much of the day Saturday railing about Twitter taking his account, according to two officials. The president has not said anything about the five people who died in the attack, including a Capitol Police officer, nor has he moved to lower the flags of the U.S. government in their honor. He does not plan to make that order and has complained to advisers that he is being treated unfairly, two people familiar with his comments said.

Some White House officials are concerned about the president's liability from a broader investigation into the event. Trump knew for days there would be a march and wanted to participate himself, only to be thwarted for his own security, officials said.

A number of lawyers who participated in Trump's last impeachment defense, including Jay Sekulow, Pat Philbin and Pat Cipollone, would be unlikely to participate this time in defending the president, one adviser said. Possibilities include Trump's personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, or defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, the adviser said.

Party officials remain torn over what to do about Trump in the final days — with many ready to cut ties but wary because the party's grass-roots activists and supporters are still largely with him.

"If you can replicate his draw amongst rural, working-class voters without the insanity, you have a permanent governing majority," said Josh Holmes, a top adviser to McConnell.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 10, 2021, 02:54:52 AM
How could we possibly heal when nothing has changed?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 10, 2021, 02:55:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2021, 02:54:52 AM
How could we possibly heal when nothing has changed?

I saw several people on Twitter likening the behavior of the GOP to an abusive partner. "Sure, things went wrong, but let's put that behind us and move forward."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on January 10, 2021, 06:20:24 AM
Why would anything change?  Yeah, the GOP has poison oozing through its pours.  But it is more a problem for anything nearby.  Party's only function is to win elections and after this it will win more than ever as big government socialismcommies organize to Red Dawn in and take everyone's guns.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on January 10, 2021, 07:41:34 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2021, 12:57:54 AM
I mean, it kind of makes sense.

They don't want to be primaried by Trumpists for sticking their head out too far. They don't want to give the Dems any kind of advantage or bludgeon that can be used against them. They don't have any moral fibre.

So they keep their heads down, waffle a bit, hope it goes away, that the pendulum will swing back at some point, and that they can still use their dogwhistles a little louder in the future.

I think it's worse than this. They're genuinely terrified of their own voters. If a Republican says the wrong thing, the base will send them death threats and try to blow up their house or kidnap their family for being a RINO traitor. These are the same people who stormed the Capitol looking to lynch the Vice President and planted pipe bombs.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 10, 2021, 07:44:50 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 10, 2021, 07:41:34 AMI think it's worse than this. They're genuinely terrified of their own voters. If a Republican says the wrong thing, the base will send them death threats and try to blow up their house or kidnap their family for being a RINO traitor. These are the same people who stormed the Capitol looking to lynch the Vice President and planted pipe bombs.
I think that's definitely part of it - I was thinking of it when I saw Roger Stone's recent Parler post:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErVBFfXU0AEm9dG?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 10, 2021, 09:04:40 AM
How bizarre.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on January 10, 2021, 09:11:19 AM
Who or what is Roger Stone?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on January 10, 2021, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2021, 09:11:19 AM
Who or what is Roger Stone?

The Penguin's long lost brother:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dxw7n6sX4AQJbkK.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 10, 2021, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2021, 09:11:19 AM
Who or what is Roger Stone?

Somebody who's sniffed Mitt Romney's crotch, apparently.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 10, 2021, 10:43:51 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2021, 09:11:19 AM
Who or what is Roger Stone?

One of Trump's minions who was convicted and then pardoned by Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 10, 2021, 10:52:26 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Me_Roger_Stone
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: mongers on January 10, 2021, 11:17:48 AM
Why would the majority of congressional and state republicans throw the baby* out with the bathwater**?

Trumpism is a force for good***






* Trumpism
** Donald Trump
*** For the boosting electoral success of what now passes for the republican party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on January 10, 2021, 11:44:01 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2021, 11:17:48 AM
Why would the majority of congressional and state republicans throw the baby* out with the bathwater**?

Trumpism is a force for good***






* Trumpism
** Donald Trump
*** For the boosting electoral success of what now passes for the republican party.


Well,  Trumpism nearly killed them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on January 10, 2021, 12:12:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2021, 11:44:01 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2021, 11:17:48 AM
Why would the majority of congressional and state republicans throw the baby* out with the bathwater**?

Trumpism is a force for good***





* Trumpism
** Donald Trump
*** For the boosting electoral success of what now passes for the republican party.


Well,  Trumpism nearly killed them.


But it also almost kept them in power, and could have killed their enemies.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 10, 2021, 12:29:53 PM
How many of you have contacted your Senators, and members of Congress? It's the bare minimum right now. The fascists are making themselves heard, I guarantee that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 10, 2021, 12:39:57 PM
My member of Congress was the guy who wanted Pelosi to refuse to seat the new GOP members of Congress who supported Trump's fraud claims on the ground of sedition *before* the attack on the Capitol.

This was his latest:
QuoteOn Wednesday, our United States Capitol was attacked by a mob of rightwing terrorists. As Republicans inside the chamber sought to tear down our democracy, the violent extremists they whipped up outside tried the very same. This attempted coup is treasonous. Horrifically, it was incited directly by Donald Trump and many of my colleagues across the aisle. The traitors who stormed our nation's Capitol and the politicians who cheered them must forever be branded as seditionists.

For months, I have called for the prosecution of Donald Trump and members of his administration for their innumerable crimes against the United States. Throughout his presidency, he endangered our national security. He ripped families apart. He personally profited from his office. He attacked our elections and sought to destroy democracy. Now, he has incited violent insurrection against the People's House. He has engaged in treachery, in treason. He has all but given up on governing and protecting our nation and if he had a shred of dignity he would resign today.

Violent fascism at the footsteps of our national legislature was fed by Republicans and years of fomenting extremism against our government. They built this. This authoritarianism will not disappear in 12 days. The long-term preservation of democracy is in our hands right now. It is the challenge of our time to eradicate this poison.

The day he is no longer in office Donald Trump and his adjutants must be fully investigated by the Department of Justice. Donald Trump along with his worst enablers must be tried for their crimes against our nation and Constitution. Importantly, any further abuse of the sacred pardon power to shield criminals would itself be obstruction of justice, and any self-pardons would be illegal. We cannot repeat the mistakes of our nation's past by granting amnesty under the illusion of unity. Failure to hold Donald Trump's crimes accountable will only further embolden criminality and continue America down the path of lawlessness and authoritarianism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 10, 2021, 12:52:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2021, 12:57:54 AM
So they keep their heads down, waffle a bit, hope it goes away, that the pendulum will swing back at some point, and that they can still use their dogwhistles a little louder in the future.

Yeah I think they think if they can just hold on things will settle down.

They better pray for some kind of economic miracle if they want that to happen. Only bread and circuses will make release the pressure.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 10, 2021, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 10, 2021, 12:29:53 PM
How many of you have contacted your Senators, and members of Congress? It's the bare minimum right now. The fascists are making themselves heard, I guarantee that.

Ted Cruz and John Carter voted not to certify. I guess I will let them know I think they suck.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 10, 2021, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 10, 2021, 12:39:57 PM
My member of Congress was the guy who wanted Pelosi to refuse to seat the new GOP members of Congress who supported Trump's fraud claims on the ground of sedition *before* the attack on the Capitol.

You should still call to voice your support. Pressure needs to be applied not only to the Republicans who have not yet committed to treason, but to the "heal and move on" crowd amidst the Democrats.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 12:59:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q1jqbJM2v4

Corporations stop donations to those who objected to certification.

Lack of money could change the Republican party.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 11, 2021, 01:03:17 PM
Do you think Trump going 3rd party at some point is a real possibility? That'd really split the GOP and force them to evolve.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 11, 2021, 01:03:55 PM
Also the comment by Forbes that they'll treat statements by companies who hire senior Trump alumni like Sean Spicer or Conway the way they'd treat statements by the Trump administration (i.e. fact-check everything) which may have an impact on private sector opportunities for ex Trump staffers. I think that could change incentives/behaviour too - if working for Trump isn't just like working for any other administration.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on January 11, 2021, 01:30:22 PM
AOC and Trump uniting to give the parties whatfor.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 01:45:39 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 11, 2021, 01:03:17 PM
Do you think Trump going 3rd party at some point is a real possibility? That'd really split the GOP and force them to evolve.

That was his original plan but he decided it was not feasible.

If he did it now it would shatter the party. Evil Bull Moose style.

I don't know what he will do, in the short term we just want him out of office.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 01:48:13 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 11, 2021, 01:30:22 PM
AOC and Trump uniting to give the parties whatfor.

A national socialist party if you will. And that is what it would take to really have a third party. Progressives and populist right wingers somehow finding common ground against the establishment. But they hate each other so much that would never happen. All those wedge issues the Democrats and Republicans have been hammering on for so many years really makes such an alliance untenable.

I mean what would be their stance on abortion? That alone would be an enormous hurdle and that would just be the beginning.

And as for AOC I don't think she is really as radical as she pretends to be.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on January 11, 2021, 02:18:44 PM
Radicality(?) is relative.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2021, 02:18:44 PM
Radicality(?) is relative.



Ok not sufficiently radical to break with the Democrats to advance a left wing agenda.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 03:06:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 12:59:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q1jqbJM2v4

Corporations stop donations to those who objected to certification.

Lack of money could change the Republican party.

It seems the recent trend (past few years) is for the right wing to take business support for granted. It'll be interesting to see to what degree the money pulling out actually influences things.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 03:07:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 01:48:13 PM
And as for AOC I don't think she is really as radical as she pretends to be.

I think she's pretty open about what she's about. I think she's not as radical as the right pretends when they need someone to villify.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 03:08:47 PM
For all my criticism of the progessive left, one thing I will not accuse them of is insincerity.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 03:09:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 03:08:47 PM
For all my criticism of the progessive left, one thing I will not accuse them of is insincerity.

:lmfao:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on January 11, 2021, 03:16:05 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 11, 2021, 01:03:17 PM
Do you think Trump going 3rd party at some point is a real possibility? That'd really split the GOP and force them to evolve.

Why would Trump need two parties?  :huh:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 03:19:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 03:07:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 01:48:13 PM
And as for AOC I don't think she is really as radical as she pretends to be.

I think she's pretty open about what she's about. I think she's not as radical as the right pretends when they need someone to villify.

I don't know. She made several promises about being a counter-establishment combative Democrat who was going to really make some noise to push the Democrats left. She makes a few noises but for the most part she is not all that combative or counter-leadership. I think if you elected her wanting her to go to war with the Democrats who have sold out to big business you are probably not going to be very happy so far. If you elected her wanting her to piss off Republicans you will probably be pretty satisfied.

Hence why I have not seen much evidence she would break from the Democrats for some more explicitly socialist party. But especially not to ally with Donald Trump  :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 03:24:14 PM
But I mean there are Republicans who think Joe Biden is a radical socialist and that the Democrats are Communists. Pissing them off is not really a mark of strong radical leftist credentials.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 03:32:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 03:09:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 03:08:47 PM
For all my criticism of the progessive left, one thing I will not accuse them of is insincerity.

:lmfao:

I don't get it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 11, 2021, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 03:06:03 PM
It seems the recent trend (past few years) is for the right wing to take business support for granted. It'll be interesting to see to what degree the money pulling out actually influences things.
Yeah - it makes me think of Boris Johnson's famous "fuck business" remark.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 03:44:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 03:32:43 PM
I don't get it.

I thought it was well put, so I laughed. Many of the things you say (well two years ago when I was here) come across as dry, understated, and true. That's kind of where my sense of humour lives.

I agree with you that the progressive left is generally not insincere. The scope of all the other things you imply you can accuse the left of is pretty darn vast. The phrase you used was pretty precise in conveying how you feel about the progressive left, which is IIRC not particularly enthusiastic.

Maybe I picked the wrong emoticon. I meant to convey: "Well put, Yi. Your epic understatement made me laugh."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 11, 2021, 04:28:37 PM
 :lol: or ^_^ would be more apt.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 04:29:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 03:44:11 PM
I thought it was well put, so I laughed. Many of the things you say (well two years ago when I was here) come across as dry, understated, and true. That's kind of where my sense of humour lives.

I agree with you that the progressive left is generally not insincere. The scope of all the other things you imply you can accuse the left of is pretty darn vast. The phrase you used was pretty precise in conveying how you feel about the progressive left, which is IIRC not particularly enthusiastic.

Maybe I picked the wrong emoticon. I meant to convey: "Well put, Yi. Your epic understatement made me laugh."

Thanks. :cheers:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 04:48:40 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 11, 2021, 04:28:37 PM
:lol: or ^_^ would be more apt.

Next time :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 04:49:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 04:29:47 PM
Thanks. :cheers:

:cheers:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
The more I think of it, the more I think there simply is no real future for the GOP.

They can't reject Trumpism without splitting the party, meaning continuing election losses into the near term future. They can't *not* reject Trumpism, as it is ever more clearly associated in the mind of the average person with domestic terrorism.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 05:23:09 PM
They will try to do neither of those things. They will try to stay the "Democrats are bad" party and eventually get back their corporate support while trying to ignore the Trump question. The question is will the Trump supporters let them get away with it?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 05:23:09 PM
They will try to do neither of those things. They will try to stay the "Democrats are bad" party and eventually get back their corporate support while trying to ignore the Trump question. The question is will the Trump supporters let them get away with it?

The problem with the 'ostrich' strategy is, as you note, that the Trumpites will not go quietly into that good night.

I expect angry and violent incident from assorted yahoos will keep people on edge for a long time to come, leaving the Republicans in an awkward position. Particularly if Trump and his family are vocally egging the Yahoos on.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 05:28:46 PM
Intraparty conflict is unavoidable.  The crazy wing has already branded McConnell Rafensperger et al traitors.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 11, 2021, 05:41:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 05:19:12 PMas it is ever more clearly associated in the mind of the average person with domestic terrorism.

I am not convinced that the "average person" thinks that yet. Certainly most Americans will disapprove with the attack on the Capitol, but they will continue to "empathize" with them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/09/most-americans-reject-attack-capitol-but-millions-empathize-with-mob/

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 05:43:51 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 11, 2021, 05:41:02 PM
I am not convinced that the "average person" thinks that yet. Certainly most Americans will disapprove with the attack on the Capitol, but they will continue to "empathize" with them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/09/most-americans-reject-attack-capitol-but-millions-empathize-with-mob/

1/3 of Trump voters is not "most Americans."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 11, 2021, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 05:43:51 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 11, 2021, 05:41:02 PM
I am not convinced that the "average person" thinks that yet. Certainly most Americans will disapprove with the attack on the Capitol, but they will continue to "empathize" with them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/09/most-americans-reject-attack-capitol-but-millions-empathize-with-mob/

1/3 of Trump voters is not "most Americans."

No, it's not. But disapproval isn't "domestic terrorism".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 11, 2021, 05:48:57 PM
Yeah. To me the question is to what degree the impact of this rupture will carry forward to the next set of elections (mid-terms, 2026) both locally and nationally.

It seems likely that there'll be some kerfuffles between the terrorist wing, the radical but not terrorist wing, and the not-radical-but-not-disgusted-enough-to-leave wing in the coming years. I guess it comes down to how much that weighs on the public perception compared to how much fatigue accrues to the Democrats from being in power.

Then there's the bit about whether Fox changes their tune and whether OANN (or equivalent) grows significantly. And how deep and sustained the business withdrawal from the insurrectionists is.

Lots of questions at this point.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 06:35:03 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 11, 2021, 05:41:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 05:19:12 PMas it is ever more clearly associated in the mind of the average person with domestic terrorism.

I am not convinced that the "average person" thinks that yet. Certainly most Americans will disapprove with the attack on the Capitol, but they will continue to "empathize" with them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/09/most-americans-reject-attack-capitol-but-millions-empathize-with-mob/

Yeah, Americans would probably soon get tired of or forget the mob storming the Capitol — if it was a singular event.

The question is what will happen if, as I suspect, Trump's supporters keep assaulting government institutions once Trump is out of power. The public would, I suspect, quickly grow tired of this level of chaos being unleashed on them in support of Trump's fantasy life.

It is the continuing discord that will cause any "empathy", other than on the part of the truly deluded, to dry up. At least, that's the theory.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 06:37:40 PM
I do not believe Americans are going to forget the storming of the Capitol.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 06:40:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 06:37:40 PM
I do not believe Americans are going to forget the storming of the Capitol.

Fair.

Replace "forget" with "allow the Republicans to successfully distance themselves from the event".

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 06:53:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 06:40:20 PM
Fair.

Replace "forget" with "allow the Republicans to successfully distance themselves from the event".

That's very much an eye of the beholder kind of claim.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 11, 2021, 06:56:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 06:35:03 PM
It is the continuing discord that will cause any "empathy", other than on the part of the truly deluded, to dry up. At least, that's the theory.

I don't subscribe to this theory. The Nazis caused much of the very discord and disturbances they promised to solve.

In general, I do not subscribe to mechanistic theories that "crossing a line" suddenly inspires political feelings in decent people. For Americans not to forget about the Capitol, people need to loudly assert, and repeat, just how much of a big deal it is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 11, 2021, 06:57:51 PM
I think Trump's audience will suffer greatly once the networks stop giving him oxygen and he can't get other people to pay for his rallies.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 07:24:22 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 11, 2021, 06:56:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 06:35:03 PM
It is the continuing discord that will cause any "empathy", other than on the part of the truly deluded, to dry up. At least, that's the theory.

I don't subscribe to this theory. The Nazis caused much of the very discord and disturbances they promised to solve.

The Nazis were far better organized than this crowd, and the surrounding circumstances were considerably different. I do not believe that any historical parallel will prove exact.

QuoteIn general, I do not subscribe to mechanistic theories that "crossing a line" suddenly inspires political feelings in decent people. For Americans not to forget about the Capitol, people need to loudly assert, and repeat, just how much of a big deal it is.

My proposal is not concerning a sudden crossing of a line inspiring moral revulsion. It concerns a continuing and repeated state of crisis which establishes a narrative.

If the event was singular and not repeated, the Republicans probably *would* eventually be able to distance themselves, and repeated harping on their complicity could lead to fatigue with the issue - that the Republicans could turn to their advantage.

Point being that the Trumpites *will not stop*, and this very fact may prove the downfall of the Republican Party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 11, 2021, 07:44:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 07:24:22 PM
The Nazis were far better organized than this crowd, and the surrounding circumstances were considerably different. I do not believe that any historical parallel will prove exact.

That's historical hindsight. The Nazis were a bunch of loser thugs in 1923. We are not on the brink of a Nazi takeover. We are living during a testing phase. And no, historical precedent is never useful if the point is to establish exact analog. It's useful to help us think. And I think the 20s and 30s have much to help us think with, which I think beats handily the opposite, which is to think our times to be utterly unthinkable until shit happens. And perhaps because I am a historian of France, I think France in the 30s have more to teach us than Germany in that regard.

In any case, my point is that the Republicans may not even wish to distance themselves too much from the event. I think we differ in our evaluation of how much revulsion it inspires, especially amongst conservatives.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2021, 11:34:41 PM
A lot of companies are cutting off money to those representatives and senators who voted to object to the EC votes permanently.

That's what's going to get a reaction from the party, not any moralizing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2021, 12:20:57 AM
Someone hasn't been reading the thread.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sophie Scholl on January 12, 2021, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2021, 06:37:40 PM
I do not believe Americans are going to forget the storming of the Capitol.
It is already being spun by the Right as an antifa/BLM joint efforts financed by Soros and filled with crisis actors, like the QAnon woman who was killed. Other groups on the Right are still considering them all Patriots and Ashli Babbit a martyr, so... who the heck knows what their final narrative will be other than divorced from reality. I don't think anyone will forget it, but it will be viewed very differently by different groups.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2021, 03:07:35 AM
There's a chance there might be a full on civil war battle next week.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ffd29a4c5b691806c4bf199/amp?cte=&__twitter_impression=true

QuoteWASHINGTON ― Capitol Police briefed Democrats on Monday night about three more potentially gruesome demonstrations planned in the coming days, with one plot to encircle the U.S. Capitol and assassinate Democrats and some Republicans.

On a private call Monday night, new leaders of the Capitol Police told House Democrats they were closely monitoring three separate plans that could pose serious threats to members of Congress as Washington prepares for Democrat Joe Biden's presidential inauguration on Jan. 20.

The first is a demonstration billed as the "largest armed protest ever to take place on American soil."

Another is a protest in honor of Ashli Babbitt, the woman killed while trying to climb into the Speaker's Lobby during Wednesday's pro-Trump siege of the Capitol.


And another demonstration, which three members said was by far the most concerning plot, would involve insurrectionists forming a perimeter around the Capitol, the White House and the Supreme Court, and then blocking Democrats from entering the Capitol ― perhaps even killing them ― so that Republicans could take control of the government.

The members of Congress whom HuffPost spoke to Monday night were extremely concerned by the call.

"It was pretty overwhelming," one member said.


Officials on the call warned lawmakers about sharing too much information with the media, saying that divulging specific dates, times and countermeasures could aid the organizers of the plots. HuffPost is not disclosing certain information, such as who appears to be organizing these plots and when they are to take place.

One member was explicit that these groups were trying to get journalists to report on their demonstrations.

"Some of their main communications to organize these have been cut off, so they're purposely trying to get the media to report on this as a way to further disseminate information and to attract additional support for their attacks," this member said.

Democrats were told that the Capitol Police and the National Guard were preparing for potentially tens of thousands of armed protesters coming to Washington and were establishing rules of engagement for warfare. In general, the military and police don't plan to shoot anyone until one of the rioters fires, but there could be exceptions.

Lawmakers were told that the plot to encircle the Capitol also included plans to surround the White House ― so that no one could harm Trump ― and the Supreme Court, simply to shut down the courts. The plan to surround the Capitol includes assassinating Democrats as well as Republicans who didn't support Trump's effort to overturn the election ― and allowing other Republicans to enter the building and control government.

All of these plots may never materialize. The Capitol Police have established a new perimeter with fencing and razor wire, and the National Guard has already been called in to help protect the Capitol and lawmakers.

But while Capitol Police assured members they were prepared for these terrorist plots, there was obvious concern from a number of lawmakers.

One topic of discussion was the need to put every member of Congress through a metal detector before the inauguration. A member on the call told HuffPost that there was an "eyes-wide-open realization" that Capitol Police needed to take precautions against "all these members who were in league with the insurrectionists who love to carry their guns."


"You can't just let them bypass security and walk right up to [Joe] Biden and [Kamala] Harris at inauguration," this lawmaker told HuffPost.


Another area of concern was the Trump administration's involvement in tamping down an insurrection. "I don't think anyone has confidence that the folks at the Pentagon, that may or may not even be needed for some of this, or the Department of Homeland Security, where we don't even know who's in charge, are going to be cooperative," one member told HuffPost.

One Democrat on the call also raised the issue of security for members coming from their residences to the Capitol, as well as traveling to Washington, given recent confrontations at airports and on flights between some protesters and lawmakers. One member who spoke to HuffPost said the Capitol Police didn't have a satisfactory answer about that concern.

This member mentioned how the briefing had underscored the wisdom of Twitter suspending Trump's account, as well as tens of thousands of accounts associated with the right-wing conspiracy theory QAnon, and said the decision to cut off the social media platform Parler "looked a lot smarter" given the efforts to recruit armed extremists to come to the nation's capital in the coming days.

"It's a decision that might ultimately save lives," this member said.

One of the lawmakers who spoke to HuffPost said members of Congress were all experiencing difficult reactions to the storming of the Capitol last week.

"Most of us are feeling that," this Democrat said. "But we are also feeling that we don't have time to indulge too much of it, that this is not about us, that it's about a job that's way bigger than us, and we are just going to suck it up and get through, and we'll talk about how nutty it is on the other side."

Amanda Terkel and Jennifer Bendery contributed to this report.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on January 12, 2021, 03:23:48 AM
Makes electing elderly Joe Biden seem a smart move really.... Seriously brave guy.. Fingers crossed the cultists follow the usual pattern of white extremists and are inept.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2021, 03:44:14 AM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 12, 2021, 02:17:35 AM
It is already being spun by the Right as an antifa/BLM joint efforts financed by Soros and filled with crisis actors, like the QAnon woman who was killed. Other groups on the Right are still considering them all Patriots and Ashli Babbit a martyr, so... who the heck knows what their final narrative will be other than divorced from reality. I don't think anyone will forget it, but it will be viewed very differently by different groups.

That narrative is what the upcoming fight within the Republican party is going to be about.  That's why I praise people like Mitch McConnell for standing up to that narrative and fighting for a party that believes in the law while everyone else is calling him an enabler piece of shit.  Who wins this fight is important for the future of this country.  There's a hell of a bigger chance the loons listen to fellow Republicans than Democrats or the mainstream media.

The first salvo has already been fired.  That one poll Shelf linked shows 80% of Republicans disapprove of the Capitol assault.  That will make the loons feel isolated.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 10:10:03 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 11, 2021, 07:44:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 07:24:22 PM
The Nazis were far better organized than this crowd, and the surrounding circumstances were considerably different. I do not believe that any historical parallel will prove exact.

That's historical hindsight. The Nazis were a bunch of loser thugs in 1923. We are not on the brink of a Nazi takeover. We are living during a testing phase. And no, historical precedent is never useful if the point is to establish exact analog. It's useful to help us think. And I think the 20s and 30s have much to help us think with, which I think beats handily the opposite, which is to think our times to be utterly unthinkable until shit happens. And perhaps because I am a historian of France, I think France in the 30s have more to teach us than Germany in that regard.

In any case, my point is that the Republicans may not even wish to distance themselves too much from the event. I think we differ in our evaluation of how much revulsion it inspires, especially amongst conservatives.

My concern has always been that the Trump phenomenon is what happens when respect for the institutions of society and reverence for notions of objective truth and the importance of the rule of law have been undermined.

Trump and his followers are no Nazis. Not because they are morally superior individuals (I make no comparison there) or because Nazis 'can't happen here', but rather because the social institutions they are trying to undermine are much stronger and with much deeper roots than those of Weimar Germany, and most especially because of their limitations - Trump is a vicious con man drifting from graft to graft, he's no deep coup planner. Witness the fact that he's been in power four solid years and this damp squib of a coup attempt is the best he can manage, apparently - together with his utterly lame attempts to game the system, all of which have been total failures. It is hard to imagine Hitler being Chancellor for four years and *then* pulling off a Beer Hall Putsch - like failure.

The danger has always been that some new figure could arise that is capable of harnessing the far right lunacy, while themselves having a more cunning and directing mind. An American Putin. I do think this is possible, but it clearly will not be as easy as it was in Weimar Germany or  post-fall of the Soviet Union Russia.

The reason is, once again, that existing institutions are stronger in America - and one of these strengths is that there is at least some reverence remaining among conservatives for American institutions. The sight of right wing inspired political violence had been a shock, and if that is repeated, it will be difficult to shrug off as an anomaly or a few bad apples. We are kinda seeing that fact play out now, with Republicans believing Trumpism is a sinking ship and scuttling like rats to distance themselves ... that only happens, not because Republicans genuinely care (all those that do have left already), but because they think engaging in political violence is a losing strategy at the moment.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2021, 11:18:58 AM
But the last 4 years have not been good for American institutions, that is Trump's legacy, with repeated abuses of executive power totally unchecked and at times encouraged by Congress.  And a lot of that can be laid of McConnell's door by putting party loyalty over loyalty to the Senate and to Congress as an institution.  Trump has laid a road map and the groundwork for a American Putin. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2021, 11:18:58 AM
But the last 4 years have not been good for American institutions, that is Trump's legacy, with repeated abuses of executive power totally unchecked and at times encouraged by Congress.  And a lot of that can be laid of McConnell's door by putting party loyalty over loyalty to the Senate and to Congress as an institution.  Trump has laid a road map and the groundwork for a American Putin.

Agreed. The assault on democratic institutions, above and beyond any particular nasty thing Trump and the Republicans have done, is why his Presidency has been so harmful, why he fits in the same category as guys like Buchanan.

As I said, the danger is that he's laid the foundations for an American Putin ... but I also believe that any wannabe American Putin will have a much harder task ahead of them than the actual Putin faced in Russia.

Reason: there remains, despite Trump, a large degree of respect for American democratic institutions, which have had a long history. They are no means perfect of course, and there is plenty of justified critique (from the left) as to how and why they perpetuate oppression and injustice ... but the great majority of Americans still believe they ought to be reformed, not jettisoned.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 12, 2021, 11:33:58 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2021, 03:44:14 AMThat's why I praise people like Mitch McConnell for standing up to that narrative and fighting for a party that believes in the law while everyone else is calling him an enabler piece of shit. 

Who do you praise him to?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2021, 11:44:46 AM
The impeachment shook my faith in American institutions. I "got" why the Russia allegations failed to make the full impact they deserved as the full story was complicated and Trump watched his Godfather II and maintained "buffers". But on the Ukraine scandal there was a recording of him extorting a foreign leader to get dirt on an opponent and witness testimony directly implicating him in a quid pro quo.  But 45% of the American people shrugged or even cheered the President on partisan and the Senate rolled over.

Trump made multiple statements about running for unconstitutional terms or becoming President for Life.  He tested waters and there was no significant pushback. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 11:50:02 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2021, 11:44:46 AM
The impeachment shook my faith in American institutions. I "got" why the Russia allegations failed to make the full impact they deserved as the full story was complicated and Trump watched his Godfather II and maintained "buffers". But on the Ukraine scandal there was a recording of him extorting a foreign leader to get dirt on an opponent and witness testimony directly implicating him in a quid pro quo.  But 45% of the American people shrugged or even cheered the President on partisan and the Senate rolled over.

Trump made multiple statements about running for unconstitutional terms or becoming President for Life.  He tested waters and there was no significant pushback.

There is no question American institutions failed in dealing with Trump. With the Republicans holding the senate, there was apparently no route to remove him.

The question though was whether this failure pointed the way to dismantling the system itself.

So far, the answer to that question appears to be "no", because no matter what Trump has tried, he has been unable to stop the process of his own removal ... and the violence raised in the attempt to oppose that removal has not been met with any large scale approval.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 12, 2021, 01:33:45 PM
If the question is whether this failure shows the way to dismantling the system, I am not so quick to say the answer is no.  The whole notion of challenging the certification of the College votes turned not on Constitutional norms but potential political gain.  The whole notion of supporting a stop the steal movement was the same thing.  Egging on Trumpists with inflammatory remarks was the same.

The clear path forward is one need only make the political calculation tempting enough to get enough support in Congress to ignore the constitution. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 12, 2021, 01:52:36 PM
How would the political calculation ever be enough though? Sure, Cruz and Hawley are hoping to pick up the diehards in a future presidential primary, but for the average Senator just aiming for reelection it'd be a poor move.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 02:08:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 11:50:02 AM
The question though was whether this failure pointed the way to dismantling the system itself.

So far, the answer to that question appears to be "no", because no matter what Trump has tried, he has been unable to stop the process of his own removal ... and the violence raised in the attempt to oppose that removal has not been met with any large scale approval.
Over half of House Republicans and 6 of, what, 50 Republican Senators voted to overturn the election results - with another 5 Senators elect indicating they would. They did this after the violence on the Capitol.

That might not be the same as large scale approval of the violence, but it's still pretty significant.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 12, 2021, 02:19:50 PM
One of the 9 GOP House representatives, who didn't vote to overturn the election, said that he expects that he has exposed himself and his family to danger by his vote. And also, that several of his peers voted to overturn the election because they were afraid of being targets of violence.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on January 12, 2021, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2021, 02:19:50 PM
And also, that several of his peers voted to overturn the election because they were afraid of being targets of violence.

Is this likely true?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 02:32:55 PM
Shared by Erick Erickson on Twitter, he says this is doing the rounds on right-wing social media circles:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErfiDTOXYAI2AGm?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 12, 2021, 02:37:24 PM
At least the people participating will have fewer illusions about what might happen....
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 02:59:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 02:08:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 11:50:02 AM
The question though was whether this failure pointed the way to dismantling the system itself.

So far, the answer to that question appears to be "no", because no matter what Trump has tried, he has been unable to stop the process of his own removal ... and the violence raised in the attempt to oppose that removal has not been met with any large scale approval.
Over half of House Republicans and 6 of, what, 50 Republican Senators voted to overturn the election results - with another 5 Senators elect indicating they would. They did this after the violence on the Capitol.

That might not be the same as large scale approval of the violence, but it's still pretty significant.

This is the question: will continued political violence designed to overturn the election and perpetuate Trump in power actually succeed in perpetuating Trump in power?

Or will this, instead, divide the Republican Party?

I guess we shall see. I would predict the latter. I hope I'm right.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on January 12, 2021, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2021, 02:19:50 PM
One of the 9 GOP House representatives, who didn't vote to overturn the election, said that he expects that he has exposed himself and his family to danger by his vote. And also, that several of his peers voted to overturn the election because they were afraid of being targets of violence.


I think there is a real chance that someone will assassinate a congressperson or Senator.  None of those people are well protected and we have ample evidence that people want to do it (and in the case of Whitmer actually planned to it).  I don't know what you do about that.  I have a real feeling that Trump's legacy is going to be much worse than we think.  Coup attempts beget more Coup attempts. What happens in the next few months could radically alter the US.  It really comes down to how people will react to the violence last week and any violence this month.  The poll that showed most Republicans disapprove of coup attempt is good news.  The large number of Republicans who sympathize with the perpetrators less so...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 03:20:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2021, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2021, 02:19:50 PM
One of the 9 GOP House representatives, who didn't vote to overturn the election, said that he expects that he has exposed himself and his family to danger by his vote. And also, that several of his peers voted to overturn the election because they were afraid of being targets of violence.


I think there is a real chance that someone will assassinate a congressperson or Senator.  None of those people are well protected and we have ample evidence that people want to do it (and in the case of Whitmer actually planned to it).  I don't know what you do about that.  I have a real feeling that Trump's legacy is going to be much worse than we think.  Coup attempts beget more Coup attempts. What happens in the next few months could radically alter the US.  It really comes down to how people will react to the violence last week and any violence this month.  The poll that showed most Republicans disapprove of coup attempt is good news.  The large number of Republicans who sympathize with the perpetrators less so...

So far, what I've seen from Republicans in response to the attack on the capitol is either one of fantasy (as in the whole thing was 'antifa'), whataboutism (as in 'this is just the same as BLM getting out of hand'), and only as a minority option, approval.

However, while the attackers managed to kill a cop, they didn't succeed in assassinating politicians.

I do think the latter is likely now - too many armed crazies have been riled up, it is impossible to protect everyone against well armed crazy people. What happens then, though? Will the majority of Republican voters watch political assassinations and say 'this is what I want'? If so, our most pessimistic outcomes become likely.

I suspect that what will happen is that there will be increasing pressure on the party to fissure into Trumpite and non-Trumpite factions. Those who were formerly Trumpites out of expedience are likely to  desert the cause, unless it is a popular vote-getter. Trump will not be in a position to bestow favours any more.

In short, increasing domestic terrorism is likely to make Trumpism less popular, and not more, among the pool of Republican voters. Some 80% allegedly already disapprove of the attack on the Capitol. That means a lot of people still approve, but I would predict that number will not increase when the crazies move on to increasing acts of terrorism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 12, 2021, 03:24:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 03:20:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2021, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2021, 02:19:50 PM
One of the 9 GOP House representatives, who didn't vote to overturn the election, said that he expects that he has exposed himself and his family to danger by his vote. And also, that several of his peers voted to overturn the election because they were afraid of being targets of violence.


I think there is a real chance that someone will assassinate a congressperson or Senator.  None of those people are well protected and we have ample evidence that people want to do it (and in the case of Whitmer actually planned to it).  I don't know what you do about that.  I have a real feeling that Trump's legacy is going to be much worse than we think.  Coup attempts beget more Coup attempts. What happens in the next few months could radically alter the US.  It really comes down to how people will react to the violence last week and any violence this month.  The poll that showed most Republicans disapprove of coup attempt is good news.  The large number of Republicans who sympathize with the perpetrators less so...

So far, what I've seen from Republicans in response to the attack on the capitol is either one of fantasy (as in the whole thing was 'antifa'), whataboutism (as in 'this is just the same as BLM getting out of hand'), and only as a minority option, approval.

However, while the attackers managed to kill a cop, they didn't succeed in assassinating politicians.

I do think the latter is likely now - too many armed crazies have been riled up, it is impossible to protect everyone against well armed crazy people. What happens then, though? Will the majority of Republican voters watch political assassinations and say 'this is what I want'? If so, our most pessimistic outcomes become likely.

I suspect that what will happen is that there will be increasing pressure on the party to fissure into Trumpite and non-Trumpite factions. Those who were formerly Trumpites out of expedience are likely to  desert the cause, unless it is a popular vote-getter. Trump will not be in a position to bestow favours any more.

In short, increasing domestic terrorism is likely to make Trumpism less popular, and not more, among the pool of Republican voters. Some 80% allegedly already disapprove of the attack on the Capitol. That means a lot of people still approve, but I would predict that number will not increase when the crazies move on to increasing acts of terrorism.

A lot can be justified in the mind of a person who firmly believes they are defending their nation and their god - especially when the two become so closely linked as what we are seeing in this movement.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 03:48:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2021, 03:24:07 PM


A lot can be justified in the mind of a person who firmly believes they are defending their nation and their god - especially when the two become so closely linked as what we are seeing in this movement.

Oh I agree.

The question is how acts justified in that manner by those in this movement will be seen by others, and the impact they will have.

Naturally they see themselves as patriots and heroes. Will the Republicans in general see them like that, and rally to their cause?

My guess is that they will not - I just hope I am right.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 12, 2021, 03:53:26 PM
I have less confidence in the millions of people who voted for Trump after having the advantage of seeing him as President.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sophie Scholl on January 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
I'd be interested to see a new poll about the assault on the Capitol a week later. I have a feeling that rosy, but still very alarming, 80% has shrunk quite a bit. The initial shock has worn off and the spin doctors (no Three Princes needed) have had time to do their job and spread the messaging to the right sources to reach the masses via talk radio, OANN, NewsMax, Fox News, Facebook, and the other usual suspects.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 04:30:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 02:59:20 PM
This is the question: will continued political violence designed to overturn the election and perpetuate Trump in power actually succeed in perpetuating Trump in power?

Or will this, instead, divide the Republican Party?

I guess we shall see. I would predict the latter. I hope I'm right.
Yeah. I suppose my point is there were two attempts to overturn the election. One was the mob: half-laughable, half-terrifying who would, I have no doubt, killed lawmakers given the chance. Everyone will find it easy to distance themselves from that. Various of the most Trumpy "Stop the Steal" Reps and media figures already have - Trump has distanced himself from them.

The other attempt was by a significant number of Republican Reps and Senators after the violence. In spite of that they still tried to overturn the election result. In terms of the Republican Party I think that's the more significant because that happened despite the violence, that still has people behind it. 

And I think the mob would happen whatever if Trump lost - I suspect that vote may have been different if it came down to one or two key states, if there was still an open seat on the Supreme Court, if they'd decisively lost the Senate. If the levers of Republican/conservative minoritarian power were at risk I'm not sure only half their Reps and 10-20% of their Senators would have voted to try and block election results having effects.

But I don't think that insurrection matters - or it matters less than the GOP vote - because from what I've seen most Republicans are moving swiftly from this to calls to "unify and heal" and/or outrage over Twitter/"repression of free speech". This won't cause division because that'd require someone to defend it which is not going to happen. No-one's going to defend it and no-one has so far - it can't divide the party when everyone can get around "we condemn violence yadda yadda yadda". But we're going to hear "lots of legitimate questions" about the 2020 election for the next 4 years etc. I mean look at Madison Cawthorn who spoke at the rally and is already moving on, or Mo Brooks who is subject to a censure motion:
https://brooks.house.gov/media-center/news-releases/congressman-mo-brooks-rebuts-vicious-scurrilous-fake-news-media-and
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on January 12, 2021, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 03:20:17 PM


So far, what I've seen from Republicans in response to the attack on the capitol is either one of fantasy (as in the whole thing was 'antifa'), whataboutism (as in 'this is just the same as BLM getting out of hand'), and only as a minority option, approval.

However, while the attackers managed to kill a cop, they didn't succeed in assassinating politicians.

I do think the latter is likely now - too many armed crazies have been riled up, it is impossible to protect everyone against well armed crazy people. What happens then, though? Will the majority of Republican voters watch political assassinations and say 'this is what I want'? If so, our most pessimistic outcomes become likely.

I suspect that what will happen is that there will be increasing pressure on the party to fissure into Trumpite and non-Trumpite factions. Those who were formerly Trumpites out of expedience are likely to  desert the cause, unless it is a popular vote-getter. Trump will not be in a position to bestow favours any more.

In short, increasing domestic terrorism is likely to make Trumpism less popular, and not more, among the pool of Republican voters. Some 80% allegedly already disapprove of the attack on the Capitol. That means a lot of people still approve, but I would predict that number will not increase when the crazies move on to increasing acts of terrorism.


We have seen this pattern before.  Trump does something terrible and faces backlash as a result.  After a few weeks of anger and confusion Trump's supporters rally to Trump and we are back to square one.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 04:44:00 PM
I agree - if the Capitol assault was a singular event, the Republicans would manage to erode the outrage.

The problem for them emerges if it is not, if the mob they have summoned keeps attacking. Which I think is likely.

This will be more difficult for them to shrug off. Particularly if they keep claiming that the terrorists are basically right, that democracy was "stolen".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 04:44:00 PM
I agree - if the Capitol assault was a singular event, the Republicans would manage to erode the outrage.

The problem for them emerges if it is not, if the mob they have summoned keeps attacking. Which I think is likely.

This will be more difficult for them to shrug off. Particularly if they keep claiming that the terrorists are basically right, that democracy was "stolen".
Maybe. I think it makes it easier for them to try Trumpism without Trump. They don't have to address the underlying issues, or the questioning of democracy because they can just point at mobs and say "well obviously we condemn violence but..."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on January 12, 2021, 04:59:58 PM
Trump is using his old strategy from the last impeachment.  "Every thing I said was fine."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 12, 2021, 05:02:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 04:52:31 PM
Maybe. I think it makes it easier for them to try Trumpism without Trump. They don't have to address the underlying issues, or the questioning of democracy because they can just point at mobs and say "well obviously we condemn violence but..."

As long as Trump is still fueling the riots, it'll put heat on those unwilling to go against him. Much better for them if this tapers off on its own.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: frunk on January 12, 2021, 06:01:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2021, 04:59:58 PM
Trump is using his old strategy from the last impeachment.  "Every thing I said was fine."

He learned his lesson with the last impeachment, so the second time he'll learn it twice as well.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sophie Scholl on January 12, 2021, 06:15:58 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 12, 2021, 06:01:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2021, 04:59:58 PM
Trump is using his old strategy from the last impeachment.  "Every thing I said was fine."

He learned his lesson with the last impeachment, so the second time he'll learn it twice as well.
*pulls off mask* Susan Collins?!  :o
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on January 12, 2021, 06:51:17 PM
My senator (the one that isn't a fascist.), said that he thinks Trump learned his lesson this time.

Quote"The President should be very careful over the next 10 days that his behavior is what you'd expect from the leader of the greatest country in the world. Now, my personal view is that the President touched the hot stove on Wednesday and is unlikely to touch it again."

That really pisses me off.  How many times are we going to go through with this?  I am very sympathetic to the "a time to heal" idea, but there are some requirements.  You have to denounce Trump and the extreme right and have to say that Joe Biden won the election with out any fraud.  I'm one of those dipshits that believes bipartisanship is a good thing, and I desperately want to reach out to the other side, but it's becoming obvious that Republicans won't even make the effort to meet us half-way.  To be honest, I don't even know what they want anymore.  For some Republicans I beginning to suspect that the problem with Trump's little coup was that it failed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 12, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
I agree with you, Raz - bipartisanship requires a bedrock minimum, and that minimum in a democracy is agreeing that if you lose elections, you are out.

If you can't agree on that, you are an enemy of democracy, no matter how loudly you trumpet your patriotism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2021, 09:36:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2021, 02:19:50 PM
One of the 9 GOP House representatives, who didn't vote to overturn the election, said that he expects that he has exposed himself and his family to danger by his vote. And also, that several of his peers voted to overturn the election because they were afraid of being targets of violence.
There are 211 GOP house representatives and 147 voted to overturn the election, so there are 64 who didn't
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 12, 2021, 10:39:00 PM
I think that goes to show how bad gerrymandering is. They're more worried about primary challengers than democrats.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 12, 2021, 10:57:33 PM
I assume there is no way to counter gerrymandering on a federal level?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2021, 11:06:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2021, 10:57:33 PM
I assume there is no way to counter gerrymandering on a federal level?

The SC has ruled that the Constitution does not forbid partisan gerrymandering, as opposed to racial gerrymandering.

Of course there's always the Constitutional amendment route.

And of course there's always the theoretical possibility that a future Democrat controlled SC could discover that the Constitution does forbid it after all.

It's tough because the Constitution explicitly awards control over elections to the states.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2021, 11:56:37 PM
Woah
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/12/mikie-sherrill-pro-trump-rioters-got-tour-congress-members/6648386002/

Quote"We can't have a democracy if members of Congress are actively helping the president overturn the elections results. And so not only do I intend to see that the president is removed and never runs for office again and doesn't have access to classified material, I also intend to see that those members of Congress who abetted him, those members of Congress who had groups coming through the Capitol that I saw on Jan. 5 – a reconnaissance for the next day," Sherrill said, speaking sedately, but severely. "those members of Congress that incited this violent crowd, those members of Congress that attempted to help our president undermine our democracy, I'm going to see they are held accountable, and if necessary, ensure that they don't serve in Congress."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 13, 2021, 12:10:43 AM
I doubt those congressmen were stupid enough to let on if they knew those tour groups were conducting "reconnaissance".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 13, 2021, 12:15:49 AM
FBI and US Attorney Office press conference on how they're proceeding: https://youtu.be/_JEa9peKkSs

170 cases opened, 70 of those people have already been arrested.

"I think people are going to be shocked by some of the egregious conduct that took place."
"Some rioters specifically targetted members of the media and assaulted them."

Sounds like there's a whole lot of FBI agents working to get the seditionists and they're taking it fairly seriously.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2021, 03:00:23 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 13, 2021, 12:10:43 AM
I doubt those congressmen were stupid enough to let on if they knew those tour groups were conducting "reconnaissance".

Definitely some dumb enough for this among the Qanon crazies and Louie Gohmert of the world.

Inside job
https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1349232278636011520
QuoteAccording to Ayanna Pressley's chief of staff Sarah Groh, the panic buttons in the Congresswoman's office were all "torn out—the whole unit."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 13, 2021, 03:14:19 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 13, 2021, 12:10:43 AM
I doubt those congressmen were stupid enough to let on if they knew those tour groups were conducting "reconnaissance".

Have you listened to some of your congressmen?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 13, 2021, 03:39:55 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 12, 2021, 05:02:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 04:52:31 PM
Maybe. I think it makes it easier for them to try Trumpism without Trump. They don't have to address the underlying issues, or the questioning of democracy because they can just point at mobs and say "well obviously we condemn violence but..."

As long as Trump is still fueling the riots, it'll put heat on those unwilling to go against him. Much better for them if this tapers off on its own.
I think McConnell's comments are a sign that this will be easier - he's always had the votes to impeach Trump (because lord knows Trump has provided plenty of plausible grounds for impeachment). After four years when there's nothing to lose - it won't cost you any judges etc - to cut yourself off from Trump. It's a really easy way to show that the GOP is different from Trump and set up a clean hands narrative. This makes Trumpism without Trump a lot easier and means it's far less likely Trump (although maybe not his family) will be a major influence in the future.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on January 13, 2021, 10:57:46 AM
Well, now we know why she is so keen to carry a gun.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 14, 2021, 02:35:54 PM
Krugman's conclusion on this question

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/opinion/republicans-democracy.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces&block=more_in_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=551861081&impression_id=cdb67382-569e-11eb-be96-d59d83213c8e&index=3&pgtype=Article&region=footer&req_id=710542827&surface=more-in-opinion&variant=1_bandit-all-surfaces


QuoteThe G.O.P. has reached the culmination of its long journey away from democracy, and it's hard to see how it can ever be redeemed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 02:46:16 PM
Krugman's notion - with with I agree - is based in part on the idea that more pragmatic Republicans coddled the crazies in the hope of gaining votes and thus power, only to find out that he crazies were driving the bus.

The natural conclusion, though, is that if the crazies no longer attract votes - if being associated with them actually loses votes - maybe the more pragmatic Republicans will cease coddling them.

It is still too early to know whether there is a line of violent insurrection beyond which the crazies start to lose more votes than they represent.  The fact that at least some Republicans were willing to vote for impeachment indicates that there may be.

If future violent incidents occur, as seems likely, my guess is that we will see a real split in the Republican Party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 02:46:16 PM
Krugman's notion - with with I agree - is based in part on the idea that more pragmatic Republicans coddled the crazies in the hope of gaining votes and thus power, only to find out that he crazies were driving the bus.
But. Were they?

What did Trump and the crazies achieve? Judges and tax cuts - the same agenda that the pragmatic Republicans would have pushed if we had President Romney, Cruz, Rubio or whoever else. Trump ran on isolationism, pulling out of foreign quagmires (and international organisations), protecting social security/Medicare, nativism and infrastructure spending.

Just like after the Tea Party - the pragmatic Republicans harnessed the crazies to deliver a standard small government and tax cuts agenda that's not been able to win an election for nigh on 40 years. I don't think that the pragmatic Republicans will stop coddling the crazies, I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 14, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Yeah the Republican establishment loved Trump, he was pretty easy to manipulate...at least until recently.

At least that was what Justin Amash said in his interview on the Yang Speaks podcast.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on January 14, 2021, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
What did Trump and the crazies achieve?

Much weaker democracy in America. To get their beloved "Camp Auschwitz" going democracy has to go.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on January 14, 2021, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.

They are at that point already. Any Republican (up to and including Mike Pence) who has agreed to recognize the results of the election as legitimate is seen as a traitor.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 14, 2021, 04:15:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 02:46:16 PM
Krugman's notion - with with I agree - is based in part on the idea that more pragmatic Republicans coddled the crazies in the hope of gaining votes and thus power, only to find out that he crazies were driving the bus.

The natural conclusion, though, is that if the crazies no longer attract votes - if being associated with them actually loses votes - maybe the more pragmatic Republicans will cease coddling them.

It is still too early to know whether there is a line of violent insurrection beyond which the crazies start to lose more votes than they represent.  The fact that at least some Republicans were willing to vote for impeachment indicates that there may be.

If future violent incidents occur, as seems likely, my guess is that we will see a real split in the Republican Party.

Krugman is saying more than that.  He is saying it has already happened as a result of steps the GOP has taken since the 70s.  In his words the crazies, in which he includes the Christian Fundies and Tea Party nut jobs, are already in control.


Quote from: Solmyr on January 14, 2021, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.

They are at that point already. Any Republican (up to and including Mike Pence) who has agreed to recognize the results of the election as legitimate is seen as a traitor.


Yep, that was Krugman's argument.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 04:22:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 02:46:16 PM
Krugman's notion - with with I agree - is based in part on the idea that more pragmatic Republicans coddled the crazies in the hope of gaining votes and thus power, only to find out that he crazies were driving the bus.

The natural conclusion, though, is that if the crazies no longer attract votes - if being associated with them actually loses votes - maybe the more pragmatic Republicans will cease coddling them.

It is still too early to know whether there is a line of violent insurrection beyond which the crazies start to lose more votes than they represent.  The fact that at least some Republicans were willing to vote for impeachment indicates that there may be.

If future violent incidents occur, as seems likely, my guess is that we will see a real split in the Republican Party.

"The people" seemed to like Trumpism. An election was just held at the conclusion of likely the worst year most voters can remember, with the unemployment high and the economy low. Trump increased his vote count from the first election and lost the tipping point state by 0.7%. Republicans did well in other elections.

It isn't hard to envision a fissure in the Republican party along the lines of what you mention.

But I think the Democrats are about to be divided as well. You have a very strong left wing with AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc. You have a lot of moderate democats, especially in the Senate. You have a party that sees it controls the house, senate, and presidency and expects action on things like a Green New Deal and social justice reform. I don't think any really major legislation is going to come out of congress - the democrats are only going to have 222 or so out of 435 seats in the House and the Senate is a 50-50 split. They will need virtual unanimity to do anything, which is going to be really difficult to achieve.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 04:43:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 02:46:16 PM
Krugman's notion - with with I agree - is based in part on the idea that more pragmatic Republicans coddled the crazies in the hope of gaining votes and thus power, only to find out that he crazies were driving the bus.
But. Were they?

What did Trump and the crazies achieve? Judges and tax cuts - the same agenda that the pragmatic Republicans would have pushed if we had President Romney, Cruz, Rubio or whoever else. Trump ran on isolationism, pulling out of foreign quagmires (and international organisations), protecting social security/Medicare, nativism and infrastructure spending.

Just like after the Tea Party - the pragmatic Republicans harnessed the crazies to deliver a standard small government and tax cuts agenda that's not been able to win an election for nigh on 40 years. I don't think that the pragmatic Republicans will stop coddling the crazies, I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.

Whether the crazies reject the pragmatists, or the other way around, don't you get the exact same thing - a split within the party?

It is hard to imagine anything else happening, unless the pragmatists immediately fall back in line. I mean, the crazy mob that stormed the Capitol was after Pence and "Republican traitors" more than they were after Democrats.

To my mind, the issue is whether the pragmatists will fall back in line or not. And that depends on whether they think it is in their best interests or not, in terms of vote-getting, in a scenario where terrorism by the crazies is a real threat.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 04:48:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 04:22:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 02:46:16 PM
Krugman's notion - with with I agree - is based in part on the idea that more pragmatic Republicans coddled the crazies in the hope of gaining votes and thus power, only to find out that he crazies were driving the bus.

The natural conclusion, though, is that if the crazies no longer attract votes - if being associated with them actually loses votes - maybe the more pragmatic Republicans will cease coddling them.

It is still too early to know whether there is a line of violent insurrection beyond which the crazies start to lose more votes than they represent.  The fact that at least some Republicans were willing to vote for impeachment indicates that there may be.

If future violent incidents occur, as seems likely, my guess is that we will see a real split in the Republican Party.

"The people" seemed to like Trumpism. An election was just held at the conclusion of likely the worst year most voters can remember, with the unemployment high and the economy low. Trump increased his vote count from the first election and lost the tipping point state by 0.7%. Republicans did well in other elections.

It isn't hard to envision a fissure in the Republican party along the lines of what you mention.

But I think the Democrats are about to be divided as well. You have a very strong left wing with AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc. You have a lot of moderate democats, especially in the Senate. You have a party that sees it controls the house, senate, and presidency and expects action on things like a Green New Deal and social justice reform. I don't think any really major legislation is going to come out of congress - the democrats are only going to have 222 or so out of 435 seats in the House and the Senate is a 50-50 split. They will need virtual unanimity to do anything, which is going to be really difficult to achieve.

That is a possibility; though I think the Democrats will have an easier task holding things together than the Republicans - as in "we must all work together otherwise the nuts will win".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 14, 2021, 04:52:30 PM
The moderate Democrats seeming to come to support the $2,000 stimulus checks is taking some of the wind out of the more left elements. If they can deliver on that I think the populist left will be successfully checked for the time being.

The new national minimum wage and decriminalizing marijuana are two other left populist policies I think they are prepared to adopt.

We'll see. Populism is going to be a powerful force all along the political spectrum for awhile and both parties need to make choice on what to do about it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 14, 2021, 04:53:17 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
But. Were they?

What did Trump and the crazies achieve? Judges and tax cuts - the same agenda that the pragmatic Republicans would have pushed if we had President Romney, Cruz, Rubio or whoever else. Trump ran on isolationism, pulling out of foreign quagmires (and international organisations), protecting social security/Medicare, nativism and infrastructure spending.

Just like after the Tea Party - the pragmatic Republicans harnessed the crazies to deliver a standard small government and tax cuts agenda that's not been able to win an election for nigh on 40 years. I don't think that the pragmatic Republicans will stop coddling the crazies, I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.

Yeah, I agree.

I don't think we're in situation where the pragmatic Republicans are questioning the wisdom of this path and wondering if the crazies will still deliver the vote.

Most pragmatic GOP types have either left or have pragmatically decided that embracing the crazies is the right move and thus become one with them.

And whether the crazies will stop delivering the votes is an open question IMO. I hope they will and that the decrease in votes due to the crazies is enough to counterbalance the naked attacks on democracy to keep the GOP in power. But I am far from certain that will go.

I guess the one thing I'm not in 100% agreement with you on is whether the "hey did you ever feel cheated" thing will be explosive to the GOP. I think the slide from radical nationalist small government party to radical nationalist big government authoritarian party could well be smooth and gradual rather than explosive.

If Trump or his successor comes out with "hey we've got good national health care that just happens to benefit white people more than others, and social benefits too" and "hard ban for abortions (with exceptions for middle class and better white people with the right connections)" and so on, I think that could very well work for them. That is, of course, if they can chart the course.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 14, 2021, 04:54:40 PM
Not sure why people question whether the crazies are already running the party. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 14, 2021, 04:57:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 04:43:02 PM
Whether the crazies reject the pragmatists, or the other way around, don't you get the exact same thing - a split within the party?

It is hard to imagine anything else happening, unless the pragmatists immediately fall back in line. I mean, the crazy mob that stormed the Capitol was after Pence and "Republican traitors" more than they were after Democrats.

To my mind, the issue is whether the pragmatists will fall back in line or not. And that depends on whether they think it is in their best interests or not, in terms of vote-getting, in a scenario where terrorism by the crazies is a real threat.

For me that question is already answered... 5-10% of the party won't fall into line, the rest will. And those who don't fall into line are getting drummed out and replaced in the next few years.

The question is whether the GOP voting public is going to come along with the crazies. My guess is they will.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 05:03:02 PM
The issue is whether the attack on the Capitol together with losing the presidency and the senate changes things for the Republicans, or not. Particularly if the attack is not a singular event but part of a domestic terror campaign.

Will they keep going on the same path, hoping that they can regain control, or will the party split?

So far, from what I read here, the consensus appears to be that they will just keep going along the same lines.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 14, 2021, 05:09:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 14, 2021, 05:03:02 PM
The issue is whether the attack on the Capitol together with losing the presidency and the senate changes things for the Republicans, or not. Particularly if the attack is not a singular event but part of a domestic terror campaign.

Will they keep going on the same path, hoping that they can regain control, or will the party split?

So far, from what I read here, the consensus appears to be that they will just keep going along the same lines.

That is my expectation yes. If McConnell pulls the trigger on impeachment, then I think there may be a different path but I'm guessing he's going the usual way of expressing concern and doing nothing.

Now, if the terrorists keep escalating then the public may turn against them, but I expect it'll stay at a level where the terror has an impact (slowing any Democratic agenda, instilling fear in "the wrong sorts", and keeping GOP politicians from doubting too publically), but not enough to change opinions of those who don't want their opinions changed.

I also expect the GOP will go hard (or rather, even harder) on voter suppression in states where they control the state governments, and between the terror, the voter suppression, and the white supremacist messaging will stay competitive for quite a while with the crazies in charge.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 14, 2021, 08:20:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2021, 04:52:30 PMThe new national minimum wage and decriminalizing marijuana are two other left populist policies I think they are prepared to adopt.

I don't think you can really call decriminalizing cannabis in the US a left populist policy anymore. I mean, it is already legal in one way or the other in most states, nowadays, the places where it is still criminalized are the ones that are still behind the times, and the bizarreness that it's still illegal at the federal level is an anacronism. And for what it's worth this is something that has been achieved through popular referendums,.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2021, 08:49:36 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 14, 2021, 08:20:15 PM
I don't think you can really call decriminalizing cannabis in the US a left populist policy anymore. I mean, it is already legal in one way or the other in most states, nowadays, the places where it is still criminalized are the ones that are still behind the times, and the bizarreness that it's still illegal at the federal level is an anacronism. And for what it's worth this is something that has been achieved through popular referendums,.

I think Valmy means leftist in the sense of coming from the left of the political spectrum, not in the sense of fringe left.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 14, 2021, 08:50:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2021, 08:49:36 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 14, 2021, 08:20:15 PM
I don't think you can really call decriminalizing cannabis in the US a left populist policy anymore. I mean, it is already legal in one way or the other in most states, nowadays, the places where it is still criminalized are the ones that are still behind the times, and the bizarreness that it's still illegal at the federal level is an anacronism. And for what it's worth this is something that has been achieved through popular referendums,.

I think Valmy means leftist in the sense of coming from the left of the political spectrum, not in the sense of fringe left.

But is this issue still political at all in the US? I had the impression it was basically becoming mainstream at this point.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2021, 09:09:21 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 14, 2021, 08:50:48 PM
But is this issue still political at all in the US? I had the impression it was basically becoming mainstream at this point.

Not sure I'm aware of any red states that have allowed recreational.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 14, 2021, 09:12:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2021, 09:09:21 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 14, 2021, 08:50:48 PM
But is this issue still political at all in the US? I had the impression it was basically becoming mainstream at this point.

Not sure I'm aware of any red states that have allowed recreational.

Taking a quick look at wiki, Montana, S. Dakota and Alaska. Many others have decriminalized it or legalized its medical use.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 14, 2021, 09:12:39 PM
Taking a quick look at wiki, Montana, S. Dakota and Alaska. Many others have decriminalized it or legalized its medical use.

Fair enough.  But you can see that it skews red/blue state.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 14, 2021, 09:26:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 14, 2021, 09:12:39 PM
Taking a quick look at wiki, Montana, S. Dakota and Alaska. Many others have decriminalized it or legalized its medical use.

Fair enough.  But you can see that it skews red/blue state.

Oh yes, don't get me wrong, I'm aware that this is something pioneered by blue states. I'm just saying that at this point making pot legal at the federal level is the reasonable thing to do, and eliminates the paradox of it being legal in more and more states, but illegal federally. The states that want to keep it illegal or restricted for medical use can keep it as such if they want, and it won't interfere with the others.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on January 14, 2021, 09:52:23 PM
Lincoln Project's latest is potent:

https://youtu.be/dFQHm-2cyIk
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 14, 2021, 10:14:41 PM
Just because it will make the left wing of the party happy and mollify the populist left doesn't mean it is unreasonable or a bad idea.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 14, 2021, 10:30:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2021, 04:53:17 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
But. Were they?

What did Trump and the crazies achieve? Judges and tax cuts - the same agenda that the pragmatic Republicans would have pushed if we had President Romney, Cruz, Rubio or whoever else. Trump ran on isolationism, pulling out of foreign quagmires (and international organisations), protecting social security/Medicare, nativism and infrastructure spending.

Just like after the Tea Party - the pragmatic Republicans harnessed the crazies to deliver a standard small government and tax cuts agenda that's not been able to win an election for nigh on 40 years. I don't think that the pragmatic Republicans will stop coddling the crazies, I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.

Yeah, I agree.

I don't think we're in situation where the pragmatic Republicans are questioning the wisdom of this path and wondering if the crazies will still deliver the vote.

Most pragmatic GOP types have either left or have pragmatically decided that embracing the crazies is the right move and thus become one with them.

And whether the crazies will stop delivering the votes is an open question IMO. I hope they will and that the decrease in votes due to the crazies is enough to counterbalance the naked attacks on democracy to keep the GOP in power. But I am far from certain that will go.

I guess the one thing I'm not in 100% agreement with you on is whether the "hey did you ever feel cheated" thing will be explosive to the GOP. I think the slide from radical nationalist small government party to radical nationalist big government authoritarian party could well be smooth and gradual rather than explosive.

If Trump or his successor comes out with "hey we've got good national health care that just happens to benefit white people more than others, and social benefits too" and "hard ban for abortions (with exceptions for middle class and better white people with the right connections)" and so on, I think that could very well work for them. That is, of course, if they can chart the course.

So you're saying white supremacists want to stop specifically black people from getting abortions?   :huh:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2021, 10:37:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
I don't think that the pragmatic Republicans will stop coddling the crazies, I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.
They're already there aren't they? That crowd would have executed 3/4ths of the Republicans in the senate if they'd caught them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 15, 2021, 12:46:58 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 14, 2021, 10:30:42 PM
So you're saying white supremacists want to stop specifically black people from getting abortions?   :huh:

No.

I'm saying that a significant proportion of women getting abortions in the US are politically pro-life, and that their needs are "the exception" as far as they're concerned.

And I'm saying that a non-trivial part of the GOP impetus against welfare and social services and health care are about providing benefits to the wrong kind of people (like "inner city welfare queens") but is much less opposed to offering support to the right kind of people (god-loving hard working decent folks).

While those two causes (and many others) are united in the GOP, they don't necessarily overlap and they are two separate tracks of the GOP's value set.

However, the common thread there is that many supporters of the GOP are fine with "one law for them, another law for us" (or rather laws written and enforced to that effect).

So if upper middle class GOP supporters can still get discreet abortions for the special circumstances where they need them, they're fine with making them completely out of reach for everyone else.

And if the vast bulk of "we hate socialism, but it turns out we actually approve of socialist programs when they're not branded as such" GOP voters are proposed health care and welfare that takes care of them but leaves Democratic voting demographics high and dry, then that's a type of populism that'll resonate.

Basically, I'm expecting that if Trumpists go "hey did you ever feel cheated" as Sheilbh proposed, I think a populist GOP can manage just fine if they can find a way to funnel benefits to white folks who vote for them and exclude non-white folks and non-GOP voters.

The abortion thing was just a tangent.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on January 15, 2021, 11:28:01 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on January 14, 2021, 09:52:23 PM
Lincoln Project's latest is potent:

https://youtu.be/dFQHm-2cyIk

At this point, it's about time for the Sherman Project.  :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 15, 2021, 11:40:50 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2021, 04:53:17 PMYeah, I agree.

I don't think we're in situation where the pragmatic Republicans are questioning the wisdom of this path and wondering if the crazies will still deliver the vote.

Most pragmatic GOP types have either left or have pragmatically decided that embracing the crazies is the right move and thus become one with them.

And whether the crazies will stop delivering the votes is an open question IMO. I hope they will and that the decrease in votes due to the crazies is enough to counterbalance the naked attacks on democracy to keep the GOP in power. But I am far from certain that will go.
Yeah to an extent we know now how much the pragmatic GOP will tolerate provided they continue to get judges and tax cuts - it's a lot. The big surprise for me was foreign policy - I thought that would be a bigger red line for pragmatic Republicans and folks like Lindsey Graham. It wasn't.  I don't think you can say there is an establishment or institutionalist GOP anymore either. It's why I keep coming back to judges and tax cuts because everything else that I thought Republicans cared about has kind of gone out the window - and it's about holding power without winning a majority (which might require compromise).

On the votes - since the 80s two Republicans have won the Presidency and both of them ran to an extent against Republican orthodoxy/mainstream Republicanism. After 2012 there was talk about whether Republicans needed to shift to win another Presidential election and the thought was that maybe if they embraced immigration reform. Trump showed them another, improbable, path to victory. I think that temptation is going to be really difficult for them to avoid (and I think the Georgia loss matter more to them than Trump).

QuoteI guess the one thing I'm not in 100% agreement with you on is whether the "hey did you ever feel cheated" thing will be explosive to the GOP. I think the slide from radical nationalist small government party to radical nationalist big government authoritarian party could well be smooth and gradual rather than explosive.

If Trump or his successor comes out with "hey we've got good national health care that just happens to benefit white people more than others, and social benefits too" and "hard ban for abortions (with exceptions for middle class and better white people with the right connections)" and so on, I think that could very well work for them. That is, of course, if they can chart the course.
I slightly disagree. I don't think the slide will be easy because at the minute it operates with Trump rhetoric and McConnell policies. I think the "pragmatic" GOP would bolt if there was someone seriously trying to implement big government policies. I think when you boil it down the "pragmatic" GOP want to cut taxes and they want to strengthen the ability to wield power from a minority position and that's it. If you move to a genuinely nationalist populist style leader, that goes against the only thing (based on the last four years) the "pragmatic" GOP care about.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on January 15, 2021, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2021, 10:37:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
I don't think that the pragmatic Republicans will stop coddling the crazies, I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.
They're already there aren't they? That crowd would have executed 3/4ths of the Republicans in the senate if they'd caught them.
Like watching Soviet Commisars or Chicom shame circles on meth.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 15, 2021, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2021, 10:37:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
I don't think that the pragmatic Republicans will stop coddling the crazies, I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.
They're already there aren't they? That crowd would have executed 3/4ths of the Republicans in the senate if they'd caught them.
No. This isn't as bad as it can get or as bad as I think it will get.

Hopefully I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: celedhring on January 16, 2021, 01:48:52 PM
The only Trump voter I know (former classmate that lives now in Texas and belongs to the "I loathe the guy but I want my SCOTUS judges" category) has been open on FB about the mistake of enabling him. So hope's not lost.

Although I guess that now she's got the judges there's less emotional/practical costs to dumping him.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on January 16, 2021, 08:38:56 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 16, 2021, 01:48:52 PM
The only Trump voter I know (former classmate that lives now in Texas and belongs to the "I loathe the guy but I want my SCOTUS judges" category) has been open on FB about the mistake of enabling him. So hope's not lost.

Although I guess that now she's got the judges there's less emotional/practical costs to dumping him.
The ones I know have all gone berserk, screaming about social media censorship; abotu the stolen election; about the Antifa breaking into the Capital (while freaking about about anyone criticizing the patriotic uprising in the Capital).   The doublethink is shit I'd have thought impossible outside of Orwell's work. It is genuine, not the parroting of the company line. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 17, 2021, 12:00:03 AM
Most amusing was in between her posts criticizing the power of social media platforms to remove people, my sister posted a story about an influencer who bullied a cancer patient online, saying that she should be removed from social media.

(Oh, and a post how big tech can so easily remove people and apps like Parler, but somehow child pornography is still on the internet, so maybe big tech likes it?)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 17, 2021, 03:22:36 PM
Parler is still on the internet though, right? It just had its impact dramatically knee capped.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 17, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2021, 03:22:36 PM
Parler is still on the internet though, right? It just had its impact dramatically knee capped.

Amazon killed its web hosting.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2021, 09:10:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2021, 03:22:36 PM
Parler is still on the internet though, right? It just had its impact dramatically knee capped.

Amazon killed its web hosting.
But not before hackers downloaded all the posts, images and videos related to the insurrection. :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 18, 2021, 03:06:04 AM
Looks like it'll be coming back provided by a right wing host.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 18, 2021, 12:36:29 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on January 14, 2021, 09:52:23 PM
Lincoln Project's latest is potent:

https://youtu.be/dFQHm-2cyIk

I am not sure it is having much of an effect.  Republican approval of Trump is still high. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 25, 2021, 05:28:17 PM
Bumping this up after a couple of recent news about state Republicans going nuts at "traitors".

QuoteArizona Republicans Censure Party Leaders At Odds With Trump

Arizona Republicans passed resolutions on Saturday to censure three of the state's most prominent party leaders who have found themselves at odds with former President Donald Trump: Gov. Doug Ducey, former Sen. Jeff Flake and Cindy McCain, widow of late longtime Sen. John McCain.

The sweeping — yet essentially symbolic — rebuke took place during a meeting to figure out how to move forward after the state flipped blue in November, narrowly giving its 11 electoral votes to now-President Biden.

McCain and Flake, both of whom endorsed Biden for president, were censured for their outspoken opposition to Trump and for their support of globalist interests, according to state GOP members.

In condemning Ducey, the party cited the governor's decision to enact emergency orders during the coronavirus pandemic that the committee said are unconstitutional and "restrict personal liberties."

Much of the meeting, held indoors at Dream City Church in Phoenix, was largely a pep rally for state Republicans who support the former president and his baseless claims of election fraud.

State Republicans also reelected party chair Kelli Ward, an unwavering Trump supporter who had challenged Arizona's election results in a lawsuit that was rejected for insufficient evidence of fraud.

QuoteOregon Republican Party condemns 'betrayal' by 10 House GOP who voted to impeach Trump

The Oregon Republican Party state executive committee passed a resolution "condemning the betrayal by the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach President Trump last week."

"Our party is speaking out in condemnation of the profound betrayal by the ten House Republicans who supported impeaching President Trump last week without any investigation, hearing, shred of due process, and in contradiction to the known and emerging facts," said Bill Currier, Oregon Republican Party chairman. "This type of sham process has become the norm for Democrats, but no Republican should support or give in to such an abuse of our Constitutional system."

Of Oregon's 5 representatives in Congress, only Cliff Bentz - newly elected in November after long-time GOP Rep. Greg Walden opted not to run for re-election - did not vote to impeach.

Southwest Washington U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler was one of 10 Republican representatives to vote to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday.

One of her Washington Republican colleagues, Rep. Dan Newhouse, joined her in that vote.

Both have faced criticism from the Republican constituents.

All told, 9 of Washington's 10 representatives voted to impeach.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on January 26, 2021, 12:42:20 PM
Less about Trump than anger at those who broke with established Party Doctrine. These are Inner Party types who are advocating counter-reactionary idealism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on February 10, 2021, 10:07:38 AM
The re-alignment continues:

https://www.axios.com/republican-party-working-class-future-44f6c66c-dfbd-40c9-9b9d-9ebfa29dccec.html

QuoteRepublicans, long reliant on big business and the rich, see a post-Trump future centered on working class white, Hispanic and Black voters, top GOP officials tell Axios.

Why it matters: This is a substantial shift, born of necessity and the post-Trump reality. It would push Republicans further away from the interests of corporate America and traditional conservative ideas like entitlement reform.

Top Republican officials tell Axios that if the party is going to survive, it needs to copy Donald Trump's fixation on blue-collar voters in 2016 and working-class and minority voters in 2020 — and ditch, or at least downplay, allegiance to big business.

So instead of Republican leaders talking about reforming Medicare or Social Security, you'll hear them talking about protecting entitlements.

Instead of corporate tax cuts, job "stability" will be a campaign theme for House Republicans as they try to win the majority in next year's midterms.

What's happening: Numerous corporations are cutting off money to a big chunk of Republicans who refused to certify the Joe Biden victory.

At the same time, Trump showed Republicans how to invigorate not just working-class whites, but also some Hispanic and Black voters, especially men.

The big picture: Recent polling shows Republican voters no longer coalesce around tax cuts and entitlement reforms.

Instead, there's a substantial divide — and many signs their future might rest in protecting traditional workers and traditional values.

In a YouGov poll of 1,000 Trump 2020 voters for AEI, 42% described themselves as working class — about the same share as evangelical Christians.

Two champions of the new GOP are House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who was chair of the Senate Small Business Committee before Democrats took power last month.

McCarthy told Punchbowl News this week that "the American worker" will be one of his three focuses between now and the midterms, along with immigration and "fighting back against socialism."

Rubio said in a speech in December that Republicans can capitalize on the current political realignment by being a "pro-worker party."

So you'll see more scenes like this week, when McCarthy is in Texas and will tour an oil rig — in addition to raising money.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 10, 2021, 10:29:15 AM
QuoteRepublicans, long reliant on big business and the rich, see a post-Trump future centered on working class white, Hispanic and Black voters, top GOP officials tell Axios.

Won't that interfere with their rabidly racist constituency, though?  :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 10, 2021, 10:33:22 AM
So they are going to appeal to the workers through the culture war and buzzwords about socialism.

Though really I guess that is basically the same thing. It is going to be the "anti-SJW" party I guess and just try to ignore all the rest of it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 10, 2021, 10:35:34 AM
Yes - towards a cultural analysis of class :w00t:

The GOP simultaneously moaning about cultural Marxists and reading their Gramsci is outstanding. Up there with decrying post-modernism while dismantling grand narratives and any sense of a shared "objective" reality/truth. Terrifying :ph34r:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on February 10, 2021, 10:41:07 AM
Makes sense that they're making GOP = NSDAP official.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on February 10, 2021, 10:48:37 AM
Soon they will be wearing black shirts and advocating a corporatist reorganization of the economy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 10, 2021, 10:49:44 AM
If you're going to harness the power of racism, you may as well do that to further the cause of economic equality rather than undermine it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2021, 10:49:50 AM
So what is the self proclaimed champion of the little guy (the Democratic Party) supposed to do when it turns out that a big chunk of them are dirtbags?  Sort of similar to the problem faced by Labour after the Brexit vote.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 10, 2021, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2021, 10:49:50 AM
So what is the self proclaimed champion of the little guy (the Democratic Party) supposed to do when it turns out that a big chunk of them are dirtbags?  Sort of similar to the problem faced by Labour after the Brexit vote.
Hope that better economic security would clean them up a little? :unsure: However, at the end of the day, economic security is not a reward for being a good person, it should be an expectation in all rich countries.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on February 10, 2021, 12:55:39 PM
I'll believe that change is sincere when I see it.

In any event, I'm less interested in how the GOP's economic policies will change than I am in whether the GOP will support the rule of law and peaceful transition of power.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 10, 2021, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 10, 2021, 12:55:39 PM
I'll believe that change is sincere when I see it.

I mean they are already there. Trump has shown them the way: full culture war all the time.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on February 10, 2021, 02:40:10 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 10, 2021, 10:29:15 AM
QuoteRepublicans, long reliant on big business and the rich, see a post-Trump future centered on working class white, Hispanic and Black voters, top GOP officials tell Axios.

Won't that interfere with their rabidly racist constituency, though?  :hmm:

Yes.  That approach was what the postmortem analysis after 2012 told them they should do.  As usual, the GOP's attempts to attract more women, African-Americans and Hispanics was foiled by the GOP politicians and base.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on February 10, 2021, 02:42:05 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 10, 2021, 12:55:39 PM
I'll believe that change is sincere when I see it.

In any event, I'm less interested in how the GOP's economic policies will change than I am in whether the GOP will support the rule of law and peaceful transition of power.

Don't worry, they will not. :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 17, 2021, 03:27:51 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuYT_u6WYAQkzeQ?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuYT_u5XEAEs8li?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 17, 2021, 03:39:16 AM
Anything noteworthy in that?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 17, 2021, 03:40:05 AM
I guess it depends on how much of the party establishment and supporters follow that narrative.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Duque de Bragança on February 17, 2021, 10:39:00 AM
A paragraph shown twice cf. "It was a complete election disaster (...)".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on February 17, 2021, 11:21:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2021, 03:39:16 AM
Anything noteworthy in that?
Nah.  Can't wait till he goes to prison where he belongs and is finally silenced, since a lot of people believe this garbage.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 21, 2021, 11:15:45 AM
Can big donors be the force that prevents the GOP's slide into further Trumpism?

QuoteGrowing number of Republican donors aim to prise party from Trump influence

Trump's critics – and the donors backing them – are scrambling fast to try to prise control away from the pro-Trump majority

Some four dozen Republican donors were on a fundraising conference call on 5 February with Liz Cheney, the congresswoman and only Republican House leader to vote for Donald Trump's impeachment for his role in the mob attack on the Capitol on 6 January.

Many of the donors on the Cheney call are expected to donate the maximum amount of $5,800 to her 2022 re-election campaign before the end of the first quarter of this year, to ward off a primary challenge to her which Trump loyalists like congressman Matt Gaetz are encouraging, said Michael Epstein, a leading Maryland Republican donor.

"We want to show a really big cycle for her to scare off competition," Epstein said in an interview. "We want people who make judgments based on what's right."

The number of donors on the call reflects in part a growing movement among Republican fundraisers to try to fight off threats from the Trump-supporting majority, which has maintained its hold on the Republican base, despite Trump's loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

Though still a minority in Republican political circles, Trump's critics – and the moneyed donors who are backing them – are scrambling fast on multiple fronts to try to prise control of the party away from those loyally toeing the Trump line.

Nikki Haley, the ex-Trump UN ambassador who is eyeing a presidential run in 2024, is hosting Zoom fundraisers on 3 and 4 March for her Pac, and is expected to draw dozens of big Republican donors attracted to her criticism of Trump during the Senate trial, when Haley told Politico she was "disgusted" and "angry" at Trump's role in the 6 January riot.

Haley's fundraising Pac, dubbed Stand for America, is expected to support Cheney and others who voted to impeach Trump – plus other candidates who voted against impeachment – say fundraisers with ties to her.

A more aggressive effort to try to take on Trump and his allies and move the Republican party away from their influence, is also being mounted by a new Pac called Country First, which was unveiled in late January by the Illinois congressman Adam Kinzinger, one of just 10 Republican House members who voted to impeach Trump

Kinzinger, who has been censured by his local party for backing Trump's impeachment, was outspoken after the Senate failed to convict Trump.

Trump "encouraged an angry mob of his supporters to storm the United States Capitol to stop the counting of the electoral votes", Kinzinger has said. But he stressed that "We have a lot of work to do to restore the Republican party," and to reverse "personality politics".

However, campaign finance experts caution that the fight to reduce Trump's fundraising influence will be tough in a party that he maintains a powerful grip on, and the ex-president has signaled that he will be involved in 2022 races with an eye to ousting his critics.

In a statement berating Mitch McConnell – the Republican Senate minority leader who voted to acquit Trump but later delivered a blistering criticism of his actions – Trump warned ominously: "I will back primary rivals who espouse Making America Great Again and our policy of America First. We want brilliant, strong, thoughtful and compassionate leadership."

Before leaving office, Trump raised tens of millions for a new Pac, called Save America, which is expected to spend generously in 2022 to keep his political ambitions alive and exact retribution against those who voted to impeach and convict him. Save America had over $30m in its coffers at the start of 2021, and Trump raked in tens of millions more via three other committees he controls, according to public filings.

"It will be difficult for Kinzinger and others who voted to impeach or convict Trump to keep up money-wise," said Sheila Krumholz, who runs the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. "As of most recent filings, Trump had $105m in the bank. He also has the biggest list of loyal supporters in politics he can tap for donations whenever he needs money."

Analysts and Republican donors expect that Trump's ego and money will prompt big battles against Cheney, as well as the other outspoken members who voted to impeach Trump, such as Kinzinger.

Republican operatives say that another possible Trump target could be Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who was one of only seven Republican senators to vote to convict Trump and is the only one of them up for re-election in 2022.

Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who gave Trump a key endorsement in 2016, is considered to be a possible primary challenger against Murkowski.

But some Republican sources say that McConnell could help scuttle a primary challenge to Murkowski: McConnell has indicated he will be active in backing candidates that are best for the party's future and, after voting to acquit Trump, he unequivocally stated Trump was "practically and morally responsible" for the Capitol riot.

Some Republican operatives are trying to persuade the party that Trump, despite his continuing high approval ratings of almost 80% with Republican voters, is a serious liability for the party's future with the broader electorate.

"The GOP must focus on nominating candidates that can win in the fall of '22 and stop the Trump litmus test," said veteran operative Scott Reed.

Other operatives note that the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House's Republican campaign arm, seems on track to back Cheney and others who voted to impeach Trump.

"The NRCC is going to try to help Cheney and I suspect they will be for others who voted for impeachment," said Charlie Black, a longtime GOP operative.

Still, Krumholz warns that in the near term pledging fealty to Trump is likely to be a magnet for Republican candidates to raise funds. "The way to rake in campaign cash as a GOP candidate, especially from small donors, is to put yourself out there as a Trump loyalist," Krumholz said.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on February 21, 2021, 12:28:47 PM
If the establishment takes back the party from Trump they will definitely lose in 2024.  Trump will form a new party.  Unless Trump gets in serious legal trouble and can't form a new party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 21, 2021, 02:53:14 PM
I wish them luck.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on February 21, 2021, 09:06:00 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/whopping-46-percent-republicans-disown-211953294.html

QuoteWhopping 46 Percent of Republicans Would Disown GOP for the Trump Party, Poll Says

Also, over 50 percent of respondents said the GOP should be "more loyal to Trump." And 58 percent believe the lie that the January 6th attack on the Capitol was "mostly an antifa-inspired attack that only involved a few Trump supporters."

:yeah:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on February 21, 2021, 10:12:53 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 21, 2021, 09:06:00 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/whopping-46-percent-republicans-disown-211953294.html

QuoteWhopping 46 Percent of Republicans Would Disown GOP for the Trump Party, Poll Says

Also, over 50 percent of respondents said the GOP should be "more loyal to Trump." And 58 percent believe the lie that the January 6th attack on the Capitol was "mostly an antifa-inspired attack that only involved a few Trump supporters."

:yeah:

...that just means no Republicans are going to create any daylight between themselves and Trump in public, though...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2021, 10:28:25 PM
All the money plus 50% of your voters is s a good start.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 22, 2021, 07:20:39 AM
Quote58 percent believe the lie that the January 6th attack on the Capitol was "mostly an antifa-inspired attack that only involved a few Trump supporters."

I find it slightly terrifying how so many people are so radically detached from reality, tbh.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 22, 2021, 07:32:29 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 22, 2021, 07:20:39 AM
Quote58 percent believe the lie that the January 6th attack on the Capitol was "mostly an antifa-inspired attack that only involved a few Trump supporters."

I find it slightly terrifying how so many people are so radically detached from reality, tbh.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/21/exclusive-trump-party-he-still-holds-loyalty-gop-voters/6765406002/

QuoteThe survey of 1,000 Trump voters, identified from 2020 polls, was taken by landline and cellphone last Monday through Friday. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Not particularly surprising that people who voted for Trump in 2020 could adopt such mindsets.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 22, 2021, 07:38:14 AM
Does not really calm my nerves that much, so to speak, it's still way too many people that refuse to see what happens in the real world and inhabits a fantasy land of their own design.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 22, 2021, 07:40:08 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 22, 2021, 07:38:14 AM
Does not really calm my nerves that much, so to speak, it's still way too many people that refuse to see what happens in the real world and inhabits a fantasy land of their own design.

Get an anti-anxiety script then? ;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 22, 2021, 07:40:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2021, 07:40:08 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 22, 2021, 07:38:14 AM
Does not really calm my nerves that much, so to speak, it's still way too many people that refuse to see what happens in the real world and inhabits a fantasy land of their own design.

Get an anti-anxiety script then? ;)

I can manage, living in a different country helps.  :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on February 22, 2021, 08:04:25 AM
The US can find you anywhere.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 22, 2021, 08:06:05 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 22, 2021, 08:04:25 AM
The US can find you anywhere.

I assume that most of the people who think that way don't have passports.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on February 22, 2021, 09:15:51 AM
Loyal Trumpites frequently claim that he is "fighting for them".  I'd really like to know exactly what that means.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on February 22, 2021, 09:22:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2021, 09:15:51 AM
Loyal Trumpites frequently claim that he is "fighting for them".  I'd really like to know exactly what that means.

He owns the libs. That's it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on February 22, 2021, 09:43:33 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 22, 2021, 09:22:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2021, 09:15:51 AM
Loyal Trumpites frequently claim that he is "fighting for them".  I'd really like to know exactly what that means.

He owns the libs. That's it.


I'd like read something where Trumpists describe what they mean.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Maladict on February 22, 2021, 10:04:57 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 22, 2021, 08:04:25 AM
The US can find you anywhere.

It usually can't even find itself on a map.  :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on February 22, 2021, 11:20:48 AM
The US will find you after finding itself.  :sleep:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 22, 2021, 11:21:50 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 22, 2021, 11:20:48 AM
The US will find you after finding itself.  :sleep:

Sounds like it should take a year off on a beach somewhere.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on February 22, 2021, 11:41:46 AM
Can you recommend one? Yemen seems a good place to find.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 22, 2021, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 22, 2021, 11:41:46 AM
Can you recommend one? Yemen seems a good place to find.

That would be confirmation bias.  Better to find itself on a nice beach in New Zealand.  That way they might realize left wing does not equal Satan incarnate.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on February 22, 2021, 02:05:25 PM
New Zealand doesn't have any oil, does it?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 22, 2021, 02:22:17 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 22, 2021, 02:05:25 PM
New Zealand doesn't have any oil, does it?

Back in the 90s I had this board game called Supremacy.  It was kind of a modern-day Risk with nuclear weapons.  There were also resource cards - Saudi Arabia naturally had the richest oil resources in the game.

There were expansions to the game.  One of them gave ahistorical resource allocations.  But it wasn't random because they were just cards.  So anyways if you played with that deck of resource cards New Zealand was the Saudi Arabia of the world when it came to oil.



The useless shit from 30 years ago that stays stuck in my mind...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on February 22, 2021, 03:35:12 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 22, 2021, 02:05:25 PM
New Zealand doesn't have any oil, does it?

It does have wool.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on February 22, 2021, 05:42:07 PM
Wake up, sheep.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 22, 2021, 06:34:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 22, 2021, 05:42:07 PM
Wake up, sheep.

Speaking of sheep, I trust you've seen this already: Thanks Smokey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9_mH82hBdc)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 26, 2021, 10:59:39 AM
Twitter thread following CPAC: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1365311249261727751
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 26, 2021, 11:53:15 AM
Op Ed compares today's GOP to late 70s Communist Party in the USSR.  :hmm:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/the-republican-party-is-now-in-its-end-stages/618132/

QuoteThe Republican Party Is Now in Its End Stages

The GOP has become, in form if not in content, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of the late 1970s.

We are living in a time of bad metaphors. Everything is fascism, or socialism; Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Soviet Union. Republicans, especially, want their followers to believe that America is on the verge of a dramatic time, a moment of great conflict such as 1968—or perhaps, even worse, 1860. (The drama is the point, of course. No one ever says, "We're living through 1955.")

Ironically, the GOP is indeed replicating another political party in another time, but not as the heroes they imagine themselves to be. The Republican Party has become, in form if not in content, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of the late 1970s.

I can already hear the howls about invidious comparisons. I do not mean that modern American Republicans are communists. Rather, I mean that the Republicans have entered their own kind of end-stage Bolshevism, as members of a party that is now exhausted by its failures, cynical about its own ideology, authoritarian by reflex, controlled as a personality cult by a failing old man, and looking for new adventures to rejuvenate its fortunes.

No one thinks much about the Soviet Union in the late 1970s, and no one really should. This was a time referred to by the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, as the vremia zastoia—"the era of stagnation." By that point, the Soviet Communist Party was a spent force, and ideological conviction was mostly for chumps and fanatics. A handful of party ideologues and the senior officers of the Soviet military might still have believed in "Marxism-Leninism"—the melding of aspirational communism to one-party dictatorship—but by and large, Soviet citizens knew that the party's formulations about the rights of all people were just window dressing for rule by a small circle of old men in the Kremlin.

"The party" itself was not a party in any Western sense, but a vehicle for a cabal of elites, with a cult of personality at its center. The Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was an utterly mediocre man, but by the late 1970s he had cemented his grip on the Communist Party by elevating opportunists and cronies around him who insisted, publicly and privately, that Brezhnev was a heroic genius. Factories and streets and even a city were named for him, and he promoted himself to the top military rank of "Marshal of the Soviet Union." He awarded himself so many honors and medals that, in a common Soviet joke of the time, a small earthquake in Moscow was said to have been caused by Brezhnev's medal-festooned military overcoat falling off its hanger.

The elite leaders of this supposedly classless society were corrupt plutocrats, a mafia dressed in Marxism. The party was infested by careerists, and its grip on power was defended by propagandists who used rote phrases such as "real socialism" and "Western imperialism" so often that almost anyone could write an editorial in Pravda or Red Star merely by playing a kind of Soviet version of Mad Libs. News was tightly controlled. Soviet radio, television, and newspaper figures plowed on through stories that were utterly detached from reality, regularly extolling the successes of Soviet agriculture even as the country was forced to buy food from the capitalists (including the hated Americans).

Members of the Communist Party who questioned anything, or expressed any sign of unorthodoxy, could be denounced by name, or more likely, simply fired. They would not be executed—this was not Stalinism, after all—but some were left to rot in obscurity in some make-work exile job, eventually retiring as a forgotten "Comrade Pensioner." The deal was clear: Pump the party's nonsense and enjoy the good life, or squawk and be sent to manage a library in Kazakhstan.

This should all sound familiar.

The Republican Party has, for years, ignored the ideas and principles it once espoused, to the point where the 2020 GOP convention simply dispensed with the fiction of a platform and instead declared the party to be whatever Comrade—excuse me, President—Donald Trump said it was.

Like Brezhnev, Trump has grown in status to become a heroic figure among his supporters. If the Republicans could create the rank of "Marshal of the American Republic" and strike a medal for a "Hero of American Culture," Trump would have them both by now.

A GOP that once prided itself on its intellectual debates is now ruled by the turgid formulations of what the Soviets would have called their "leading cadres," including ideological watchdogs such as Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin. Like their Soviet predecessors, a host of dull and dogmatic cable outlets, screechy radio talkers, and poorly written magazines crank out the same kind of fill-in-the-blanks screeds full of delusional accusations, replacing "NATO" and "revanchism" with "antifa" and "radicalism."

Falling in line, just as in the old Communist Party, is rewarded, and independence is punished. The anger directed at Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger makes the stilted ideological criticisms of last century's Soviet propagandists seem almost genteel by comparison. (At least Soviet families under Brezhnev didn't add three-page handwritten denouncements to official party reprimands.)

This comparison is more than a metaphor; it is a warning. A dying party can still be a dangerous party. The Communist leaders in those last years of political sclerosis arrayed a new generation of nuclear missiles against NATO, invaded Afghanistan, tightened the screws on Jews and other dissidents, lied about why they shot down a civilian 747 airliner, and, near the end, came close to starting World War III out of sheer paranoia.

The Republican Party is, for now, more of a danger to the United States than to the world. But like the last Soviet-era holdouts in the Kremlin, its cadres are growing more aggressive and paranoid. They blame spies and provocateurs for the Capitol riot, and they are obsessed with last summer's protests (indeed, they are fixated on all criminals and rioters other than their own) to a point that now echoes the old Soviet lingo about "antisocial elements" and "hooligans." They blame their failures at the ballot box not on their own shortcomings, but on fraud and sabotage as the justification for a redoubled crackdown on democracy.

Another lesson from all this history is that the Republicans have no path to reform. Like their Soviet counterparts, their party is too far gone. Gorbachev tried to reform the Soviet Communist Party, and he remains reviled among the Soviet faithful to this day. Similar efforts by the remaining handful of reasonable Republicans are unlikely to fare any better. The Republican Party, to take a phrase from the early Soviet leader Leon Trotsky, should now be deposited where it belongs: in the "dustbin of history."

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 26, 2021, 12:34:23 PM
There is one rather significant difference- Republicans are the opposition, while Communists had no opposition.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 26, 2021, 12:41:36 PM
Reminds be of Xi Jinping as well. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the three major powers in the next decade or two. The US has the fact that it's a democracy and there's an alternative to the rotting GOP available. China and Russia do not, so there's nothing to do but rot.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 26, 2021, 12:49:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2021, 12:41:36 PM
Reminds be of Xi Jinping as well. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the three major powers in the next decade or two. The US has the fact that it's a democracy and there's an alternative to the rotting GOP available. China and Russia do not, so there's nothing to do but rot.
Maybe objectively it's better, but it's also more depressing when a big minority in a democracy goes "I'd like more rot, please".  At least in Russia and China you can have the illusion that it's a "good people, bad politicians" situation, because technically people don't decide anything.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on February 26, 2021, 12:58:39 PM
DGuller claimed a few months back that the Soviet Union was ruled by bloated corpse by the end.  After a few hours of terror I realized he meant that figuratively rather than literally.  Still, I think he had a good point.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on February 26, 2021, 01:05:47 PM
I do wonder if Covid was our Chernobyl
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 26, 2021, 01:06:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2021, 12:58:39 PM
DGuller claimed a few months back that the Soviet Union was ruled by bloated corpse by the end.  After a few hours of terror I realized he meant that figuratively rather than literally.  Still, I think he had a good point.

Not sure if it was a metaphor in the case of Chernenko (or Brezhnev in his final years): :P

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Chernenko.jbg.jpg/230px-Chernenko.jbg.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 26, 2021, 01:10:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2021, 01:05:47 PM
I do wonder if Covid was our Chernobyl
Of course the fascinating thing is many people, including me, thought it might be China's. And yet, one year on, can people think of any weaknesses in the Chinese system that's been revealed by this pandemic? I can't to be honest - which is not what I expected or thought this time last year. It is certainly a form output legitimacy in some way.

The picture looks quite different in Europe and the Americas.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 26, 2021, 01:22:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2021, 01:10:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2021, 01:05:47 PM
I do wonder if Covid was our Chernobyl
Of course the fascinating thing is many people, including me, thought it might be China's. And yet, one year on, can people think of any weaknesses in the Chinese system that's been revealed by this pandemic? I can't to be honest - which is not what I expected or thought this time last year. It is certainly a form output legitimacy in some way.

The picture looks quite different in Europe and the Americas.

Yes, hence the worrying parallels one can do with the 1930s, where it appeared that liberal democracies were failing and seemed like authoritarian government had the better system to deal with systemic problems.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 26, 2021, 01:30:31 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 26, 2021, 12:49:03 PM
Maybe objectively it's better, but it's also more depressing when a big minority in a democracy goes "I'd like more rot, please".  At least in Russia and China you can have the illusion that it's a "good people, bad politicians" situation, because technically people don't decide anything.

I mean there's a mechanism for fixing the problem, compared to China and Russia where it's going to be much more free for all if the air ever goes out of the balloon so to speak.

Doesn't mean the US can't fuck it up and not use the mechanism. But at least it's there. If China gets to a point with the CCP has so little credibility that it can no longer function, it's going to be a massive MESS (and that's part of what keeps the CCP in power). Same thing with Russia and Putin-esque oligarchs. In the US, there's a mechanism for the GOP to fade (and potentially be replaced), should it come to that.

That is, IMO, separate from the ability of the corrupt plutocrats to string along x% of the population. My statement is more about what happens when that x becomes too small for the party to continue functioning.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 26, 2021, 01:45:29 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 26, 2021, 01:06:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2021, 12:58:39 PM
DGuller claimed a few months back that the Soviet Union was ruled by bloated corpse by the end.  After a few hours of terror I realized he meant that figuratively rather than literally.  Still, I think he had a good point.

Not sure if it was a metaphor in the case of Chernenko (or Brezhnev in his final years): :P

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Chernenko.jbg.jpg/230px-Chernenko.jbg.jpg)
Chernenko is an extreme example because being for all intents and purposes a corpse was what got him the job.  The Party couldn't decide on which way to go, so they literally went "who else is almost dead?" while they pondered the question further.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 26, 2021, 01:48:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2021, 01:30:31 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 26, 2021, 12:49:03 PM
Maybe objectively it's better, but it's also more depressing when a big minority in a democracy goes "I'd like more rot, please".  At least in Russia and China you can have the illusion that it's a "good people, bad politicians" situation, because technically people don't decide anything.

I mean there's a mechanism for fixing the problem, compared to China and Russia where it's going to be much more free for all if the air ever goes out of the balloon so to speak.

Doesn't mean the US can't fuck it up and not use the mechanism. But at least it's there. If China gets to a point with the CCP has so little credibility that it can no longer function, it's going to be a massive MESS (and that's part of what keeps the CCP in power). Same thing with Russia and Putin-esque oligarchs. In the US, there's a mechanism for the GOP to fade (and potentially be replaced), should it come to that.

That is, IMO, separate from the ability of the corrupt plutocrats to string along x% of the population. My statement is more about what happens when that x becomes too small for the party to continue functioning.
I see your point now, I agree with that.  Authoritarian countries are always one bad leader or one bad succession plan away from a dark age.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 27, 2021, 11:55:42 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/26/gops-strategy-retaking-power-is-uglier-than-you-think/

QuoteOpinion: The GOP's strategy for retaking power is uglier than you think

Opinion by Greg Sargent

By now, it should be clear to even the most committed both-sides commentators that Republicans are rerunning their 2009 scorched-earth strategy. Back then, Republicans correctly calculated that if they denied the Democratic president any and all support, he'd bear the blame for a sluggish recovery and they could pillory him for failing to achieve bipartisan cooperation.

But what if the strategy is even more radical this time? What if Republicans have calculated that they can take back at least one chamber of Congress, grinding President Joe Biden's agenda to a halt, even if Biden largely succeeds?

Republicans may well be fully expecting Democrats to pass a series of economic rescue and stimulus proposals — all on their own — that actually do get the economy booming again, even as the vaccine rollout and other policies successfully tame the pandemic.

Yet in this scenario, Republicans still know that even if this happens, they still have a good chance at recapturing the House at a minimum, helped along by a combination of voter suppression and other counter-majoritarian tactics and built-in advantages.

On Friday, House Democrats are set to pass Biden's $1.9 trillion package, which includes $1,400 payments to individuals, extended unemployment assistance, tens of billions of dollars to fight the pandemic and facilitate reopening schools, and much more.

By all indications, virtually every House Republican will vote against the plan. It will move to the Senate, where there are complications, but much of the package will probably pass in a similar form. And just about all Senate Republicans will vote against that, too.

Obviously, Republicans can genuinely oppose this package on principle. But what's striking is that many Republicans aren't even trying to make a strong, intellectually grounded argument.

It's as if they know they don't have to — and know they can recapture power without doing so.

Republicans cede the economic debate

There are numerous signs of this. First, who is today's Paul Ryan? Back in 2009, the then-congressman made a very public case against a stimulus a fraction this big, making an actual argument (if a fraudulent one) about what debt Armageddon would mean for American society.

These days it's harder to make that case. Republicans blew up the deficit with a huge tax cut for the rich, and cheered along as the pre-covid economy was rocket-fueled with stimulus. Economists no longer fear the long-term risks of massive deficit spending amid big crises.

As a result, there's nothing close to the same kind of public argument this time. As Paul Krugman points out:

QuoteWho's the face of Republican opposition to the American Rescue Plan? Nobody comes to mind.

Put it this way: Republicans appear to be losing the economic argument in part because they aren't even bothering to show up.

Again, it's as if they know they don't have to.

Republicans punt on child tax credit

Now consider the battle over the child tax credit. The Biden package includes a provision that will send at least $3,000 per child to most families, in monthly installments for one year.

In this case, one Republican — Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah — has seriously engaged the debate, offering his own child tax credit that would be universal and permanent (but offset by spending cuts elsewhere).

The Romney proposal is perfectly tailored for congressional Republicans to adopt. They could use it to negotiate to put their own big stamp on the Biden package — and take credit for it.

But they aren't doing this. Even the supposed populist Republicans have dismissed it as "welfare," reverting to Ryan-esque arguments that cast safety-net programs as debilitating.

As Samuel Hammond and David Koggan point out, Republicans are squandering a major opportunity to demonstrate how "conservative principles" can co-opt the "pro-family, pro-working class high ground." Running on this could be a "huge winner" for GOP candidates in 2022.

Say it with me this time: It's as if they know they don't have to. Why might this be?

A more radicalized opposition

As all this is happening, Republicans are racing forward with an extraordinary array of new voter suppression efforts. Such measures are advancing in Georgia, Florida and Iowa, and in many other states.

In a good roundup of all these new efforts, Ari Berman notes:

QuoteAfter record turnout in 2020, Republican-controlled states appear to be in a race to the bottom to see who can pass the most egregious new barriers to voting.

On top of that, Republicans are openly boasting that their ability to take back the House next year will gain a big lift from extreme gerrymanders. Some experts believe they can do that even if Democrats win the national House popular vote by a margin similar to that of 2020.

It's hard to know how direct the relationship is between the GOP's ceding of the field in the economic debate on one hand, and the party's increasing commitment to rigging electoral maps and making it harder to vote on the other.

But this confluence does suggest a more radicalized approach to opposition than in 2009. As I recount in my book, it wasn't until after the GOP's 2010 sweep of state legislatures across the country that Republicans undertook the massive spate of voter suppression efforts that characterized the past decade.

Since then, we've seen Republicans again win the White House while losing the popular vote; the installation of two Supreme Court justices via scorched-earth procedural warfare; widespread GOP support for an effort to overturn a national election; a GOP president trying to make that happen by fomenting mob violence; and in the aftermath of it all, a large doubling down on counter-majoritarian tactics.

So is there any reason to doubt that they're primarily counting on more of the same as their path back to power this time?

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 28, 2021, 03:07:51 AM
Apparently this golden calf statue of Trump at CPAC was made in Mexico.

(https://compote.slate.com/images/aa1627ce-5dac-4dbb-be58-2501a1d79503.jpeg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 28, 2021, 01:33:45 PM
Something about a golden calf comes to mind.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on February 28, 2021, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2021, 01:33:45 PM
Something about a golden calf comes to mind.


Prosperity protestants have been doing shit like that for years.  It is OK for them when they do it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 28, 2021, 05:21:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2021, 01:33:45 PM
Something about a golden calf comes to mind.

Well, Syt did subliminally plant the idea in your head.  :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2021, 10:39:04 PM
Yes a golden idol holding a fairie wand and sporting shorts violating the flag code.  An appropriate mascot for devoutly Christian limited government patriot constitutionalists.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 28, 2021, 10:53:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2021, 10:39:04 PM
Yes a golden idol holding a fairie wand and sporting shorts violating the flag code.  An appropriate mascot for devoutly Christian limited government patriot constitutionalists.
It's literally beyond parody.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 28, 2021, 11:54:40 PM
Though I read somewhere it was made by an American artist living in Mexico (with Mexican assistants). He rolled it in there in the hopes of getting someone to buy a stainless steel version for Trump's presidential library for $1 million. The artist has, apparently, also gone on the record as saying that while he voted for Trump he's not really a big fan.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/540841-artist-behind-golden-trump-statue-at-cpac-says-he-made-it-in
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 28, 2021, 05:21:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2021, 01:33:45 PM
Something about a golden calf comes to mind.

Well, Syt did subliminally plant the idea in your head.  :P

Ha! you are right.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on March 01, 2021, 11:37:38 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2021, 01:10:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2021, 01:05:47 PM
I do wonder if Covid was our Chernobyl
Of course the fascinating thing is many people, including me, thought it might be China's. And yet, one year on, can people think of any weaknesses in the Chinese system that's been revealed by this pandemic? I can't to be honest - which is not what I expected or thought this time last year. It is certainly a form output legitimacy in some way.

The picture looks quite different in Europe and the Americas.

I think the west has frankly become too democratic and too egalitarian. I have little doubt 1950s or 1960s America would have performed much better than China on handling covid (even 1950s America vs modern day China.) The reason has nothing to do with technology, legal differences or etc. It's entirely cultural. We had a culture in America where most people respected authority back then. We were a democratic society, but one in which a system of experts and elites kinda ran things, and ordinary people participated in selecting leaders but mostly understood "there's people far smarter and far more capable than myself who should run things and make most of the important decisions, and on most issues I'm going to do what they say." Everyone is their own expert now, their own constitutional scholar, their own pastor, their own scientist etc. This makes us incredibly sensitive to viral disinformation efforts.

China actually has a lot of viral disinformation efforts too, but they have a unifying understanding that you listen to and do what the government says. And the government's coronavirus response was largely ran by experts willing to do what was necessary to halt the virus's spread. In the United States (and I'll extend this to much of the west) we have a bunch of people who have gotten out of the habit of doing what they're told.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 11:39:45 AM
Surprising no one, Otto thinks democracy is a weakness.  Ah the good old days of the 60s, when the US Government could lie about foreign wars and sort of get away with it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on March 01, 2021, 11:44:20 AM
Modern American democracy is absolutely a weakness. In most respects I think the Chinese system far, far superior to the modern forms of democracy utilized in much of the West. I think there are forms of free society that would rectify many of these weaknesses, but I don't believe that we have the political will to go in that direction.

Going back 250 years, a big advantage of non-democratic systems of government is the people were abjectly unsuited and incapable of managing their affairs. In theory someone like a monarch, decently educated and supporting various norms, who then delegates most decision making to elites who have specific competencies in day to day affairs, is a lot better than letting a bunch of imbeciles run the country. As we started to see post-Enlightenment democracies develop I think we started to see we could do a lot better than that, but it was always tied to a more limited franchise. The franchise was expanded (throughout the West) in the 19th century and into the early 20th, and frankly--things got better. Corruption was lessened, economic growth improved, while never perfect the political process seemed to be better in many cases. The worst countries in the early 20th century were the ones who had failed to establish democratic traditions. While by the mid-20th century democracy was very broadly participatory all throughout the West, some of the cultural safeguards that kept the imbecile masses from running things were still in place. Most of those safeguards have been eroded now by generations of shitty talk radio, the Internet (particularly social media), and 24 hour cable news.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 01, 2021, 11:44:20 AM
Modern American democracy is absolutely a weakness. In most respects I think the Chinese system far, far superior to the modern forms of democracy utilized in much of the West. I think there are forms of free society that would rectify many of these weaknesses, but I don't believe that we have the political will to go in that direction.

Going back 250 years, a big advantage of non-democratic systems of government is the people were abjectly unsuited and incapable of managing their affairs. In theory someone like a monarch, decently educated and supporting various norms, who then delegates most decision making to elites who have specific competencies in day to day affairs, is a lot better than letting a bunch of imbeciles run the country. As we started to see post-Enlightenment democracies develop I think we started to see we could do a lot better than that, but it was always tied to a more limited franchise. The franchise was expanded (throughout the West) in the 19th century and into the early 20th, and frankly--things got better. Corruption was lessened, economic growth improved, while never perfect the political process seemed to be better in many cases. The worst countries in the early 20th century were the ones who had failed to establish democratic traditions. While by the mid-20th century democracy was very broadly participatory all throughout the West, some of the cultural safeguards that kept the imbecile masses from running things were still in place. Most of those safeguards have been eroded now by generations of shitty talk radio, the Internet (particularly social media), and 24 hour cable news.

As Grumbler would say, quoting this for future reference.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 01, 2021, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 11:46:17 AM
As Grumbler would say, quoting this for future reference.

Pascal's OVB's Wager.
If the Chinese take over the world then he has proven his reliability to our new overlords.
If they don't....well, free country innit? :p
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 12:04:03 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 01, 2021, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 11:46:17 AM
As Grumbler would say, quoting this for future reference.

Pascal's OVB's Wager.
If the Chinese take over the world then he has proven his reliability to our new overlords.
If they don't....well, free country innit? :p

More to the point, American politics is at a very precarious moment. If democracy in the US fails, it will very much be because of people like Otto.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2021, 01:07:37 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 01, 2021, 11:37:38 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2021, 01:10:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2021, 01:05:47 PM
I do wonder if Covid was our Chernobyl
Of course the fascinating thing is many people, including me, thought it might be China's. And yet, one year on, can people think of any weaknesses in the Chinese system that's been revealed by this pandemic? I can't to be honest - which is not what I expected or thought this time last year. It is certainly a form output legitimacy in some way.

The picture looks quite different in Europe and the Americas.

I think the west has frankly become too democratic and too egalitarian. I have little doubt 1950s or 1960s America would have performed much better than China on handling covid (even 1950s America vs modern day China.) The reason has nothing to do with technology, legal differences or etc. It's entirely cultural. We had a culture in America where most people respected authority back then. We were a democratic society, but one in which a system of experts and elites kinda ran things, and ordinary people participated in selecting leaders but mostly understood "there's people far smarter and far more capable than myself who should run things and make most of the important decisions, and on most issues I'm going to do what they say." Everyone is their own expert now, their own constitutional scholar, their own pastor, their own scientist etc. This makes us incredibly sensitive to viral disinformation efforts.

China actually has a lot of viral disinformation efforts too, but they have a unifying understanding that you listen to and do what the government says. And the government's coronavirus response was largely ran by experts willing to do what was necessary to halt the virus's spread. In the United States (and I'll extend this to much of the west) we have a bunch of people who have gotten out of the habit of doing what they're told.
I think they key question is:  where common people smart enough to leave many things to elites, voluntarily, or did things get left to elites because the system wasn't truly democratic and the common people had no practical say in it?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 01:08:57 PM
You are leaving out the more obvious option.  Elites lied to non elites.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 01, 2021, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 01:08:57 PM
You are leaving out the more obvious option.  Elites lied to non elites.


How is that different than any other time?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 02:04:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2021, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 01:08:57 PM
You are leaving out the more obvious option.  Elites lied to non elites.


How is that different than any other time?

I think there are two significant differences.  First, where Otto sees weakness in American become "too democratic" I think having non white male elites elected to office makes it much more difficult to pull off the kind of things an all white all male governing elite could get away with back in Otto's imagined better world.  Second, government throughout Western Democracies has become more transparent through a number of reforms made since the 50s and 60s.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 01, 2021, 06:05:13 PM
I guess I can see a problem in the way democracy is setup and where technocracy has its advantage.
Just compare government to the business world.
Businesses have teams of people doing research into what customers want and then they have marketing people selling them this stuff.
In a way political parties could be seen to work the same... With one key exception : the classic apocryphal  Henry Ford quote "if I asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses".

What you have is trump and the like directly promising to deliver these faster horses because its what people are demanding (having first told them that despite never having encountered a horse in their life this is a huge problem).
What you instead need is the government to hear the peoples moans about immigrants or whatever it may be and who does the research to figure out what the actual problem behind this is and then tackles that....
However in a democratic system the promise to find and fix the actual problem is a much harder sell to anyone who can't apply critical thinking (a lot of people) than promising simple solutions to common sense simple problems.

Then you've all the various groups who can see the populist bollocks for what it is but figure they can bend it to their advantage providing even more complications. ..
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 07:26:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 01, 2021, 06:05:13 PM
I guess I can see a problem in the way democracy is setup and where technocracy has its advantage.
Just compare government to the business world.
Businesses have teams of people doing research into what customers want and then they have marketing people selling them this stuff.
In a way political parties could be seen to work the same... With one key exception : the classic apocryphal  Henry Ford quote "if I asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses".

What you have is trump and the like directly promising to deliver these faster horses because its what people are demanding (having first told them that despite never having encountered a horse in their life this is a huge problem).
What you instead need is the government to hear the peoples moans about immigrants or whatever it may be and who does the research to figure out what the actual problem behind this is and then tackles that....
However in a democratic system the promise to find and fix the actual problem is a much harder sell to anyone who can't apply critical thinking (a lot of people) than promising simple solutions to common sense simple problems.

Then you've all the various groups who can see the populist bollocks for what it is but figure they can bend it to their advantage providing even more complications. ..

I am not sure about your distinction between the group that determines what people want and the marketers.  There has been a lot of ink spilled describing manufactured demand which is all about convincing people they do need something, then making it so it will fail/become outdated quickly so that the public believes they must have more of that thing.

Not exactly the best model for government.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 02, 2021, 04:24:37 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 07:26:27 PM

I am not sure about your distinction between the group that determines what people want and the marketers.  There has been a lot of ink spilled describing manufactured demand which is all about convincing people they do need something, then making it so it will fail/become outdated quickly so that the public believes they must have more of that thing.

Not exactly the best model for government.
Completely the opposite.
Marketing rarely works in convincing you that you need something you absolutely don't need. The furthest that tends to go is upselling with useless features (e.g. Tongue brush bits on a toothbrush).
Regardless this "you really need x" thing is completely the opposite of "people have problems with y and need a solution to be developed for it"
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 02, 2021, 09:18:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 02, 2021, 04:24:37 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 07:26:27 PM

I am not sure about your distinction between the group that determines what people want and the marketers.  There has been a lot of ink spilled describing manufactured demand which is all about convincing people they do need something, then making it so it will fail/become outdated quickly so that the public believes they must have more of that thing.

Not exactly the best model for government.
Completely the opposite.
Marketing rarely works in convincing you that you need something you absolutely don't need. The furthest that tends to go is upselling with useless features (e.g. Tongue brush bits on a toothbrush).
Regardless this "you really need x" thing is completely the opposite of "people have problems with y and need a solution to be developed for it"


I am very skeptical of this.  I "absolutely don't need" all kinds of stuff.  This computer I'm using isn't needed.  It's not like I have a job that requires it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 02, 2021, 09:28:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2021, 09:18:49 AM

I am very skeptical of this.  I "absolutely don't need" all kinds of stuff.  This computer I'm using isn't needed.  It's not like I have a job that requires it.
Hierarchy of needs.
Entertainment is on there.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 02, 2021, 07:53:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 02:04:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2021, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 01:08:57 PM
You are leaving out the more obvious option.  Elites lied to non elites.


How is that different than any other time?

I think there are two significant differences.  First, where Otto sees weakness in American become "too democratic" I think having non white male elites elected to office makes it much more difficult to pull off the kind of things an all white all male governing elite could get away with back in Otto's imagined better world.  Second, government throughout Western Democracies has become more transparent through a number of reforms made since the 50s and 60s.

I don't agree with Otto but I know where he's coming from.  I think we may have a bit too much transparency in politics.  In particular I think letting cameras in the Congress may have been a mistake.   The unfortunate truth is that the US government has never really functioned that well to begin with.  There have been several occasions where extreme partisanship made the US government dysfunctional, on one occasion disastrously so.  For the US government to function there needs to be "Republican virtue".  All governments fail when a large fraction of the population stops believing in it.  Unfortunately the US constitution make it more susceptible to this than other democratic governments in the world.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on March 02, 2021, 11:05:53 PM
I think complex work demands some kind of ability for those doing the work to have the freedom to now have their every move examined under a microscope by people who are either not qualified to judge it, or actively interested in judging it in poor faith

How you balance that with the obvious need for transparency and disclosure is a hard problem.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 03, 2021, 10:46:50 AM
What's interesting is that as the legislative branch has become increasingly transparent, the executive has become more opaque, which is really backwards. Because Presidential advisors are ubiquitous, everything can be covered in blanket assertions of privilege. Tranparency into the legislative process is fine and dandy, but not that essential because the product - legislation and floor vote counts - is public anyways.  But all sorts of policies can get carried out in the executive branch in effective total secrecy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 03, 2021, 11:50:14 AM
The big problem with televising Congress is that encourages Congress people to make incendiary statements and take extreme positions so their soundbites will end up on the news or so they get invited on partisan political shows on MSNBC and Fox News.  Nuance and civility are not rewarded but extremism is.  It's not a good dynamic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 03, 2021, 06:16:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2021, 11:05:53 PM
I think complex work demands some kind of ability for those doing the work to have the freedom to now have their every move examined under a microscope by people who are either not qualified to judge it, or actively interested in judging it in poor faith

How you balance that with the obvious need for transparency and disclosure is a hard problem.

Yeah.

I think the answer lies in building a culture - both a political culture and a national culture at large - that values fair play, honest competition, and considers rule breaking and abuse of power serious issues.

On one hand that's a facile answer, but the key is that while process and policy can help it's also about creating and valuing leaders with integrity. And that's a long term, from the roots type solution - so the opposite of easy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 03, 2021, 11:43:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 11:39:45 AM
Surprising no one, Otto thinks democracy is a weakness.  Ah the good old days of the 60s, when the US Government could lie about foreign wars and sort of get away with it.
why the 60s? :)

The GOP lied about Iraq and all the governments lied about the real state of the Afghan war, yet, they are always popular. Trump lied about just about everything and he's nearly as popular as he ever was.

Lying very rarely makes a government fall.  Even when caught red-handed they usually managed to get away with it.  The Liberal party has mastered the art in our country.  Chrétien ran 3 times with essentially the same promises, twice in a row with the exact same promises of abolishing the US-Canada free trade agreement (they expanded it to include Mexico) and the Goods and Services Tax.  and people were still voting for him.  Even after the extent of the party's corruption (financial, since we've known for a while how morrally corrupt they were) was revealed, the party still got re-elected, albeit with a minority govt.

Not, I think it's telling the truth that is the most dangerous thing for politicians. No one wants to hear you have to make sacrifices to stop covid-19, to limit global change, to curb the deficit.  No one.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 03, 2021, 11:59:56 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2021, 11:43:12 PM
Not, I think it's telling the truth that is the most dangerous thing for politicians. No one wants to hear you have to make sacrifices to stop covid-19, to limit global change, to curb the deficit.  No one.

Not even you?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 04, 2021, 01:44:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2021, 11:43:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 11:39:45 AM
Surprising no one, Otto thinks democracy is a weakness.  Ah the good old days of the 60s, when the US Government could lie about foreign wars and sort of get away with it.
why the 60s? :)

Because Otto was extolling the virtues of the 50s and 60s as a mythical time of goodness we should return to.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 04, 2021, 03:18:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2021, 11:59:56 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2021, 11:43:12 PM
Not, I think it's telling the truth that is the most dangerous thing for politicians. No one wants to hear you have to make sacrifices to stop covid-19, to limit global change, to curb the deficit.  No one.

Not even you?
I'm not electing govt by myself :P

Practically no one.

The lie is often more comfortable than the hard truth.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 04, 2021, 07:02:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2021, 01:44:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2021, 11:43:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 11:39:45 AM
Surprising no one, Otto thinks democracy is a weakness.  Ah the good old days of the 60s, when the US Government could lie about foreign wars and sort of get away with it.
why the 60s? :)

Because Otto was extolling the virtues of the 50s and 60s as a mythical time of goodness we should return to.

It was a time when capos could keep their mouths shut.   :zipped:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 26, 2021, 01:03:25 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/georgia-voting-restrictions/2021/03/25/91009e72-8da1-11eb-9423-04079921c915_story.html

QuoteGeorgia governor signs into law sweeping voting bill that curtails the use of drop boxes and imposes new ID requirements for mail voting

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp on Thursday signed into law a sweeping voting measure that proponents said is necessary to shore up confidence in the state's elections but that critics countered will lead to longer lines, partisan control of elections and more difficult procedures for voters trying to cast their ballots by mail.

The measure is one of the first major voting bills to pass as dozens of state legislatures consider restrictions on how ballots are cast and counted in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, when President Donald Trump attacked without evidence the integrity of election results in six states he lost, including Georgia.

The new law imposes new identification requirements for those casting ballots by mail; curtails the use of drop boxes for absentee ballots; allows electors to challenge the eligibility of an unlimited number of voters and requires counties to hold hearings on such challenges within 10 days; makes it a crime for third-party groups to hand out food and water to voters standing in line; blocks the use of mobile voting vans, as Fulton County did last year after purchasing two vehicles at a cost of more than $700,000; and prevents local governments from directly accepting grants from the private sector.

The 95-page law also strips authority from the secretary of state, making him a nonvoting member of the State Election Board, and allows lawmakers to initiate takeovers of local election boards — measures that critics said could allow partisan appointees to slow down or block election certification or target heavily Democratic jurisdictions, many of which are in the Atlanta area and are home to the state's highest concentrations of Black and Brown voters.

The measure, backed by Republicans, sailed out of the state House and Senate on party-line votes in a single afternoon.

Kemp signed it shortly afterward, saying at a news conference that with the new law, "Georgia will take another step toward ensuring our elections are secure, accessible and fair."

"Contrary to the hyper-partisan rhetoric you may have heard inside and outside this gold dome, the facts are that this new law will expand voting access in the Peach State," the governor added, noting that every county in Georgia will now have expanded early voting on the weekends.

But Democrats and voting-rights advocates condemned the bill as a flagrant effort to make it harder for some voters to cast their ballots — particularly those in larger, minority-heavy counties that have a long history of insufficient polling locations and long lines.

"It is like the Christmas tree of goodies in terms of voter suppression," Sen. Jen Jordan, a Democrat, said on the Senate floor Thursday.

"'We want to provide opportunities for people to vote,' " she said, echoing Republican descriptions of the measure. "This bill is absolutely about opportunities — but it ain't about the opportunity to vote. It's about the opportunity to keep control and keep power at any cost."

Later Thursday, Democratic state Rep. Park Cannon was arrested by state troopers as she knocked on the governor's door to observe the bill signing, cutting short Kemp's news conference — a moment captured by other others at the capitol in videos posted on social media.

In 43 states across the country, GOP lawmakers have proposed at least 250 laws that would limit mail, early in-person and Election Day voting with such constraints as stricter ID requirements, limited hours or narrower eligibility to vote absentee, according to data compiled as of Feb. 19 by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice. Even more proposals have been introduced since then.

In Iowa, Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed a voting law earlier this month that reduces early and Election Day voting hours and moves up the deadline for mail ballots to arrive at local election offices.

President Biden on Thursday blasted efforts by Republican-led state legislatures across the country to restrict voting rights, saying he was worried about "how un-American this whole initiative is."

"This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle," Biden said, emphasizing he would do "everything in my power" to pass legislation to protect voting rights.

How GOP-backed measures could create hurdles for tens of millions of voters

During the Senate debate in Georgia on Thursday, State Sen. Gloria Butler, a Black Democrat who represents suburban Atlanta, called the measure "an unabashed assault on voting rights unlike anything we've seen since the Jim Crow era."

"Make no mistake, this is democracy in reverse," she said. "Some politicians did not approve of the choice made by voters in our hard-fought election."

Republicans noted that the final bill did not include a prior proposal to limit mail voting only to those with a reason such as age, illness or travel. The new law also increases required early-voting hours across Georgia after an uproar about a proposal to bar Sunday voting, a ban that would have hindered "souls to the polls," the long-standing effort to encourage Black voters to vote after Sunday church services.

"Our goal is to ensure election integrity and to restore confidence in the election process," said Sen. Max Burns (R), calling the measure a "well thought-out bill."

Another Republican, Sen. John Albers, maintained that the measure "expands voting access in Georgia." He accused critics of "sensationalizing and misrepresenting the truth."

In signing the bill, Kemp sought to align himself with Trump, saying he "joined many others, including President Trump, in urging the Secretary of State's office to quickly and fully investigate any and all fraud irregularities" in the 2020 election.

In fact, Georgia election officials did not find any significant fraud in the November vote, despite Trump's repeated false claims of problems with the election and his attempts to get Kemp and other officials to halt the certification of Biden's win.

On Thursday, multiple Democrats stood to speak against the bill in both House and Senate, many expressing astonishment at the Republican argument that the measure would improve the voter experience. They took particular aim at how the bill will undermine local control of election administration, and said it was hard to view the restriction on providing food and water to voters in line as anything other than an effort to making it unpleasant to vote.


Video of the the state representative being arrested: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/video-shows-georgia-lawmaker-being-arrested-while-trying-to-watch-governor-sign-voting-bill/2021/03/25/3dc640a1-51b0-465f-aaa1-ea8deb540554_video.html
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on March 26, 2021, 01:20:05 AM
Quotemakes it a crime for third-party groups to hand out food and water to voters standing in line
:lol: How can they even pretend with a straight face that this is in any way contributing to the supposed goal of the bill?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 26, 2021, 01:21:47 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2021, 01:20:05 AM
Quotemakes it a crime for third-party groups to hand out food and water to voters standing in line
:lol: How can they even pretend with a straight face that this is in any way contributing to the supposed goal of the bill?

I think the official explanation is that handing out food etc.., when done by groups with political affiliations, might influence people to vote a certain way.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 26, 2021, 02:22:47 AM
QuoteThe 95-page law

Jesus Christ. Is this common in America?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 26, 2021, 09:40:09 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 26, 2021, 02:22:47 AM
QuoteThe 95-page law

Jesus Christ. Is this common in America?

Unfortunately not. They usually are hundreds of pages.

At least on the federal level.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on March 26, 2021, 09:41:41 AM
I think my brother and I (both in Georgia) are going to test the law in 2022 if it's not repealed or modified in some way. What a fucking crock of shit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2021, 10:14:15 AM
Most federal laws are not 95 pages or more; most are only a few pages.  However many federal laws don't really do very much; here a just a few examples taken in chron order from a list of laws passed this year:

+A bill to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to delegate authority to approve payroll and personnel actions.+
+ Redesignates the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site in Georgia as the Jimmy Carter National Historical Park.
+ Addresses the use of descending devices to release reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico.
+ Directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to award competitive, merit-reviewed grants to institutions of higher education (or their consortia) to support multidisciplinary, fundamental research with potential relevance to suicide,
+ Requires the U.S. Agency for International Development to award at least 50% of the number of scholarships under the Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program to Pakistani women for each of the calendar years 2020-2022.
+ Reauthorizes for FY2022-FY2026 and revises the National Estuary Program, which provides grants to protect or restore estuaries of national significance.
+Directs the Department of the Interior to study the sites associated with the life and legacy of Julius Rosenwald, a part owner and President of Sears, Roebuck and Company

Every now and then Congress passes a omnibus bill that addresses some important area in a comprehensive fashion (like a tax reform bill or Obamacare) or takes care of a bunch a different stuff at one go (like the COVID relief bill).  Those ones get into the hundreds of pages.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2021, 10:19:02 AM
They charged the state legislator with a felony for knocking on the door.
If that's a felony the Capitol rioters should get the guillotine.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 26, 2021, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2021, 10:19:02 AM
They charged the state legislator with a felony for knocking on the door.
If that's a felony the Capitol rioters should get the guillotine.

She would have added unwelcome color to the signing, I suspect.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExXGosDWgAcEyji.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 26, 2021, 02:13:58 PM
Did you just slip the bit about Pakistani women in there?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on March 26, 2021, 02:25:52 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2021, 10:39:33 AM
She would have added unwelcome color to the signing, I suspect.
I'm shocked they are all wearing masks. :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on March 26, 2021, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2021, 01:21:47 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2021, 01:20:05 AM
Quotemakes it a crime for third-party groups to hand out food and water to voters standing in line
:lol: How can they even pretend with a straight face that this is in any way contributing to the supposed goal of the bill?

I think the official explanation is that handing out food etc.., when done by groups with political affiliations, might influence people to vote a certain way.


...which of course is complete bullshit, since that is already illegal.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on March 26, 2021, 02:34:16 PM
But now it's double-secret probation illegal. Duh. Good law!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 26, 2021, 02:35:14 PM
What if you just happen to drive a truck past where some people are lining up to vote and some food and water accidentally falls off? Is that legal?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2021, 02:45:44 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2021, 02:25:52 PM
I'm shocked they are all wearing masks. :hmm:

It was a condition Hugo Chavez and the Chinese attached when they bribed them to rig the election.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 26, 2021, 03:24:19 PM
Valmy mentioned Republicans coming from out of state into Texas to run for office Here's a fun example:

https://twitter.com/markhelenowski/status/1375500976170340360?s=20

"Big Dan Rodimer" - video contrasts how he runs in Texas this year vs. how he ran in Nevada last year.

What a difference a state makes! :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on March 26, 2021, 03:33:28 PM
That sounds like a porn star name. :cool:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on March 26, 2021, 05:16:18 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2021, 03:33:28 PM
That sounds like a porn star name. :cool:

He will totally shaft his constituents.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 26, 2021, 07:26:25 PM
It's like no matter what happens, things get worse.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 26, 2021, 08:19:59 PM
I got this terrible feeling that 10 years from now we are going to be saying "The Trump years were good compared to this!".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 26, 2021, 08:36:05 PM
I got this terrible feeling that 10 years from now we'll need to clarify which Trump years we're referring to.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on March 27, 2021, 01:46:38 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2021, 03:33:28 PM
That sounds like a porn star name. :cool:

That would be spelled "Rodinher".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 27, 2021, 08:49:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2021, 10:14:15 AM
Most federal laws are not 95 pages or more; most are only a few pages.  However many federal laws don't really do very much; here a just a few examples taken in chron order from a list of laws passed this year:

+A bill to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to delegate authority to approve payroll and personnel actions.+
+ Redesignates the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site in Georgia as the Jimmy Carter National Historical Park.
+ Addresses the use of descending devices to release reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico.
+ Directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to award competitive, merit-reviewed grants to institutions of higher education (or their consortia) to support multidisciplinary, fundamental research with potential relevance to suicide,
+ Requires the U.S. Agency for International Development to award at least 50% of the number of scholarships under the Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program to Pakistani women for each of the calendar years 2020-2022.
+ Reauthorizes for FY2022-FY2026 and revises the National Estuary Program, which provides grants to protect or restore estuaries of national significance.
+Directs the Department of the Interior to study the sites associated with the life and legacy of Julius Rosenwald, a part owner and President of Sears, Roebuck and Company

Every now and then Congress passes a omnibus bill that addresses some important area in a comprehensive fashion (like a tax reform bill or Obamacare) or takes care of a bunch a different stuff at one go (like the COVID relief bill).  Those ones get into the hundreds of pages.

Interesting. The law regulating nuclear technology in Sweden is something like 16 pages.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Maladict on March 27, 2021, 09:24:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2021, 02:35:14 PM
What if you just happen to drive a truck past where some people are lining up to vote and some food and water accidentally falls off? Is that legal?

Yes. But if the voters take it they would be stealing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 27, 2021, 10:47:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2021, 08:19:59 PM
I got this terrible feeling that 10 years from now we are going to be saying "The Trump years were good compared to this!".
I wonder if Americans, in 1856, thought the future would be brighter?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 27, 2021, 10:52:14 AM
Probably not.  Southern states threatened to secede if Freemont won.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 06:29:55 AM
So, the Matt Gaetz implosion was highly amusing.  :nelson:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 31, 2021, 06:38:15 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 06:29:55 AM
So, the Matt Gaetz implosion was highly amusing.  :nelson:

What happened?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 06:40:51 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 31, 2021, 06:38:15 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 06:29:55 AM
So, the Matt Gaetz implosion was highly amusing.  :nelson:

What happened?
Apparently he's so depraved that AG Barr opened up a sex trafficking investigation against him, despite being one of the biggest Trump kiss ups in congress.

He gamely tried to tweet through it and went on Tucker Carlson and gave a worse interview than Ray Moore gave Sean Hannity.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 06:42:01 AM
For once Tucker's resting dumbfounded face look was completely appropriate

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1377065621398126594
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 31, 2021, 06:44:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 06:40:51 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 31, 2021, 06:38:15 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 06:29:55 AM
So, the Matt Gaetz implosion was highly amusing.  :nelson:

What happened?
Apparently he's so depraved that AG Barr opened up a sex trafficking investigation against him, despite being one of the biggest Trump kiss ups in congress.

He gamely tried to tweet through it and went on Tucker Carlson and gave a worse interview than Ray Moore gave Sean Hannity.

Oooh, is it about his "son"?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 07:00:34 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 31, 2021, 06:44:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 06:40:51 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 31, 2021, 06:38:15 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 06:29:55 AM
So, the Matt Gaetz implosion was highly amusing.  :nelson:

What happened?
Apparently he's so depraved that AG Barr opened up a sex trafficking investigation against him, despite being one of the biggest Trump kiss ups in congress.

He gamely tried to tweet through it and went on Tucker Carlson and gave a worse interview than Ray Moore gave Sean Hannity.

Oooh, is it about his "son"?

No, some as yet unknown 17 year old girl that he transported across state lines.

Also, he made some crazy claims about corrupt DOJ officials trying to extort him for $25 million and how he was wearing a wire for the Feds to try and bring them done.

EDIT: Age of consent in Florida is 18
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 31, 2021, 07:14:03 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 31, 2021, 06:44:46 AM
Oooh, is it about his "son"?
Although I wonder about that because the reporting I've seen is around offering "something of value" and he adopted his "son" when he was 12 and had dated his sister so I do wonder if there's something going on there that's related?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 31, 2021, 07:51:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2021, 06:42:01 AM
For once Tucker's resting dumbfounded face look was completely appropriate

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1377065621398126594 (https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1377065621398126594)

Who has beadier eyes, Tucker or Matt?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on March 31, 2021, 08:00:51 AM
One thing I recall the late Christopher Hitchens saying (though in that case, about British politics), that in scandals among the right (GOP/Gaetz in this case) always seem to be about sex...and among the left (just going to cherry-pick the Hunter Biden allegations here, without arguing the merits), about money...exposing the respective hypocrisies of both.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on March 31, 2021, 05:54:49 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 26, 2021, 09:41:41 AM
I think my brother and I (both in Georgia) are going to test the law in 2022 if it's not repealed or modified in some way. What a fucking crock of shit.

I know...many people who are planning to test that law in 2022.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Maximus on March 31, 2021, 06:44:15 PM
Quote from: ulmont on March 31, 2021, 05:54:49 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 26, 2021, 09:41:41 AM
I think my brother and I (both in Georgia) are going to test the law in 2022 if it's not repealed or modified in some way. What a fucking crock of shit.

I know...many people who are planning to test that law in 2022.
I also know many.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 31, 2021, 06:51:16 PM
You know many Georgians?  :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on March 31, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Fuck, I will travel to Georgia just to test that fucking law.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on April 01, 2021, 06:18:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Fuck, I will travel to Georgia just to test that fucking law.

OMG VOTER FRAUD
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 08:00:07 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 01, 2021, 06:18:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Fuck, I will travel to Georgia just to test that fucking law.

OMG VOTER FRAUD

The law in question is around giving people standing in line food and water. I won't travel to Georgia to actually vote. :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on April 01, 2021, 08:42:23 AM
You are a heteronormative white man, you are probably eligible.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on April 01, 2021, 09:11:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 08:00:07 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 01, 2021, 06:18:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Fuck, I will travel to Georgia just to test that fucking law.

OMG VOTER FRAUD

The law in question is around giving people standing in line food and water. I won't travel to Georgia to actually vote. :P
Not even once?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2021, 09:03:48 PM
Stick a fork in him

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/01/politics/matt-gaetz-campaign-funds-investigation/index.html

Quote...

Information that may connect Gaetz to a fake ID scheme at the center of the case against that second Florida politician, Joel Greenberg, was presented to federal investigators in a meeting early last year, according to two other people familiar with the matter.

In the meeting, which has not been previously reported, a witness provided evidence linking Gaetz to Greenberg, the former tax collector in Seminole County, Florida, who was arrested last year on charges that include sex trafficking of a minor and fabricating fake IDs.

Greenberg has pleaded not guilty and is set to go to trial later this year on the ID and sex trafficking charges, as well as charges that he stalked a former political rival.

News of the meeting offers details about the Justice Department's early awareness of the congressman's relationship with Greenberg.

According to one of the people familiar with the matter, an employee at the tax collector's office saw Greenberg and Gaetz on internal office surveillance video looking through driver licenses on a weekend evening.

In a text message exchange shared with CNN that the source said was between Greenberg and the employee, Greenberg confirmed he was in the office "showing congressman Gaetz what our operation looked like."


That witness shared the information with prosecutors from the local US attorney's office and US Secret Service agents investigating Greenberg's case in January 2020, the person familiar with the matter said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/us/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-department.html?referringSource=articleShare

QuoteWASHINGTON — A Justice Department investigation into Representative Matt Gaetz and an indicted Florida politician is focusing on their involvement with multiple women who were recruited online for sex and received cash payments, according to people close to the investigation and text messages and payment receipts reviewed by The New York Times.

Investigators believe Joel Greenberg, the former tax collector in Seminole County, Fla., who was indicted last year on a federal sex trafficking charge and other crimes, initially met the women through websites that connect people who go on dates in exchange for gifts, fine dining, travel and allowances, according to three people with knowledge of the encounters. Mr. Greenberg introduced the women to Mr. Gaetz, who also had sex with them, the people said.

One of the women who had sex with both men also agreed to have sex with an unidentified associate of theirs in Florida Republican politics, according to a person familiar with the arrangement. Mr. Greenberg had initially contacted her online and introduced her to Mr. Gaetz, the person said.

...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on April 02, 2021, 08:05:54 AM
 :hmm: I dunno Tim.  If the guy is a Trumpist, Trump's fans couldn't care less how morally repugnant someone is, as long as they repeat the same empty slogans and promises.  Case in point: Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on April 02, 2021, 09:02:06 AM
I wonder what the Qanon take on this is? :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on April 02, 2021, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 02, 2021, 09:02:06 AM
I wonder what the Qanon take on this is? :hmm:


Deep state plot.  The deep state is accusing the virtuous of the same crimes the deep state committed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2021, 10:00:47 AM
Raz is right - this will reinforce their worldview big time - it proves that child sex trafficking among the DC elite is real, and even worse, that the wicked Hillary Clinton and her FBI minions are framing innocent Trump backers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on April 02, 2021, 07:35:08 PM
Very much enjoying Boehner sparking up, opening a bottle of Shiraz and going off on one:
QuotePanic Rooms, Birth Certificates and the Birth of GOP Paranoia
How America's center-right party started to lose its mind, as told by the man who tried to keep it sane.
By JOHN BOEHNER
04/02/2021 05:36 AM EDT

John Boehner served as speaker of the United States House of Representatives for nearly five years (January 2011-October 2015), and represented the Eighth Congressional District of Ohio from 1991 to 2015. He now serves as senior strategic adviser for Squire Patton Boggs LLP. This essay is adapted from his book ON THE HOUSE, to be published by St. Martin's Press on April 13, 2021.

In the 2010 midterm election, voters from all over the place gave President Obama what he himself called "a shellacking." And oh boy, was it ever. You could be a total moron and get elected just by having an R next to your name—and that year, by the way, we did pick up a fair number in that category.

Retaking control of the House of Representatives put me in line to be the next Speaker of the House over the largest freshman Republican class in history: 87 newly elected members of the GOP. Since I was presiding over a large group of people who'd never sat in Congress, I felt I owed them a little tutorial on governing. I had to explain how to actually get things done. A lot of that went straight through the ears of most of them, especially the ones who didn't have brains that got in the way. Incrementalism? Compromise? That wasn't their thing. A lot of them wanted to blow up Washington. That's why they thought they were elected.

Some of them, well, you could tell they weren't paying attention because they were just thinking of how to fundraise off of outrage or how they could get on Hannity that night. Ronald Reagan used to say something to the effect that if I get 80 or 90 percent of what I want, that's a win. These guys wanted 100 percent every time. In fact, I don't think that would satisfy them, because they didn't really want legislative victories. They wanted wedge issues and conspiracies and crusades.

To them, my talk of trying to get anything done made me a sellout, a dupe of the Democrats, and a traitor. Some of them had me in their sights from day one. They saw me as much of an "enemy" as the guy in the White House. Me, a guy who had come to the top of the leadership by exposing corruption and pushing conservative ideas. Now I was a "liberal collaborator." So that took some getting used to. What I also had not anticipated was the extent to which this new crowd hated—and I mean hated—Barack Obama.


By 2011, the right-wing propaganda nuts had managed to turn Obama into a toxic brand for conservatives. When I was first elected to Congress, we didn't have any propaganda organization for conservatives, except maybe a magazine or two like National Review. The only people who used the internet were some geeks in Palo Alto. There was no Drudge Report. No Breitbart. No kooks on YouTube spreading dangerous nonsense like they did every day about Obama.

"He's a secret Muslim!"

"He hates America!"

"He's a communist!"

And of course the truly nutty business about his birth certificate. People really had been brainwashed into believing Barack Obama was some Manchurian candidate planning to betray America.

Mark Levin was the first to go on the radio and spout off this crazy nonsense. It got him ratings, so eventually he dragged Hannity and Rush to Looneyville along with him. My longtime friend Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, was not immune to this. He got swept into the conspiracies and the paranoia and became an almost unrecognizable figure.

I'd known Ailes for a long time, since his work with George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. He'd gone to college in Ohio, and since we had that connection, he sought me out at some event and introduced himself. Years later, in August of 1996, when I was in San Diego for the Republican National Convention, I ended up having dinner with Ailes and a veteran broadcasting executive named Rupert Murdoch. At that dinner they told me all about this new TV network they were starting. I had no idea I was listening to the outline of something that would make my life a living hell down the line. Sure enough, that October, Fox News hit the airwaves.

I kept in touch with Roger and starting in the early 2000s, I'd stop in and see him whenever I was in New York for fundraisers. We'd shoot the breeze and talk politics. We got to know each other pretty well.

Murdoch, on the other hand, was harder to know. Sometimes he'd invite me to watch the Super Bowl in the Fox box, or he'd stop by the office. Wherever he was, you could tell he was the man in charge. He was a businessman, pure and simple. He cared about ratings and the bottom line. He also wanted to make sure he was ahead of any political or policy developments coming down the line. He was always asking who was up, who was down, what bills could pass and what couldn't. If he entertained any of the kooky conspiracy theories that started to take over his network, he kept it a secret from me. But he clearly didn't have a problem with them if they helped ratings.

At some point after the 2008 election, something changed with my friend Roger Ailes. I once met him in New York during the Obama years to plead with him to put a leash on some of the crazies he was putting on the air. It was making my job trying to accomplish anything conservative that much harder. I didn't expect this meeting to change anything, but I still thought it was bullshit, and I wanted Roger to know it.

When I put it to him like that, he didn't have much to say. But he did go on and on about the terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, which he thought was part of a grand conspiracy that led back to Hillary Clinton. Then he outlined elaborate plots by which George Soros and the Clintons and Obama (and whoever else came to mind) were trying to destroy him.

"They're monitoring me," he assured me about the Obama White House. He told me he had a "safe room" built so he couldn't be spied on. His mansion was being protected by combat-ready security personnel, he said. There was a lot of conspiratorial talk. It was like he'd been reading whacked-out spy novels all weekend.

And it was clear that he believed all of this crazy stuff. I walked out of that meeting in a daze. I just didn't believe the entire federal government was so terrified of Roger Ailes that they'd break about a dozen laws to bring him down. I thought I could get him to control the crazies, and instead I found myself talking to the president of the club. One of us was crazy. Maybe it was me.

I have no idea what the relationship between Ailes and Murdoch was like, or if Ailes ever would go off on these paranoid tangents during meetings with his boss. But Murdoch must have thought Ailes was good for business, because he kept him in his job for years.


Places like Fox News were creating the wrong incentives. Sean Hannity was one of the worst. I'd known him for years, and we used to have a good relationship. But then he decided he felt like busting my ass every night on his show. So one day, in January of 2015, I finally called him and asked: "What the hell?" I wanted to know why he kept bashing House Republicans when we were actually trying to stand up to Obama.

"Well, you guys don't have a plan," he whined.

"Look," I told him, "our plan is pretty simple: we're just going to stand up for what we believe in as Republicans."

I guess that wasn't good enough for him. The conversation didn't progress very far. At some point I called him a nut. Anyway, it's safe to say our relationship never got any better.


Besides the homegrown "talent" at Fox, with their choice of guests they were making people who used to be fringe characters into powerful media stars. One of the first prototypes out of their laboratory was a woman named Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann, who had represented Minnesota's 6th Congressional District since 2007 and made a name for herself as a lunatic ever since, came to meet with me in the busy period in late 2010 after the election. She wanted a seat on the Ways and Means Committee, the most powerful committee in the House. There were many members in line ahead of her for a post like this. People who had waited patiently for their turn and who also, by the way, weren't wild-eyed crazies.

There was no way she was going to get on Ways and Means, the most prestigious committee in Congress, and jump ahead of everyone else in line. Not while I was Speaker. In earlier days, a member of Congress in her position wouldn't even have dared ask for something like this. Sam Rayburn would have laughed her out of the city.

So I told her no—diplomatically, of course. But as she kept on talking, it dawned on me. This wasn't a request of the Speaker of the House. This was a demand.

Her response to me was calm and matter-of-fact. "Well, then I'll just have to go talk to Sean Hannity and everybody at Fox," she said, "and Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and everybody else on the radio, and tell them that this is how John Boehner is treating the people who made it possible for the Republicans to take back the House."

I wasn't the one with the power, she was saying. I just thought I was. She had the power now.


She was right, of course.

She was a conservative media darling and, by then, the conservative media was already eyeing me skeptically. She had me where it hurt. Even if I wanted to help her, and I sure as hell didn't, it wasn't a decision I had the power to make on my own. That power belongs to a little-known but very important group called the Steering Committee.

I knew there was no way the Steering Committee would approve putting Bachmann on Ways and Means. The votes just weren't there. If I even pushed the issue, they wouldn't have let me leave the meeting without fastening me into a straitjacket. But then, Bachmann wouldn't go on TV and the radio to explain the nuances of House Steering Committee procedure. She'd just rip my head off every night, over and over again. That was a headache I frankly didn't want or need.

I suggested the House Intelligence committee to Bachmann as an alternative, and mercifully, she liked it. It would be a good perch for anyone wanting to build up their foreign policy chops for a run for president, which she was already considering— Lord help us all. None too pleased was the man preparing to take up the gavel as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers from Michigan, an army veteran who had also served in the FBI. So I took my lumps from Rogers, and Bachmann took her seat on the committee.

The funny thing is, Michele Bachmann turned out to be a very focused, hardworking member—even though she spent a few months later in 2011 on a short-lived campaign for president. She showed up to the committee, did her homework, and ended up winning over her fellow members with her dedication. Mike Rogers was impressed—and I have to admit, so was I. The whole situation ended up working out well for everyone. As one of those old Boehnerisms goes, "Get the right people on the bus, and help them find the right seat."

In January 2011, as the new Republican House majority was settling in and I was getting adjusted to the Speakership, I was asked about the birth certificate business by Brian Williams of NBC News. My answer was simple: "The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That's good enough for me." It was a simple statement of fact. But you would have thought I'd called Ronald Reagan a communist. I got all kinds of shit for it—emails, letters, phone calls. It went on for a couple weeks. I knew we would hear from some of the crazies, but I was surprised at just how many there really were.

All of this crap swirling around was going to make it tough for me to cut any deals with Obama as the new House Speaker. Of course, it has to be said that Obama didn't help himself much either. He could come off as lecturing and haughty. He still wasn't making Republican outreach a priority. But on the other hand—how do you find common cause with people who think you are a secret Kenyan Muslim traitor to America?


Under the new rules of Crazytown, I may have been Speaker, but I didn't hold all the power. By 2013 the chaos caucus in the House had built up their own power base thanks to fawning right-wing media and outrage-driven fundraising cash. And now they had a new head lunatic leading the way, who wasn't even a House member. There is nothing more dangerous than a reckless asshole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Senator Ted Cruz. He enlisted the crazy caucus of the GOP in what was a truly dumbass idea. Not that anybody asked me.

And:
QuoteJonathan Swan
@jonathanvswan
When @SpeakerBoehner was recording his audiobook I was told by sources that during these wine-soaked sessions he would deviate from the book's text and insert random violent attacks on @tedcruz. Well, here's some tape (listen to the end):
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1378005545718800388
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2021, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2021, 10:00:47 AM
Raz is right - this will reinforce their worldview big time - it proves that child sex trafficking among the DC elite is real, and even worse, that the wicked Hillary Clinton and her FBI minions are framing innocent Trump backers.
Not going to help him as he rots in jail
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on April 03, 2021, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2021, 07:35:08 PM
Very much enjoying Boehner sparking up, opening a bottle of Shiraz and going off on one:


Wow, what a hero.

Sure would have been nice if he had said any of this at the time.

Fuck him. He sold out his country. He can rot in hell with all the rest of them.

I am sure when Moscow Mitch retires, he will write some fucking book talking about how appalled, why JUST APPALLED! he was at all those crazies and that douchebag Trump!

They can all rot.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on April 03, 2021, 09:39:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2021, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2021, 07:35:08 PM
Very much enjoying Boehner sparking up, opening a bottle of Shiraz and going off on one:


Wow, what a hero.

Sure would have been nice if he had said any of this at the time.

Fuck him. He sold out his country. He can rot in hell with all the rest of them.

I am sure when Moscow Mitch retires, he will write some fucking book talking about how appalled, why JUST APPALLED! he was at all those crazies and that douchebag Trump!

They can all rot.

:huh:
It's not like this was hidden. We knew Boehner couldn't keep his caucus in order.  We all knew what was happening at the time.  This isn't new information.  Keep in mind that the Republican rank-and-file wanted this.  Derspeiss stated that he wanted congress to obstruct Obama as much as possible and he delighted in the political theater of it.  Hansmeister was saying that Republicans need to keep their base motivated and never, ever compromise. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 06, 2021, 09:19:44 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/546591-republican-battle-with-mlb-intensifies

QuoteRepublican battle with MLB intensifies

Republicans are spoiling for a high-profile fight with MLB as they ramp up pressure on the league's commissioner to reverse a decision to pull the All-Star Game from Atlanta over Georgia's new voting law.

GOP lawmakers are publicly scrutinizing Commissioner Rob Manfred's membership at Georgia's exclusive Augusta National Golf Club and threatening to take away MLB's long-held antitrust exemption.

The fight is quickly spreading to other states as well, with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) saying he won't throw out the first pitch at the Texas Rangers' home opener after MLB adopted "what has turned out to be a false narrative about Georgia's election law reforms."

"It is shameful that America's pastime is being influenced by partisan politics," Abbott tweeted.

Conservative writer and radio talk show host Erick Erickson, who is based in Atlanta, called on other Republican governors to follow Abbott's lead.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took a shot at soaring ticket prices at expensive ballparks like Yankee Stadium, where the average ticket price last year was $145, according to Statista.com.

"If needing to show an ID to vote is racist, perhaps NY Yankees tickets that average over $100 are discriminatory? Will 'woke' @MLB mandate free tickets to allow equal access?" Paul tweeted.

A couple hours later, Paul suggested a Republican-wide boycott of professional baseball.

"If @mlb is boycotting states that pass Republican election integrity laws, maybe Republicans should boycott Major League Baseball?" he tweeted.

The suggestion came after former President Trump on Friday urged his supporters to "boycott baseball and all of the woke companies that are interfering with Free and Fair Elections."

GOP strategists are confident that the MLB fight is a winning issue for Republicans.

"It's good politics," said Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist.

"This is not the last time the Democrats are going to try to do this, bully corporate America into taking their side," he said, urging Republicans to run TV ads in Georgia pushing back on claims of voter suppression and highlighting the economic impact on the state.

Republicans argue that Democrats and the media have dramatically overstated the provisions in Georgia's new election law, especially when comparing it to rules in states like New York.

The decision to relocate the 2021 MLB All-Star Game is estimated to have a $100 million impact on the state economy, something that Republicans argue will hit many small and medium Black-owned businesses in the Atlanta area.

Chip Saltsman, a Republican strategist based in Tennessee, said "this is an unforced error by Major League Baseball."

"They've forgotten who their base is, they've forgotten who buys a lot of tickets and, quite frankly, they spoke before I think they knew the details, the commissioner did," he said.

"Six months ago, Georgia was a little bluer than usual and this tints it back to red," he added, referring to the teetering status from a Republican-leaning state to one that voted for President Biden in November and then two Democratic Senate candidates in January.

Some of the Republicans who are pouncing on the MLB issue most aggressively are lawmakers with an eye on running for president in 2024.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a potential White House contender, published a letter to Manfred on Monday asking if he would resign his membership at August National, host of the annual Masters tournament, which did not allow a Black player to compete until 1975 and did not admit a Black member until 1990.

"I write to ask you whether you intend to maintain your membership at Augusta National Golf Club. As you are well aware, the exclusive members-only club is located in the State of Georgia," Rubio wrote.

The Florida senator also asked whether MLB would suspend commercial ties with China and Cuba because of those countries' records on human rights.

"Taking the All-Star game out of Georgia is an easy way to signal virtues without significant financial fallout. But speaking out against the Chinese Communist Party would involve a significant loss of revenue and being closed out of a lucrative market," Rubio wrote.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another potential White House contender in 2024, said he will join an effort to review professional baseball's long-held antitrust exemption.

"It's a curious business decision, for MLB to announce that they hate most of their fans. Let's see how that works out for them," he tweeted on Friday.

Cruz circulated a list of official MLB sponsors and asked, "Do all or them oppose voter ID? Are all of them willing to be the woke enforcers of the corrupt Democratic Party?"

Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist based in Kentucky, said the decision to pull the All-Star Game out of Atlanta has become "a cultural flashpoint" that unifies Republicans who are otherwise often divided on policies like trade and immigration.

"Republicans see this as another one of these cultural flashpoints, a 'whose side are you on?' moment," he said. "The Republicans largely defined themselves the last few years not really around policy but mostly on jumping on these moments. From that perspective, it makes a lot of sense."


Trump famously picked a fight with ex-NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick and other professional football players who knelt during the national anthem at the start of games to protest police brutality.

Then-Vice President Mike Pence even walked out of a game between the Indianapolis Colts and the San Francisco 49ers when several players took a knee.

In the current fight with MLB, Republicans are the "righteous on this one," Jennings said.

"The decision that was made by baseball was based on a complete lie," he asserted. "The disinformation around the Georgia law is causing these corporations to make terrible decisions."

Republicans have frequently pointed to an analysis in The Washington Post that said a section of the new law that created an additional mandatory day of early voting on Saturday and codified two days of early voting on Sunday actually "expanded early voting for many Georgians."

The Post also gave Biden "four Pinocchios" for claiming the new Georgia law would end voting hours early so that working people can't cast their votes after their shifts are over.

An analysis by The New York Times, however, identified 16 provisions in the law that it said would "limit ballot access, potentially confuse voters and give more power to Republican lawmakers."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) weighed in more generally on Monday by warning corporate America not to get involved in high-profile political fights.

"I found it completely discouraging to find a bunch of corporate CEOs getting in the middle of politics," he said. "My advice to the corporate CEOs of America is to stay out of politics. Don't pick sides in these big fights."
:lol:

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on April 06, 2021, 01:40:16 PM
I like the irony of Mitch's statement :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 01, 2021, 11:09:57 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/30/there-is-not-systemic-racism-says-governor-who-named-april-confederate-heritage-month/

Quote'There is not systemic racism' says a governor who named April as Confederate Heritage Month

Fox News host Laura Ingraham welcomed five Republican governors on Thursday night for a conversation broadly about politics in the United States but often specifically about the broader cultural fights that have gripped the political right.

The discussion occurred the day after President Biden's first address to Congress, during which he outlined a broad agenda focused on demonstrating the value of government. Ingraham picked out three clips of Biden's speech for her guests to consider — two of which focused on a brief section of the address that dealt with systemic racism.

In one clip, Biden says that "we have to come together to rebuild trust between law enforcement and the people they serve to root out systemic racism in our criminal justice system, and police reform in George Floyd's name" — referring to the man killed by a police officer in Minneapolis last year.

Ingraham asked Gov. Tate Reeves (R-Miss.) to respond.

"Governor Reeves, activists say it is criminal to say there is not systemic racism in the country," she said. "That video of George Floyd, other law enforcement involved shootings of African American men, the video plays and unrest often erupts. Your reaction to what he claimed about the systemic racism."

"There is not systemic racism in America," Reeves replied. "We live in the greatest country in the history of mankind. And I'll just tell you in Mississippi, I was very proud of the fact that last year we had, we had peaceful protesters, but we did not have one event in which there was a riot. And the reason for that is because in our state, we back the blue, we support the police."

Notice how this works. Ingraham plays Biden's clip — and then reframes the question as being about something that "activists" purportedly say (though such assertions are certainly rare).

She presents the widely-seen video of Floyd's death as problematic not because of what it depicts but because of the effects of what's shown. Then she asks Reeves to weigh in.

He gives the correct response, in the sense that a Republican speaking to Laura Ingraham on Fox News is expected to give a particular response: There is no systemic racism in America.

Reeves has had a pretty good week. In addition to his Fox News appearance, he got Monday off since it was a state holiday: Confederate Memorial Day. In fact, he was speaking to Fox at the tail end of what he on April 7 declared to be Confederate Heritage Month. April, according to the proclamation obtained by the Mississippi Free Press, should be a period in which Mississippians "honor all who lost their lives in this war" and to "come to a full understanding that the lessons learned yesterday and today will carry us through tomorrow if we carefully and earnestly strive to understand and appreciate our heritage."

There will be people who argue that this holiday isn't a reflection of systemic racism because of the various ways in which it can be cast otherwise. It's an effort to learn from the past, they might say, not an endorsement of it. One might claim that there's nothing inherently racist about celebrations of the Confederacy (which this obviously is), perhaps because they view the Civil War as being centered not on slavery but on, say, states' rights. Or perhaps they'd argue that this day isn't ingrained in the system, it's just a one-off event.

That particular argument is undercut fairly robustly by the fact that Mississippi state law mandates the holiday, one of three Confederacy-related state holidays on the calendar. It is clear that the system in Mississippi encourages a generous view of the Confederacy, a rebellion against the United States that was predicated on the enslavement of Black people.

The vagueness about what constitutes systemic racism provides an opportunity for it to be framed as one sees fit. Republicans often like to conflate the idea with assertions that America itself is racist, which is like saying that Verizon was a blogging company when it owned HuffPost. There certainly are people who claim that America is itself racist, but that group doesn't include Biden.

In an interview with NBC News's Craig Melvin that aired Friday morning, Biden was asked about the comment that stirred up this conversation about America being a racist country — a comment from Sen. Tim Scott's (R-S.C.) response to Biden's speech.

Scott "said, among other things, America isn't racist," Melvin said to the president. "Is it?"

"No, I don't think the American people are racist," Biden replied, reinforcing the theme from his speech that America and its people are equivalent. "But I think after 400 years, African Americans have been left in a position where they are so far behind the eight-ball in terms of education, health, in terms of opportunity."

"I don't think America is racist," he continued, "but I think the overhang from all of the Jim Crow and before that slavery have had had a cost, and we have to deal with it."

This is a common presentation of the perceived problem: an extended period of time in which Blacks were overtly disadvantaged systemically both meant that there are retained deficiencies — like a lack of accrued family wealth that can accompany homeownership — and lingering, more deeply buried examples. That Black people are disproportionately killed by police is one that's at the center of the political conversation at the moment, and one that spurs a lot of discussion about what does and doesn't count under the loosely and subjectively bounded constraints of "systemic racism." But there are other examples where Black people experience systems differently: non-White students being disproportionately suspended from school, Black people still facing discrimination in housing, higher mortality rates for Black babies that declines when their doctors are also Black.

Some of the existing discrepancies may be functions of the overhang to which Biden referred. Some may be propagation of passive discrimination. Some may be circumstantial. But because there's a political incentive to downplay the existence of racism — as we explained on Thursday, White Republicans see discrimination against Whites as equal to discrimination against Blacks — there's also a motivation to cast a wide array of racial disparities as a priori being unrelated to race.

So we get exchanges like this, between Ingraham and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.).

"You watched Joe Biden last night deliver his first address to a joint session of Congress," Ingraham said. "He repeated twice this proposition that we are a systemically racist country."

He didn't, of course. He said that there was systemic racism in the criminal justice system and that it "plagues American life in many other ways." But such subtleties are not Ingraham's forte. So she asked DeSantis to opine on what she said Biden said — that "we are a systemically racist country."

"Well, it's a bunch of ... horse manure," he said. "I mean, give me a break. This country has had more opportunity for more people than any country in the history of the world."

The audience applauded.

"And it doesn't matter where you trace your ancestry from," he continued. "We've had people that have been able to succeed."

This idea that there are no systemic disadvantages for groups because individual members of those groups have overcome disadvantages is a bunch of ... well, you know. But this is the political argument popular on the right: the Democrats say that America is racist; we say that anyone can succeed if they work hard! It's an obviously appealing argument particularly for people who want to believe that their own success is a function of their own innate abilities and not of advantages they might have enjoyed.

It's not a useful way to approach a complicated, nuanced issue, however. Were there a real interest in tackling that issue, this superficial rhetoric might pose a disadvantage.


Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on May 02, 2021, 10:41:50 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/02/mitt-romney-booed-and-called-traitor-at-utah-republican-convention
QuoteMitt Romney was loudly booed at the Utah Republican party convention on Saturday – and called a "traitor" and a "communist" as he tried to speak.
:lol: I cannot think of anybody less "communist" than an arch-conservative Mormon venture capitalist. I guess it shows how much the GOP is now a Trump personality cult. Let's see if they can somehow rid themselves of that...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2021, 10:53:11 PM
Private equity, not venture capital. :nerd:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2021, 12:21:58 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ez54IoxWYAYQocO.jpg:small)

:P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on May 03, 2021, 03:19:28 AM
Ventrue capital sucks.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 03, 2021, 08:39:27 AM
Problem with that sketch, even angry and carrying torches, elephants are kinda cute.  :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2021, 09:07:22 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2021, 03:19:28 AM
Ventrue capital sucks.

Damn right it does
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 03, 2021, 10:02:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2021, 03:19:28 AM
Ventrue capital sucks.

I suppose you prefer more Salubrious alternatives?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 03, 2021, 10:09:58 AM
Politics isn't fun anymore. :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2021, 10:15:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 03, 2021, 10:09:58 AM
Politics isn't fun anymore. :(

Anymore? When was it fun?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 03, 2021, 10:18:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2021, 10:15:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 03, 2021, 10:09:58 AM
Politics isn't fun anymore. :(

Anymore? When was it fun?

Well, when I got to wear those straw boaters.  I was born in a democracy, and I now wonder If I'll die in one.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on May 03, 2021, 10:24:04 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2021, 10:02:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2021, 03:19:28 AM
Ventrue capital sucks.

I suppose you prefer more Salubrious alternatives?

The whole thing sends Tremeres up my spine. You guys enjoy your Brujah-ha.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 03, 2021, 10:32:39 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 03, 2021, 10:24:04 AM
The whole thing sends Tremeres up my spine. You guys enjoy your Brujah-ha.

What a ghoulish Ham-fisted comment.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 12:17:45 PM
Stop this masquerade.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 03, 2021, 09:20:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2021, 10:15:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 03, 2021, 10:09:58 AM
Politics isn't fun anymore. :(

Anymore? When was it fun?

First few seasons of House of Cards.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on May 08, 2021, 03:23:48 AM
So I guess GOP is permanently lost now? Anyone who stands up to Trump is being purged.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on May 08, 2021, 03:33:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 08, 2021, 03:23:48 AM
So I guess GOP is permanently lost now? Anyone who stands up to Trump is being purged.

On the bright side he's not a young man.
Just have to hope there's a succession war between his kids.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 08, 2021, 03:45:35 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y9L2QqR7/lgstc.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 12, 2021, 10:41:41 AM
So Lynn Cheney gets kicked from GOP leadership for not supporting the stolen election lie.

Meanwhile there seems to be deafening silence regarding Matt Gaetz in the party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 10:57:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2021, 10:41:41 AM
So Lynn Cheney gets kicked from GOP leadership for not supporting the stolen election lie.

It's obviously bullshit of course, but i cannot manage to muster any sympathy for her.

She chose to support Trump and the radicalization of the GOP even before Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 12, 2021, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 10:57:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2021, 10:41:41 AM
So Lynn Cheney gets kicked from GOP leadership for not supporting the stolen election lie.

It's obviously bullshit of course, but i cannot manage to muster any sympathy for her.

She chose to support Trump and the radicalization of the GOP even before Trump.

Oh, I agree. It's still interesting to see where the party's priorities lie.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 11:10:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 10:57:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2021, 10:41:41 AM
So Lynn Cheney gets kicked from GOP leadership for not supporting the stolen election lie.

It's obviously bullshit of course, but i cannot manage to muster any sympathy for her.

She chose to support Trump and the radicalization of the GOP even before Trump.

I don't think she's looking for sympathy, but honestly how can you not look at Liz Cheney and admire her just a bit?

She's doing that rarest of things in politics - taking a principled stand.  She could very easily just shut up and go along with the Big Lie.  But she won't, and it's costing her politically.  All because it's the right thing to do.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 11:14:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 11:10:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 10:57:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2021, 10:41:41 AM
So Lynn Cheney gets kicked from GOP leadership for not supporting the stolen election lie.

It's obviously bullshit of course, but i cannot manage to muster any sympathy for her.

She chose to support Trump and the radicalization of the GOP even before Trump.

I don't think she's looking for sympathy, but honestly how can you not look at Liz Cheney and admire her just a bit?

She's doing that rarest of things in politics - taking a principled stand.  She could very easily just shut up and go along with the Big Lie.  But she won't, and it's costing her politically.  All because it's the right thing to do.

Where were those principles four years ago? Five years ago?

The GOP has become so poisoned that someone EVENTUALLY taking a principled stand on something as basic as respect for democracy is seen as some kind of incredibly brave and principled move?

If everyone takes a shit on the floor, one person declining is not really anything to find all that amazing. What is amazing is that everyone else went along with it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 12, 2021, 11:35:22 AM
I'm a believer in being pragmatic.  If everyone except one person is shitting on the floor, and that one other person is merely pissing on it, then I'll back the pissing person for a while.  If I want to reduce the number of shitting people, then I'll have to ally myself with the pisser rather than complain impotently about the universal lack of control over bodily functions. 

You need to have different levels of response for different levels of behavior, if you want your response to have any chance of influencing the behavior.  That is true even if the best observed behavior is still pretty unacceptable in the absolute sense.  Giving every student an F doesn't make you tough, it makes you irrelevant.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 12, 2021, 11:39:26 AM
So I was wondering what's going on with Gaetz in the meantime. Looks like he's holding rallies with Marjorie Taylor Greene in Florida: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/07/reps-greene-gaetz-push-trumps-grievances-america-first-message-florida-rally/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 11:43:20 AM
Berkut, don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

Yes, I'd like al GOP politicians to take a stand against the Big Lie.  But instead they've all gone silent on the topic, or are furiously promoting it.  Cheney is the only one vocally reminding people that the former guy lost fair and square.

And at real personal cost.  She's lost her leadership position and is almost certain to be facing a vigorous primary challenge next year.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 12, 2021, 11:50:17 AM
Yeah, I'm willing to give Liz Cheney some respect for that. She is orders of magnitude better than someone like Lindsey Graham, for example.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on May 12, 2021, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2021, 11:50:17 AM
Yeah, I'm willing to give Liz Cheney some respect for that. She is orders of magnitude better than someone like Lindsey Graham, for example.
Yeah - and ultimately she is defending the legitimacy of the last election which is pretty important and stands in contrast to most of the rest of her party.

Now that might be a bare minimum, but it's one of the rest of her party failed to meet.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on May 12, 2021, 12:04:11 PM
I won't argue for her death penalty at Nuremberg, but she gets no respect from me.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on May 12, 2021, 12:32:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2021, 11:50:17 AM
Yeah, I'm willing to give Liz Cheney some respect for that. She is orders of magnitude better than someone like Lindsey Graham, for example.

Interesting choice because Lindsey Graham also voted to certify the election results.

Which is a telling example. It is probably an oversimplification to portray Liz Cheney as making a tough but principled vote and that cost her a leadership position. There is also an element of Cheney representing the old GOP, quite literally of Bush/Cheney, and the vote being one indication of that but not the only one.

Graham made the same vote in the Senate, but has leaned hard into the new direction of the party. The blowback he gets is from his pre November 2016 resistance to Trump and promotion of immigration reform, not from voting to certify the election.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 12:38:03 PM
Graham is the case that shows you what this is all about.

Lindsey Graham has broken from Trump from time to time.  He's on record saying mean things about Trump.  He voted to certify the election.  But now, right now, he sucks up to Trump.  And that's all Trump really wants.

Liz Cheney has a long history of backing Trump.  She's voted with Trump repeatedly.  But now, right now, she won't lie to defend Trump's baseless claims.  Which apparently means she has to go.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2021, 01:43:25 PM
Yeah BB has it.  This isn't about "new directions" of the party.  Stefanik is a RINO in a MAGA hat.

The only direction at issue is how far up Trump's ass you are willing to go before you gag.  Cheney won't go there but Graham and Stenfanik are willing to go all the way.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 02:17:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 11:43:20 AM
Berkut, don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

Yes, I'd like al GOP politicians to take a stand against the Big Lie.  But instead they've all gone silent on the topic, or are furiously promoting it.  Cheney is the only one vocally reminding people that the former guy lost fair and square.

And at real personal cost.  She's lost her leadership position and is almost certain to be facing a vigorous primary challenge next year.

I'm not. Obviously it is better that she takes a late stand on principle then never taking a stand at all.

But I contrast her with say McCain or even Romney, who have taken that stand long ago.

Cheney had a DIRECT hand in creating the very monster that is now chewing her up and bafing her out.

I am simply noting that I have zero sympathy with her personally. She is the victim of something she was more than happy to exploit in the crassest and most bigoted manner herself when it suited her.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 12, 2021, 02:38:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 11:14:58 AM
Where were those principles four years ago? Five years ago?

The GOP has become so poisoned that someone EVENTUALLY taking a principled stand on something as basic as respect for democracy is seen as some kind of incredibly brave and principled move?

If everyone takes a shit on the floor, one person declining is not really anything to find all that amazing. What is amazing is that everyone else went along with it.
I don't know... should we shit on Von Stauffenberg because of fought for the Nazis during so long before staging a coup?  should we admire him for staging a coup in 1944?

Honestly, to this day, I'm still convinced he did it because Germany was losing the war by then, with moral considerations coming third after the preservation of his class' priviledges.  However, he did try something while so many others did not.
I see Cheney, and other Republicans like her in the same light.  They all supported Trump in the beginning, then they took a stand when they had nothing more to lose.  I think Cheney sees that Trump will hurt the GOP's chances in the long run, and that's why she's acting that way.  But maybe I totally misjudge her.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 02:53:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 12, 2021, 02:38:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 11:14:58 AM
Where were those principles four years ago? Five years ago?

The GOP has become so poisoned that someone EVENTUALLY taking a principled stand on something as basic as respect for democracy is seen as some kind of incredibly brave and principled move?

If everyone takes a shit on the floor, one person declining is not really anything to find all that amazing. What is amazing is that everyone else went along with it.
I don't know... should we shit on Von Stauffenberg because of fought for the Nazis during so long before staging a coup?  should we admire him for staging a coup in 1944?

Honestly, to this day, I'm still convinced he did it because Germany was losing the war by then, with moral considerations coming third after the preservation of his class' priviledges.  However, he did try something while so many others did not.
I see Cheney, and other Republicans like her in the same light.  They all supported Trump in the beginning, then they took a stand when they had nothing more to lose.  I think Cheney sees that Trump will hurt the GOP's chances in the long run, and that's why she's acting that way.  But maybe I totally misjudge her.


Let me check....yep, definitely lacking any sympathy for von Stauffenberg as well.

Actually... that is a bit different. IIRC, he was actually involved in plots to get rid of Hitler pretty much the entire time, right? It was just 1944 before one of them actually came off. Didn't they try to blow up his plane in 1941?

Anyway, I don't think Stauffenberg had any significant role in creating the Nazi state, even if he did profit from it.

Cheney definitely had a significant role in creating the modern GOP. She was not some lackey junior officer watching it all unfold in horror who eventually risked their life to try to stop it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 12, 2021, 03:20:43 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1Nim4PUcAIFYkz?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on May 12, 2021, 03:24:29 PM
Cancel culture? In the GOP? No WAI!!!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on May 12, 2021, 03:29:53 PM
That dude is almost like the living personification of Bob Roberts.

(in other words, a complete scummy worm)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 12, 2021, 03:38:28 PM
And throw in one of the most pretentious names in politics.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 12, 2021, 04:19:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 02:53:57 PM
Actually... that is a bit different. IIRC, he was actually involved in plots to get rid of Hitler pretty much the entire time, right? It was just 1944 before one of them actually came off. Didn't they try to blow up his plane in 1941?
He maintained contact with people who were plotting against Hitler but always refused to be part of any plot until 1943-44, after he was injured and started recovering, and he took a much more active role after June '44.

he wasn't directly involved with the Nazis (unlike, say, Himmler), but he supported Hitler, he was glad he took power and he favored German colonization of Poland.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 12, 2021, 02:38:39 PM
I don't know... should we shit on Von Stauffenberg because of fought for the Nazis during so long before staging a coup?  should we admire him for staging a coup in 1944?

Honestly, to this day, I'm still convinced he did it because Germany was losing the war by then, with moral considerations coming third after the preservation of his class' priviledges.  However, he did try something while so many others did not.

I dunno... should we shit on Hitler because he killed six million Jews before deciding to try to kill Hitler?  Should we admire him for killing Hitler in 1945?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 04:44:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 12, 2021, 02:38:39 PM
I don't know... should we shit on Von Stauffenberg because of fought for the Nazis during so long before staging a coup?  should we admire him for staging a coup in 1944?

Honestly, to this day, I'm still convinced he did it because Germany was losing the war by then, with moral considerations coming third after the preservation of his class' priviledges.  However, he did try something while so many others did not.

I dunno... should we shit on Hitler because he killed six million Jews before deciding to try to kill Hitler?  Should we admire him for killing Hitler in 1945?

If Hitler had killed himself out of remorse for killing all those Jews it would have made for a fascinating character study, and probably would have had just a tiny bit of sympathy for the man.

But instead he killed himself because he didn't want to get captured by the allies or russians.  So fuck that guy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on May 12, 2021, 04:49:54 PM
The July 20 guys had no problem with Hitler waging aggressive war of ethnic annihiliation. Their only problem with Hitler was that he was losing that war. That being said there are still some differences between present day US and Nazi Germany.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on May 12, 2021, 04:54:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 12:38:03 PM
Graham is the case that shows you what this is all about.

Lindsey Graham has broken from Trump from time to time.  He's on record saying mean things about Trump.  He voted to certify the election.  But now, right now, he sucks up to Trump.  And that's all Trump really wants.

Liz Cheney has a long history of backing Trump.  She's voted with Trump repeatedly.  But now, right now, she won't lie to defend Trump's baseless claims.  Which apparently means she has to go.

Nah.

Liz Cheney was going to survive her vote on Trump/the election results. Go check out her twitter feed: the two most common topics are foreign policy related stuff on which she has a Bush/Cheney orientation regarding, and January 6 / election fraud related stuff. She explicitly called out 12 republicans that voted against honoring capital police for 1/6.

While that may be principled, it is also political seppuku. She is elected by the GOP caucus. She isn't going to keep a leadership position if she is constantly bringing up a previous vote where she went against most of the caucus, and is publicly criticizing her own members.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on May 12, 2021, 05:54:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 12, 2021, 04:49:54 PM
The July 20 guys had no problem with Hitler waging aggressive war of ethnic annihiliation. Their only problem with Hitler was that he was losing that war. That being said there are still some differences between present day US and Nazi Germany.

This is not true of all the July 20 plotters and does a huge disservice to those that were committed to toppling Hitler far before the war was lost.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 06:50:34 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 12, 2021, 04:19:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 02:53:57 PM
Actually... that is a bit different. IIRC, he was actually involved in plots to get rid of Hitler pretty much the entire time, right? It was just 1944 before one of them actually came off. Didn't they try to blow up his plane in 1941?
He maintained contact with people who were plotting against Hitler but always refused to be part of any plot until 1943-44, after he was injured and started recovering, and he took a much more active role after June '44.

he wasn't directly involved with the Nazis (unlike, say, Himmler), but he supported Hitler, he was glad he took power and he favored German colonization of Poland.

OK, then I am quite content not feeling much, if any, sympathy for Stauffenberg either.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on May 12, 2021, 07:23:47 PM
Leopards hate her face. No sympathy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 09:27:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2021, 06:50:34 PM
OK, then I am quite content not feeling much, if any, sympathy for Stauffenberg either.

Though he had dabbled in post-Hitler planning, Stauffenberg didn't decisively turn against Hitler until he personally witnessed the treatment of Russian Jews as part of Operation Barbarossa.  By the summer of 1942 he was recruiting fellow officers into an anti-Nazi movement.  So, maybe worthy of some sympathy, maybe not.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2021, 10:01:46 PM
Snobby Kraut aristocrat gets portrayed on film by Tom Cruise.  Surely that is worthy of some sympathy, you heartless bastards.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on May 13, 2021, 01:47:58 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 12, 2021, 05:54:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 12, 2021, 04:49:54 PM
The July 20 guys had no problem with Hitler waging aggressive war of ethnic annihiliation. Their only problem with Hitler was that he was losing that war. That being said there are still some differences between present day US and Nazi Germany.

This is not true of all the July 20 plotters and does a huge disservice to those that were committed to toppling Hitler far before the war was lost.

There were many attempts to kill Hitler before the war was lost. July 20 was not one of them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 13, 2021, 02:37:54 AM
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-loyal-trump-claims-capitol-riot-looked-more-normal-tourist-n1267163

QuoteRepublican loyal to Trump claims Capitol riot looked more like 'normal tourist visit'

The comments by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., during a House Oversight Committee marked the latest attempt by some Republicans to revise the narrative around the deadly Capitol riot.

Multiple Republican members of Congress on Wednesday offered a false retelling of the devastating events that occurred during the Capitol riot, with one calling the entire event a "bold faced lie" that more closely resembled a "normal tourist visit" than a deadly attack.

During a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Jan. 6 riot, Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., said the House floor was not breached and that the supporters of former President Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol behaved "in an orderly fashion."

The comments by Clyde and others on Wednesday marked the latest attempt by some Republicans to revise the narrative of what occurred and came just hours after House GOP members voted to strip Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., of her leadership position after she repeatedly criticized Trump over his lies that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

"As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol, and on the House floor, who with other Republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3 p.m. from the mob who tried to enter, I can tell you the House floor was never breached and it was not an insurrection. This is the truth," Clyde claimed.

While pro-Trump rioters came close to breaching the House floor they never did so. But they did make it onto the Senate floor.

"There was an undisciplined mob. There were some rioters, and some who committed acts of vandalism. But let me be clear, there was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection in my opinion, is a bold faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol, and walk through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures, you know," he continued.

"If you didn't know that TV footage was a video from January the sixth, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit," Clyde said.

Clyde's account gravely contradicts the events of the day, which were captured on television and on smartphone videos from inside the Capitol.

More than 440 people have been charged so far with participating in the attack. Many have ties to right-wing extremist groups, the FBI has said. Five people died in events related to the attack.

Prosecutors have said some of the hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were prepared for battle, wearing helmets and tactical gear. Several were seen on video or in photos carrying baseball bats and other weapons. The riot left the halls of Congress with broken windows, vandalized walls and ransacked offices.

Meanwhile, other Republicans during the hearing Wednesday falsely painted the riot as an event that saw Trump supporters needlessly harassed by law enforcement authorities.

"It was Trump supporters who lost their lives that day, not Trump supporters who were taking the lives of others," Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., said.

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., claimed that law enforcement officials were "harassing peaceful patriots."

Democrats frequently hit back against those false claims.

"I find it hard to believe the revisionist history that's being offered by my colleagues on the other side," said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass.

At another point during the hearing, former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller clashed with Democrats on the committee, who accused him of being "AWOL" during the riots.

"You were AWOL, Mr. Secretary," Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said, prompting Miller to reply, "That's completely inaccurate."

Miller backtracked from comments he'd made earlier in the year — and that he'd included in the prepared text of his opening statement — concluding that Trump's remarks on Jan. 6 had encouraged the protesters to storm the Capitol.

In his prepared opening statement, Miller wrote "I personally believe his comments encouraged the protestors that day." Miller, however, ended up omitting that line when he spoke.

When Lynch asked Miller about the omission, Millersaid he'd "reassessed" his earlier conclusion that Trump had encouraged the protesters.

"I think now I would say that is not the unitary factor at all," he added. "It seems clear there was an organized assault element in place that was going to assault regardless of what the president said."

Lynch accused Miller of changing his story, prompting Miller to say, "That's ridiculous."

"You're ridiculous," Lynch replied.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on May 13, 2021, 02:51:02 AM
I finally understand why people would refuse to make friends/date Republicans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 13, 2021, 02:53:43 AM
"As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol, and on the House floor, who with other Republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3 p.m. from the mob who tried to enter, I can tell you the House floor was never breached and it was not an insurrection."
- This sounds almost like something from The Onion.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on May 13, 2021, 09:09:11 AM
Do they just normally barricade doors during tourist visits?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 13, 2021, 09:24:12 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1JqhnsX0AI_tvb?format=jpg&name=small)
:zipped: :zipped: :zipped:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on May 13, 2021, 09:29:39 AM
Well what if you make an informed choice to infect yourself with small pox and kill millions?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2021, 09:14:29 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2021, 02:53:43 AM
"As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol, and on the House floor, who with other Republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3 p.m. from the mob who tried to enter, I can tell you the House floor was never breached and it was not an insurrection."
- This sounds almost like something from The Onion.

I wonder if Georgia reps feel the need to go extra tard to make up for their state government's Chinese funded duplicity.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 14, 2021, 12:11:10 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2021, 09:14:29 PM
I wonder if Georgia reps feel the need to go extra tard to make up for their state government's Chinese funded duplicity.

What's the story about the state government's Chinese funded duplicity?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2021, 12:17:39 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2021, 12:11:10 AM
What's the story about the state government's Chinese funded duplicity?

All the vote rigging QAnon bullshit.  Remember Georgia was the state Donald called to ask them to find 10,000 more votes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 14, 2021, 12:23:49 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2021, 12:17:39 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2021, 12:11:10 AM
What's the story about the state government's Chinese funded duplicity?

All the vote rigging QAnon bullshit.  Remember Georgia was the state Donald called to ask them to find 10,000 more votes.

Right. Thank you :cheers:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 14, 2021, 08:27:17 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2021, 12:17:39 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2021, 12:11:10 AM
What's the story about the state government's Chinese funded duplicity?

All the vote rigging QAnon bullshit.  Remember Georgia was the state Donald called to ask them to find 10,000 more votes.

Zombie Chavez could have given The Donald his 10,000 votes, easily, but The Donald was too proud to ask.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 15, 2021, 06:20:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2021, 09:29:39 AM
Well what if you make an informed choice to infect yourself with small pox and kill millions?
is it still lethal to most humans or didn't we develop immunity a while ago?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 15, 2021, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 15, 2021, 06:20:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2021, 09:29:39 AM
Well what if you make an informed choice to infect yourself with small pox and kill millions?
is it still lethal to most humans or didn't we develop immunity a while ago?

It had a mortality rate of 30% (higher in some groups) but was eradicated.  In the sense that it was eradicated, we developed immunity.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 17, 2021, 01:06:43 PM
It still exists in labs though.  And you will be even less assured when you learn one of those labs is in Russia.

The premise of question is what would occur if someone injected themselves with it.  Since no one has been inoculated against it for a number of decades, it probably would kill millions.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on May 17, 2021, 05:57:52 PM
I learned something interesting the other day: there was a medical procedure that preceded vaccination to deal with smallpox. An extremely terrifying one, called "variolation".

Way it worked was this: the doctor would collect pus and scabs from someone with a mild case of smallpox, dry the stuff out, and grind it up. Then the doc would scratch the person to be protected's skin, and rub the powder in. In theory, this would give the person a *mild* case of smallpox (low vaccine load, via contact rather than inhalation, from a person who also had a mild case) ... though it was, as you can imagine, quite risky.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 17, 2021, 07:09:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2021, 05:57:52 PM
I learned something interesting the other day: there was a medical procedure that preceded vaccination to deal with smallpox. An extremely terrifying one, called "variolation".

Way it worked was this: the doctor would collect pus and scabs from someone with a mild case of smallpox, dry the stuff out, and grind it up. Then the doc would scratch the person to be protected's skin, and rub the powder in. In theory, this would give the person a *mild* case of smallpox (low vaccine load, via contact rather than inhalation, from a person who also had a mild case) ... though it was, as you can imagine, quite risky.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation



It's not really all that terrifying at all, and is actually a pretty logical early step in the process that would lead to the development of modern vaccines. Once you understand and note that

A) People who have a disease don't get it again, and

B) Some people get very mild versions of the disease

Well, it seems pretty obvious from there for the scientifically minded.

And variolation worked quite well for the times. It actually was not that risky once the technique was refined and better understood.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on May 17, 2021, 07:31:25 PM
Primitive forms of vaccination similar to that variolation process were part of traditional African medicine when they were being discovered by Westerners, in fact a smallpox outbreak in Boston in the early XVIIIth was heavily mitigated thanks to the African slave of a puritan minister in Massachussets who taught him the procedure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onesimus_(Bostonian)#Inoculation_advocacy_and_controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onesimus_(Bostonian)#Inoculation_advocacy_and_controversy)

Edit: woops, just saw that it's mentioned in the article posted by Malthus.  :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on May 17, 2021, 08:17:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 17, 2021, 07:09:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2021, 05:57:52 PM
I learned something interesting the other day: there was a medical procedure that preceded vaccination to deal with smallpox. An extremely terrifying one, called "variolation".

Way it worked was this: the doctor would collect pus and scabs from someone with a mild case of smallpox, dry the stuff out, and grind it up. Then the doc would scratch the person to be protected's skin, and rub the powder in. In theory, this would give the person a *mild* case of smallpox (low vaccine load, via contact rather than inhalation, from a person who also had a mild case) ... though it was, as you can imagine, quite risky.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation



It's not really all that terrifying at all, and is actually a pretty logical early step in the process that would lead to the development of modern vaccines. Once you understand and note that

A) People who have a disease don't get it again, and

B) Some people get very mild versions of the disease

Well, it seems pretty obvious from there for the scientifically minded.

And variolation worked quite well for the times. It actually was not that risky once the technique was refined and better understood.

Terrifying to me. 😄

I mean, as a patient, you are risking that your physician had prepared the stuff properly, that you will in fact get a *mild* form of a disease that can be fatal.

Obviously, as with any medical procedure, the risk has to be weighed against the benefit - and the procedure was definitely a net benefit once well understood, in that if smallpox was about you would be better off on average by doing it than not doing it. The procedure did work, but as with any procedure, it had risks - actual vaccination works better and has less risks; but certainly for its time, variolation was an effective and life-saving technique. On average. 

I'd never heard of that before, I had wrongly assumed that before vaccination there was no preventive that actually worked. So it was a pretty interesting new fact to learn.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 17, 2021, 08:57:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2021, 08:17:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 17, 2021, 07:09:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2021, 05:57:52 PM
I learned something interesting the other day: there was a medical procedure that preceded vaccination to deal with smallpox. An extremely terrifying one, called "variolation".

Way it worked was this: the doctor would collect pus and scabs from someone with a mild case of smallpox, dry the stuff out, and grind it up. Then the doc would scratch the person to be protected's skin, and rub the powder in. In theory, this would give the person a *mild* case of smallpox (low vaccine load, via contact rather than inhalation, from a person who also had a mild case) ... though it was, as you can imagine, quite risky.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation



It's not really all that terrifying at all, and is actually a pretty logical early step in the process that would lead to the development of modern vaccines. Once you understand and note that

A) People who have a disease don't get it again, and

B) Some people get very mild versions of the disease

Well, it seems pretty obvious from there for the scientifically minded.

And variolation worked quite well for the times. It actually was not that risky once the technique was refined and better understood.

Terrifying to me. 😄

I mean, as a patient, you are risking that your physician had prepared the stuff properly, that you will in fact get a *mild* form of a disease that can be fatal.

Obviously, as with any medical procedure, the risk has to be weighed against the benefit - and the procedure was definitely a net benefit once well understood, in that if smallpox was about you would be better off on average by doing it than not doing it. The procedure did work, but as with any procedure, it had risks - actual vaccination works better and has less risks; but certainly for its time, variolation was an effective and life-saving technique. On average. 

I'd never heard of that before, I had wrongly assumed that before vaccination there was no preventive that actually worked. So it was a pretty interesting new fact to learn.

I don't really consider it as seperate from vaccination - rather it is just the more primitive version of vaccination.

I mean, the basic theory is the same - except that they are using a (hopefully) mild version transmitted in a less dangerous (lower viral load) manner then the normal course of the disease.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 18, 2021, 05:16:36 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/M7gwn2z.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 18, 2021, 05:18:31 PM
Is the GOP the French Republic?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2021, 05:21:50 PM
Jim Boehner would disagree about that first frame.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 18, 2021, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 17, 2021, 01:06:43 PM
It still exists in labs though.  And you will be even less assured when you learn one of those labs is in Russia.

The premise of question is what would occur if someone injected themselves with it.  Since no one has been inoculated against it for a number of decades, it probably would kill millions.
a quick read suggests there are exisiting vaccines (haven't checked their efficiency) and I'm pretty sure I was vaccinated against this as a kid.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 18, 2021, 06:10:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2021, 08:17:42 PM
Terrifying to me. 😄

I mean, as a patient, you are risking that your physician had prepared the stuff properly, that you will in fact get a *mild* form of a disease that can be fatal.
Yeah, totally terrifying.  Even more so than buying some chemical component designed to create hallucinations from a dude you barely know sitting at some street corner who got it from another dude who got it from a shady lab with naked working ladies (to prevent product theft) and a doubtful hygiene of the place compared to the usual sterilization of medical objects.

;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on May 18, 2021, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 18, 2021, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 17, 2021, 01:06:43 PM
It still exists in labs though.  And you will be even less assured when you learn one of those labs is in Russia.

The premise of question is what would occur if someone injected themselves with it.  Since no one has been inoculated against it for a number of decades, it probably would kill millions.
a quick read suggests there are existing vaccines (haven't checked their efficiency) and I'm pretty sure I was vaccinated against this as a kid.

I'm positive that since smallpox was declared eliminated they no longer inoculate kids against it.  It wasn't amongst the various vaccines my kids were given.

You and I are old enough we may well have received the vaccine though.  That was around the time it was declared eliminated.

Edit: or maybe not - wasn't that the vaccine that caused a kind of divot scar in the upper arm you sometimes see in older people?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 18, 2021, 06:18:48 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 18, 2021, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 17, 2021, 01:06:43 PM
It still exists in labs though.  And you will be even less assured when you learn one of those labs is in Russia.

The premise of question is what would occur if someone injected themselves with it.  Since no one has been inoculated against it for a number of decades, it probably would kill millions.
a quick read suggests there are exisiting vaccines (haven't checked their efficiency) and I'm pretty sure I was vaccinated against this as a kid.

I was too, but that was prior to it being declared eliminated.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on May 18, 2021, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 18, 2021, 06:10:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2021, 08:17:42 PM
Terrifying to me. 😄

I mean, as a patient, you are risking that your physician had prepared the stuff properly, that you will in fact get a *mild* form of a disease that can be fatal.
Yeah, totally terrifying.  Even more so than buying some chemical component designed to create hallucinations from a dude you barely know sitting at some street corner who got it from another dude who got it from a shady lab with naked working ladies (to prevent product theft) and a doubtful hygiene of the place compared to the usual sterilization of medical objects.

;)

That is one strange fantasy you have.  :lol:

Personally, I particularly liked getting magic mushrooms as my hallucinogen of choice - usually from one of those total mushroom fanatics, who grew them himself (apparently not that hard to do). Never had any quality control problems.

... but, sadly, no naked ladies involved.  :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on May 18, 2021, 06:55:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2021, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 18, 2021, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 17, 2021, 01:06:43 PM
It still exists in labs though.  And you will be even less assured when you learn one of those labs is in Russia.

The premise of question is what would occur if someone injected themselves with it.  Since no one has been inoculated against it for a number of decades, it probably would kill millions.
a quick read suggests there are existing vaccines (haven't checked their efficiency) and I'm pretty sure I was vaccinated against this as a kid.

I'm positive that since smallpox was declared eliminated they no longer inoculate kids against it.  It wasn't amongst the various vaccines my kids were given.

You and I are old enough we may well have received the vaccine though.  That was around the time it was declared eliminated.

Edit: or maybe not - wasn't that the vaccine that caused a kind of divot scar in the upper arm you sometimes see in older people?

Nah, that's the original Polio vaccine.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 18, 2021, 07:35:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2021, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 18, 2021, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 17, 2021, 01:06:43 PM
It still exists in labs though.  And you will be even less assured when you learn one of those labs is in Russia.

The premise of question is what would occur if someone injected themselves with it.  Since no one has been inoculated against it for a number of decades, it probably would kill millions.
a quick read suggests there are existing vaccines (haven't checked their efficiency) and I'm pretty sure I was vaccinated against this as a kid.

I'm positive that since smallpox was declared eliminated they no longer inoculate kids against it.  It wasn't amongst the various vaccines my kids were given.

You and I are old enough we may well have received the vaccine though.  That was around the time it was declared eliminated.

Edit: or maybe not - wasn't that the vaccine that caused a kind of divot scar in the upper arm you sometimes see in older people?

You know if you have been vaccinated against smallpox:
(https://i0.wp.com/images-prod.healthline.com/hlcmsresource/images/Image-Galleries/Smallpox-Vaccine-Scar/4564-Smallpox-vaccine-scar-1296x728-slide1.jpg?w=1155)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 18, 2021, 08:18:00 PM
Back when I was  in Ukraine, I remember that one summer, in order to be allowed to go on vacation, our family (along with everyone else) had to be vaccinated with some two vertical razor swipes across the skin on the upper right arm.  I think this was due to an outbreak of something somewhere at the time.  Everyone who got vaccinated had a red vertical equal sign for a while on their upper arm.  I wonder what that vaccination was against.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on May 19, 2021, 03:47:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 18, 2021, 08:18:00 PM
Back when I was  in Ukraine, I remember that one summer, in order to be allowed to go on vacation, our family (along with everyone else) had to be vaccinated with some two vertical razor swipes across the skin on the upper right arm.  I think this was due to an outbreak of something somewhere at the time.  Everyone who got vaccinated had a red vertical equal sign for a while on their upper arm.  I wonder what that vaccination was against.

Maybe the KGB was marking you for elimination.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 19, 2021, 05:40:18 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 19, 2021, 03:47:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 18, 2021, 08:18:00 PM
Back when I was  in Ukraine, I remember that one summer, in order to be allowed to go on vacation, our family (along with everyone else) had to be vaccinated with some two vertical razor swipes across the skin on the upper right arm.  I think this was due to an outbreak of something somewhere at the time.  Everyone who got vaccinated had a red vertical equal sign for a while on their upper arm.  I wonder what that vaccination was against.

Maybe the KGB was marking you for elimination.
:rolleyes: It doesn't work like that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 19, 2021, 09:14:02 AM
How does it work? :unsure:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 19, 2021, 10:12:54 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 19, 2021, 09:14:02 AM
How does it work? :unsure:

Not like that, obviously, as DGuller was not eliminated.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 19, 2021, 10:40:47 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2021, 10:12:54 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 19, 2021, 09:14:02 AM
How does it work? :unsure:

Not like that, obviously, as DGuller was not eliminated.

How do we know that DGuller was not eliminated?  The DG we know could be a mole.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on May 19, 2021, 10:44:31 AM
A zombie mole? :yeahright:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 19, 2021, 11:27:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 18, 2021, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 18, 2021, 06:10:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2021, 08:17:42 PM
Terrifying to me. 😄

I mean, as a patient, you are risking that your physician had prepared the stuff properly, that you will in fact get a *mild* form of a disease that can be fatal.
Yeah, totally terrifying.  Even more so than buying some chemical component designed to create hallucinations from a dude you barely know sitting at some street corner who got it from another dude who got it from a shady lab with naked working ladies (to prevent product theft) and a doubtful hygiene of the place compared to the usual sterilization of medical objects.

;)

That is one strange fantasy you have.  :lol:

Personally, I particularly liked getting magic mushrooms as my hallucinogen of choice - usually from one of those total mushroom fanatics, who grew them himself (apparently not that hard to do). Never had any quality control problems.

... but, sadly, no naked ladies involved.  :(

The yards along the walk back from junior high school were filled with them during mushroom season.  Also, sadly, no nudity.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 19, 2021, 01:44:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 19, 2021, 10:44:31 AM
A zombie mole? :yeahright:

Possibly.  Maybe a zombie desman, if not a zombie mole.  They are hard to tell apart.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 19, 2021, 03:27:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 19, 2021, 10:44:31 AM
A zombie mole? :yeahright:

I prefer chicken mole.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on May 19, 2021, 03:28:27 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2021, 03:27:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 19, 2021, 10:44:31 AM
A zombie mole? :yeahright:

I prefer chicken mole.

:mmm: Me to
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 19, 2021, 04:11:26 PM
This just in: Mitch McConnel is still a duplicitous asshole. <_<
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 19, 2021, 04:16:37 PM
Isn't that a job requirement?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 19, 2021, 06:07:08 PM
No.  You can be a Republican member of the Senate without being liar and a hypocrite.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on May 20, 2021, 12:44:50 AM
:lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 20, 2021, 12:49:23 AM
https://twitter.com/Stonekettle/status/1395041310302683142

Quote@Stonekettle

Same people who investigated Fast&Furious, alleged voter fraud, supposed IRS targeting, Hillary Clinton's email server, purported pizza parlor pedophile ring, birth certificates, and Benghazi so many times it became a joke...

...want to move on from Jan 6th without any scrutiny
5:39 PM · May 19, 2021
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 20, 2021, 06:16:28 AM
I am so fucking naive.  I really thought Republicans really changed after the 6th January.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on May 20, 2021, 10:28:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2021, 06:16:28 AM
I am so fucking naive.  I really thought Republicans really changed after the 6th January.
Their next authoritarian coup will be more elegant than a mob storming the capitol.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 20, 2021, 10:33:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2021, 06:07:08 PM
No.  You can be a Republican member of the Senate without being liar and a hypocrite.

Bring back post of the month nominations!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 20, 2021, 11:53:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 18, 2021, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 18, 2021, 06:10:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2021, 08:17:42 PM
Terrifying to me. 😄

I mean, as a patient, you are risking that your physician had prepared the stuff properly, that you will in fact get a *mild* form of a disease that can be fatal.
Yeah, totally terrifying.  Even more so than buying some chemical component designed to create hallucinations from a dude you barely know sitting at some street corner who got it from another dude who got it from a shady lab with naked working ladies (to prevent product theft) and a doubtful hygiene of the place compared to the usual sterilization of medical objects.

;)
Never had any quality control problems.
of course.  It may or it may not happen.  The thing is, if you buy "regular" mushrooms in a grocery store, there are regular inspections occuring at the place where they are produced, and the place they are sold, just as with any other food. 

I drank beer from a nearby microbrewery- and I liked their beer - that were later forced to shutdown because the Agriculture department found rodent excrement in the vacs were the beer was fermented.  Never had any quality control problem either, meaning I never got sick.  However, it is not what I was inspecting.

It just seems to me like many drug users are usually scared of big pharma and the "poison" they sell, despite a lot of quality control and independant inspections, yet, they are willing to buy just about anything to get high from anyone without being the least bit curious about quality control of the product they inhale/ingest.

As for the specific topic, you were never concerned about buying any drugs, with or without any kind of quality&safety control, but seem scared about a former medical practice in a clean & sanatized environment (as much as it could be for the times). 
It just seems weird to me.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on May 20, 2021, 12:26:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2021, 06:16:28 AM
I am so fucking naive.  I really thought Republicans really changed after the 6th January.
What on earth made you think that?! :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 20, 2021, 12:28:48 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 20, 2021, 10:28:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2021, 06:16:28 AM
I am so fucking naive.  I really thought Republicans really changed after the 6th January.
Their next authoritarian coup will be more elegant than a mob storming the capitol.


Yeah, I know.  I thought something like this would jolt the country back into reality and turn down the temperature.  IT's what happened to the Militia movement after Oklahoma City.  There will be more violence and more subversion of the government if this isn't stopped.  Instead, Republicans are rewriting the events of January 6th claiming it was just like tourists showing up.  Frankly, it's shocking.  I thought you would have to wait more than 5 months to convince people that what they saw was not what they saw.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on May 20, 2021, 12:52:37 PM
Perhaps the GOP should take up the "MoveOn" legacy.  :sleep:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 26, 2021, 11:24:47 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/american-demons-ben-rhodes-after-fall-excerpt/618988/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=2021-05-26T10%3A02%3A01&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1CSZghZZHuMXT3zYrLAa-aTy34wF9oeV2DxR6eONfXOUSYVjHXsvqb8uo (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/american-demons-ben-rhodes-after-fall-excerpt/618988/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=2021-05-26T10%3A02%3A01&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1CSZghZZHuMXT3zYrLAa-aTy34wF9oeV2DxR6eONfXOUSYVjHXsvqb8uo)

This is great stuff.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on May 26, 2021, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 20, 2021, 11:53:04 AM
of course.  It may or it may not happen.  The thing is, if you buy "regular" mushrooms in a grocery store, there are regular inspections occuring at the place where they are produced, and the place they are sold, just as with any other food. 

I drank beer from a nearby microbrewery- and I liked their beer - that were later forced to shutdown because the Agriculture department found rodent excrement in the vacs were the beer was fermented.  Never had any quality control problem either, meaning I never got sick.  However, it is not what I was inspecting.

It just seems to me like many drug users are usually scared of big pharma and the "poison" they sell, despite a lot of quality control and independant inspections, yet, they are willing to buy just about anything to get high from anyone without being the least bit curious about quality control of the product they inhale/ingest.

As for the specific topic, you were never concerned about buying any drugs, with or without any kind of quality&safety control, but seem scared about a former medical practice in a clean & sanatized environment (as much as it could be for the times). 
It just seems weird to me.

I must be done kinda rebel - I've even eaten mushrooms I've picked myself in the wild!

(Only because they were tasty - we don't have the right species here.)

I do it safely though - I stick to the few species I can positively identify (chanterelles, morels, etc.). I don't eat just any old mushroom!

Now, there are some psychoactive mushrooms here - but they are of the Amaneta species, which are supposed to give a very unpleasant "high", plus being somewhat toxic. Some people have tried those, but it is said that no-one tries those twice ...  :lol: I have avoided those.

Thing is, if you have the right species (which is pretty easy to determine), there just isn't a lot that can go wrong with a mushroom.

Contrast picking a known species of mushroom to eat  with rubbing smallpox scabs into your skin, to deliberately infect yourself with a mild case of smallpox. Which sounds more dangerous to a reasonable person?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 28, 2021, 03:56:56 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/january-6-commission-senate/2021/05/28/54e9f692-bf27-11eb-b26e-53663e6be6ff_story.html

QuoteGOP senators block Jan. 6 commission, likely ending bid for independent probe of Capitol riot

The bipartisan push to launch an independent and nonpartisan investigation of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol suffered a fatal blow Friday, after nearly all Senate Republicans banded together in opposition.

The 54-to-35 outcome, six votes shy of the 60 needed to circumvent a procedural filibuster, followed hours of overnight chaos as lawmakers haggled over unrelated legislation. The vote stood as a blunt rejection by Republicans of an emotional last-minute appeal from the family of a Capitol Police officer who died after responding to the insurrection, as well as an 11th-hour bid by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to save the measure by introducing changes intended to address her party's principal objections.

In its wake, many senators who had supported the commission were openly angry, as even the Democrats' most moderate senator blamed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for killing a bill in order to score political points, instead of doing what was right.

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) told reporters that there were "an awful lot of other Republicans that would have supported" the commission "if it hadn't been for his intervention," guessing that but for McConnell's whipping, "13 or 14" GOP senators might have voted for the bill.

In the last two weeks, only a handful of Republican senators have expressed positive sentiments about a commission. On Friday, six of them — Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.) and Collins — joined all voting Democrats to back the commission. All except Portman voted earlier this year to convict Trump on impeachment charges for inciting an insurrection.

Another 11 — nine Republicans and two Democrats — did not participate. Though it was held on the last day before senators are scheduled to take a week-long break, it is striking that so many missed such a high-profile vote — especially because some had voiced positive sentiments about the commission in recent days.

Both Democrats who missed the vote, Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), and Republican Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), would have cast yes votes had they been present — bringing the commission legislation within three of the 60 it needed to proceed. Murray needed to fly home for a personal matter, she said via Twitter. Sinema's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Toomey had a family commitment, his spokesman said.

At least one other of those nine Republicans — Sen. Mike Rounds (S.D.) — issued positive sentiments about a commission last week, only to walk them back on the eve of the vote.

"I still would like to see a commission go through, just for history sake, I'd like to see it — but I think we're going to have to wait until after the criminal prosecutions are completed," Rounds told reporters on Thursday, arguing that the commission would have difficulty accessing witnesses and information tied up in court cases. "Practically speaking we just can't do it at this point."

The commission legislation was a product of cross-party negotiations among leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee, and it had galvanized significant support among Republicans in the lower chamber. Last week, 35 GOP House members joined all voting House Democrats to back the creation of a Jan. 6 commission, to be modeled after a similar independent panel formed in the aftermath of 9/11, and charged with producing an objective account of what fueled the day's violence.

But in the Senate, Republican sentiment soured after McConnell dismissed the commission as needlessly duplicative of ongoing congressional probes and as a Trojan horse that would help Democrats in the next year's midterm elections.

"I do not believe the additional, extraneous 'commission' that Democratic leaders want would uncover crucial new facts or promote healing," McConnell said Thursday, arguing that the Justice Department and Senate committees were already handling that substantive work. " ... I'll continue to urge my colleagues to oppose this extraneous layer when the time comes for the Senate to vote."

Former president Donald Trump, whose most zealous supporters carried out the attack, has cast a long shadow over the GOP as lawmakers have wrestled with the proposal to establish a 10-person panel of nongovernment experts charged with finding answers — and accountability. The proposal called for five members, including the chair, to be appointed by Democrats and another five, including the vice chair, to be appointed by Republicans. The commission would have had the power to issue subpoenas on a bipartisan basis, which some Democrats warned — and many Republicans worried — could have been used to force the former president, and his allies in Congress, to testify under oath.

Over the past week, GOP senators voiced concern that even if the commissioners' ranks were bipartisan, the panel's staffing might not be. They also argued that if the commission did not produce a final report before the end of the year, Republican lawmakers would have to spend much of the 2022 campaign season responding to its revelations about Trump's past ills and trying to sidestep his outbursts, when their aim is to make the next election cycle a referendum on President Biden and the Democrats who control Congress.

Collins tried to address both points with an amendment that would have required the commission's chair and vice chair to make hires together, and shortened the time it would have to wind down its work after a Dec. 31 deadline to issue a final report. But while her proposed changes generated a flurry of last-minute activity around the bill, they never came to a vote on the floor.

As the vote began Friday, Collins had a visibly angry reaction, confronting Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and accusing him of undermining the vote by not declaring ahead of time that he and the Democrats would back her changes if the measure to take up the bill advanced.

A spokeswoman for Portman said the Ohio Republican had sought and secured a personal assurance from Schumer on Friday that Collins's amendment would be voted on, before throwing his support behind the commission. Toomey's spokesman said the senator also would have voted for the commission "with the expectation" that the Senate would have then voted on Collins's changes.

Trump entered the fray last week, warning that the commission was a "Democrat trap" and excoriating the "35 wayward Republicans" who supported the proposal in the House.

"Sometimes there are consequences to being ineffective and weak," he said in a statement, issuing a personal challenge to McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to heed his warnings.

The GOP's reluctance to hold Trump accountable for inciting the riot began just days after the event, when Democrats responded by impeaching him for a second time, an effort in which only 10 House Republicans joined. A month later, a majority of Senate Republicans voted to acquit him based on a widely challenged argument that the Constitution does not permit the conviction of former presidents.

The GOP's votes stood in sharp contrast to its prevailing rhetoric at the time, which was sharply critical of Trump. ­McConnell, immediately after voting to acquit the former president, blamed him for inciting the insurrection. Yet in recent weeks such criticism largely fell silent as Republicans muzzled anti-Trump sentiment within their ranks, even ousting the third-ranking House Republican, Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), from her leadership position over her campaign to hold Trump accountable for the riot.

Instead, the party targeted Democrats, suggesting that they harbored ulterior political motives in rallying the votes for an outside investigative commission.

Still, some senators have warned that if the GOP fears investigation politicization, an independent commission is the least of all possible evils. This week, Cassidy, one of just seven Senate Republicans to vote for Trump's impeachment conviction earlier this year, warned that if a commission did not come to fruition, a House select committee would probably take its place — pitching Jan. 6-related discussions into a forum that would be even more politically disadvantageous for Republicans.

But Cassidy's sentiments proved to be unique, as most other senators banded around the argument that a commission would be "extraneous," as McConnell put it, given other committee investigations into the same events.

At least six committees in the House and Senate have held competing hearings investigating the insurrection, leading to scattered revelations — and thus far no conclusions. Instead, most of those hearings have been plagued by partisan sniping, while a highly anticipated interim report from the Senate Rules and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees, which are jointly investigating the riot, has been delayed by several weeks amid struggles to reach bipartisan agreement about their findings.

In a statement Friday condemning McConnell and other Republicans who refused to support the commission, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed, with offering specifics, that her party would "proceed to find the truth." The GOP, she said, "clearly put their election concerns above the security of the Congress and country."

On Thursday, the family and friends of Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick attempted to make a personal moral appeal to GOP senators, in the hopes of shaking up the political stalemate and turning votes in favor of the commission. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes a day after he confronted rioters at the insurrection, the District's chief medical examiner ruled last month. But after meeting with 15 senators, Sandra Garza, the late officer's partner, emerged deflated.

"Why would they not want to get to the bottom of such horrific violence?" she said to reporters. "It just boggles my mind."

The family met with Republican senators who were committed to opposing the commission and those who had already declared their intention to support it, as well as a group on the fence. Late Thursday night, Murkowski, one of the Republicans who committed to back the commission ahead of the vote, recounted telling Sicknick's mother, Gladys Sicknick, that she was "heartsick that you feel you need to advocate to members of Congress that we stand up and say, 'The truth is hard, but the truth is necessary.' "

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on May 28, 2021, 04:03:19 PM
It is so annoying. 54 votes in a body that is already undemocratic is not sufficient to do anything.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on May 28, 2021, 04:10:38 PM
Why not just hold Congressional hearings? Might not be perfect and easily accused of partisanship but better than nothing and doesn't need any Republican support, right?

I mean 50% of Republicans think Donald Trump is the legitimate President. It feels like if they won't respect the election results in Republican run states, they're not going to respect an "independent and nonpartisan investigation".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 28, 2021, 04:35:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 28, 2021, 04:10:38 PM
Why not just hold Congressional hearings? Might not be perfect and easily accused of partisanship but better than nothing and doesn't need any Republican support, right?

I mean 50% of Republicans think Donald Trump is the legitimate President. It feels like if they won't respect the election results in Republican run states, they're not going to respect an "independent and nonpartisan investigation".

Congressional hearings won't be able to subpoena the necessary documents.  Partisan judges have already ruled that only Republican-majority legislative bodies can enforce subpoenas.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on May 28, 2021, 05:40:00 PM
What's the status of the police investigations? Won't they shed light on stuff?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 28, 2021, 05:56:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 28, 2021, 05:40:00 PM
What's the status of the police investigations? Won't they shed light on stuff?

The criminal trials will reveal some new stuff, but they are limited to the specific charges against specific individuals.  It's possible that the defense will be able to reveal stuff found  through discovery that might tell us a bigger picture.  We can't count on that, though.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 28, 2021, 07:20:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2021, 01:32:25 PM
Contrast picking a known species of mushroom to eat  with rubbing smallpox scabs into your skin, to deliberately infect yourself with a mild case of smallpox. Which sounds more dangerous to a reasonable person?

not all drug users know their mushrooms.  I suspect you could even pass regular, albeit spoiled, mushrooms to some drug users and they wouldn't see the difference :P

contrast buying (which I did say) mushrooms, or any drugs, from someone you barely know with a medical experiment/treatment that follows serious protocols.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on May 28, 2021, 08:07:29 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 28, 2021, 07:20:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2021, 01:32:25 PM
Contrast picking a known species of mushroom to eat  with rubbing smallpox scabs into your skin, to deliberately infect yourself with a mild case of smallpox. Which sounds more dangerous to a reasonable person?

not all drug users know their mushrooms.  I suspect you could even pass regular, albeit spoiled, mushrooms to some drug users and they wouldn't see the difference :P

contrast buying (which I did say) mushrooms, or any drugs, from someone you barely know with a medical experiment/treatment that follows serious protocols.

You really can't mistake psylocybe cubensis  mushrooms (the most common "magic mushroom") for any other kind. When you cut or bruise the mushroom, it turns a distinctive shade of blue. Misidentification isn't really a significant concern.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 29, 2021, 02:01:57 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-voting-restrictions/2021/05/29/86923248-be25-11eb-9c90-731aff7d9a0d_story.html

QuoteTexas Republicans finalize bill that would enact stiff new voting restrictions and make it easier to overturn election results

The Texas legislature on Saturday moved closer to enacting dozens of new restrictions on the voting process, as Republican lawmakers reached a deal that imposes a raft of hurdles on casting ballots by mail and enhances civil and criminal penalties for election administrators, voters and those seeking to assist them.

The measure would make it illegal for election officials to send out unsolicited mail ballot applications, empower partisan poll watchers and ban practices such as drop boxes and drive-through voting that were popularized in heavily Democratic Harris County last year, according to a final draft distributed by legislative staff to voting right advocates Saturday morning.

In a last-minute addition, language was inserted in the bill making it easier to overturn an election, no longer requiring evidence that fraud actually altered an outcome of a race — but rather only that enough ballots were illegally cast that could have made a difference.

The final draft of Senate Bill 7 was filed Saturday morning, after being mired for days in protracted negotiations between the state House and Senate. The measure bucks the entreaties of civil rights leaders and business executives who sought to head off legislation they say will suppress voter participation and disenfranchise voters of color.

But GOP lawmakers pushed forward, saying it was necessary to shore up voter trust, even as they struggled to justify the need for stricter rules in the state, where officials said the 2020 election was secure.

The legislation is the latest example of how state officials have rushed to align themselves with former president Donald Trump's false claims that lax voting rules undermined the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.

GOP lawmakers in dozens of states are pushing new voting measures in the name of election security, under intense pressure from supporters who echo Trump's false claims of rampant fraud. States including Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Montana have passed measures that curtail voting access, imposing new restrictions on mail voting, the use of drop boxes and the ability to offer voters food or water while they wait in long lines.

The Texas legislation is now headed to the House and Senate chambers for final approval this weekend. Gov. Greg Abbott (R), an ardent Trump supporter and potential 2024 presidential contender who threatened lawmakers with a special session if they did not pass a voting bill this week, is expected to sign it soon.

Voting rights groups have pledged to move quickly to challenge the law in court.

The bill is among a number of controversial measures the Texas legislature has focused on in its final hours before adjourning on Monday, including a restriction on how teachers may discuss the nation's history of racism in the classroom.

The two lead proponents of the voting legislation, Republicans Rep. Briscoe Cain and Sen. Bryan Hughes, announced late Friday that they had reached a compromise between the Senate's original omnibus voting proposal and the House's less restrictive version.

"Senate Bill 7 is one of the most comprehensive and sensible election reform bills in Texas history," Cain and Hughes said in a statement issued Friday evening. "There is nothing more foundational to this democracy and our state than the integrity of our elections."

As of Saturday midday, the final version was not yet published on the Texas legislature's website. The 67-page draft distributed by House and Senate staff declares as its purpose "to reduce the likelihood of fraud in the conduct of elections, protect the secrecy of the ballot, promote voter access, and ensure that all legally cast ballots are counted."

The bill would broadly prohibit local election officials from altering election procedures without express legislative permission — a direct hit against Harris County, home of Houston, where election officials implemented various expansions last year to help voters cast ballots during the pandemic. It also specifically targets some of those expansions, explicitly banning drive-through voting locations, temporary polling places in tents and 24-hour or late-night voting marathons.

The proposed new voting hurdles come after the state logged record turnout in the 2020 election, including huge surges in early voting in cities including Austin and Houston.

Voting rights advocates say that is exactly what the GOP is aiming to prevent with new laws.

"Senate Bill 7 is a ruthless piece of legislation," said Sarah Labowitz, policy and advocacy director for the ACLU of Texas. "It targets voters of color and voters with disabilities, in a state that's already the most difficult place to vote in the country."

Advocates said the measure is likely to disproportionately affect Texans of color, noting that an analysis by the Texas Civil Rights Project showed that after-hours voting was used predominantly by Black and Latino voters.

"The choice to push this legislation forward in the dark, despite overwhelming opposition from the people of Texas, is about the politicians in power doing everything they can to manipulate the outcome of future elections to keep themselves in power," said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas.

During debate in the House earlier this month, Cain maintained that he was not backing a voter "suppression" bill but rather a voting "enhancement" bill, insisting that the measure was designed to protect "all voters."

According to the final draft, the Texas bill would:

● Impose state felony penalties on public officials who offer an application to vote by mail to someone who didn't request it;

● Allow signatures on mail ballot applications to be compared to any signature on record, eliminating protections that the signature on file must be recent and that the application signature must be compared to at least two others on file to prevent the arbitrary rejection of ballots;

● Impose new identification requirements on those applying for mail ballots, in most cases requiring a driver's license or Social Security number;

● Impose a civil fine of $1,000 a day for local election officials who do not maintain their voter rolls as required by law, and impose criminal penalties on election workers who obstruct poll watchers.

● Grant partisan poll watchers new access to watch all steps of the voting and counting process "near enough to see and hear the activity;"

● And require individuals to fill out a form if they plan to transport more than two non-relatives to the polls, and expand the requirement that those assisting voters who need help must sign an oath attesting under penalty of perjury that the person they're helping is eligible for assistance because of a disability and that they will not suggest whom to vote for.


Some of the language seems intended to signal a tough stance on election fraud without actually changing existing law. One sentence bans straight-ticket voting — already illegal in Texas. Another declares criminal penalties for altering ballots or vote counts, also already illegal.

And several provisions seem aimed at false claims that voting equipment was hacked or flipped votes in last year's election. One requires all electronic voting equipment to record all activity, which it already does; another prohibits the use of voting equipment with the capacity to connect to the Internet — also already the case.

The measure does include slightly more required hours of early voting than current law, but it also caps early voting hours in ways that will reduce hours in many large counties. It contains some new voter protections, including a guarantee that voters standing in line at the time that a polling location closes may vote and a requirement that partisan poll watchers take an oath not to harass or disrupt voting.

It would also require all counties to provide video surveillance of vote tabulation — and to live-stream it in large counties.

More than 100 Houston business owners and community leaders joined in a statement earlier this month expressing concern that proposed state election measures could suppress voter participation and "damage our competitiveness in attracting businesses and workers." A coalition of major corporations and business groups released another statement opposing changes to voting laws that would restrict access to the polls.

But Texas Republicans acted quickly to head off the pushback, which mirrored a similar stance by major businesses in Georgia when that state approved its own new voting law in April.

After Major League Baseball announced plans to pull its All-Star Game from Atlanta in the wake of the new Georgia measure, Abbott angrily declined to throw the first pitch at the Texas Rangers' home opener, accusing the league of buying into a "false narrative." Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) responded to an early trickle of corporate statements denouncing the proposals under consideration in Austin by calling the critics, including Texas-based American Airlines and Dell Technologies, "a nest of liars."

And Cain, the chief House sponsor of one of the voting bills this year, proposed financial penalties against entities that publicly threaten "any adverse action against this state" in protest of election legislation.

The outcome has tested the resolve of corporations that dipped into the national fight over voting and now are caught between liberal activists demanding action and Republicans who control economic policy in red states. And it could dampen corporate enthusiasm to weigh in on two federal voting bills that Republicans oppose: the For the People Act, which would establish national standards for election administration, and the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on May 31, 2021, 07:52:07 AM
(https://i.redd.it/1whoix7bsd271.jpg)

:yucky:

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on May 31, 2021, 08:06:04 AM
They have gone full retard. That they put in 2nd place something that doesn't even relate to the topic is quite the achievement.

Also, it seems that Texas Republicans have failed in their bid to introduce draconian limitations on voting in the state.

QuoteTexas Democrats' late-night walkout scuppers Republican efforts to restrict voting rights
SB7 bill that would introduce restrictions making it harder to vote fails to pass before midnight deadline after Democrats leave House

After this and the similar bills that passed in Georgia and Florida I really hope that something is done at the federal level to act on this nonsense, but I'm not really sure about what can be done in that sense.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 31, 2021, 10:13:36 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 31, 2021, 08:06:04 AM
They have gone full retard. That they put in 2nd place something that doesn't even relate to the topic is quite the achievement.

Also, it seems that Texas Republicans have failed in their bid to introduce draconian limitations on voting in the state.

QuoteTexas Democrats' late-night walkout scuppers Republican efforts to restrict voting rights
SB7 bill that would introduce restrictions making it harder to vote fails to pass before midnight deadline after Democrats leave House

After this and the similar bills that passed in Georgia and Florida I really hope that something is done at the federal level to act on this nonsense, but I'm not really sure about what can be done in that sense.
I'm sure from Republican POV it is completely reasonable after the evil leftists stole the elections*.

*Only elections that Democrats won of course. Those that had Republican
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 31, 2021, 01:24:51 PM
"Where are they now", Michael Flynn Edition: he's touring the QAnon circuit.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/michael-flynn-myanmar-coup-should-happen.html

QuoteFormer Trump Adviser Michael Flynn Says Myanmar-Like Coup "Should Happen" in U.S.

Michael Flynn, who was briefly national security adviser under former President Donald Trump, said during a QAnon conference over the weekend that a military coup "should happen" in the United States. While he was on stage, a conference attendee asked Flynn a question: "I want to know why what happened in Myanmar can't happen here?" The crowd cheered at the question. "No reason," responded Flynn. "I mean, it should happen here." The crowd cheered some more, apparently ecstatic at the suggestion of the military taking control of the U.S. government.

Video: https://twitter.com/MC_Hyperbole/status/1399129297240084489

Flynn made the comment at a four-day QAnon conference called For God & Country Patriot Roundup 2021 that took place in Dallas. He was listed as the top keynote speaker of the event. Flynn was Trump's national security adviser for less than a month and resigned after it was revealed he lied about conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Trump pardoned Flynn in November after he twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

The question regarding the Myanmar coup didn't exactly come out of nowhere. QAnon supporters have been praising the Feb. 1 coup for months while calling on the U.S. military to take similar action. The coup sparked protests across the country that were brutally cracked down by the military. More than 800 civilians have been killed since the coup, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners. More than 5,000 have been arrested.

As Flynn's comments spread on social media, some were quick to call for him to be court-martialed. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, noted on Twitter that Flynn is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice as a retired Army officer. This was hardly the first time Flynn has argued the military could be used to resolve political disputes in the United States. In December, Flynn suggested the military could be deployed to rerun the election in four swing states where Trump lost. "People out there talk about martial law like it's something that we've never done," Flynn told Newsmax. "Martial law has been instituted 64 times."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on May 31, 2021, 02:08:45 PM
I find it extraordinary he got so high in the military and was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama. I feel like it doesn't say much good.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 31, 2021, 05:02:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2021, 02:08:45 PM
I find it extraordinary he got so high in the military and was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama. I feel like it doesn't say much good.

Yeah, the security checks should certainly have caught him if they worked as advertised.  He didn't become a neo-Nazi overnight.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2021, 02:11:53 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 31, 2021, 01:24:51 PM
"Where are they now", Michael Flynn Edition: he's touring the QAnon circuit.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/michael-flynn-myanmar-coup-should-happen.html

Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, noted on Twitter that Flynn is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice as a retired Army officer. "


Huh did not know that.
As delicious as it would be to see Flynn hoisted on his authoritarian petard and locked away for inciting treasonous conspiracy, not sure I care for that precedent.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 01, 2021, 05:47:31 AM
Tucker Carlson sums up the state of the nation: https://twitter.com/TuckWatch/status/1399517577362223104?s=20
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 01, 2021, 06:53:56 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2021, 02:11:53 AM
Huh did not know that.
As delicious as it would be to see Flynn hoisted on his authoritarian petard and locked away for inciting treasonous conspiracy, not sure I care for that precedent.

I don't think you could convict Flynn of "inciting conspiracy."  I agree that trying someone for mere speech that doesn't incite anything would be a bad precedent.  But I'll be interested to see if a future Republican administration tries to get him a security clearance.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 01, 2021, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2021, 06:53:56 AM
I don't think you could convict Flynn of "inciting conspiracy."  I agree that trying someone for mere speech that doesn't incite anything would be a bad precedent.  But I'll be interested to see if a future Republican administration tries to get him a security clearance.

Depends if the GOP is going to go for Coup v2.0, but this time better organized, or not.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 01, 2021, 02:05:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 01, 2021, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2021, 06:53:56 AM
I don't think you could convict Flynn of "inciting conspiracy."  I agree that trying someone for mere speech that doesn't incite anything would be a bad precedent.  But I'll be interested to see if a future Republican administration tries to get him a security clearance.

Depends if the GOP is going to go for Coup v2.0, but this time better organized, or not.
Maybe?
QuoteMaggie Haberman
@maggieNYT
·
6h
Trump has been telling a number of people he's in contact with that he expects he will get reinstated by August (no that isn't how it works but simply sharing the information).
QuoteQuote Tweet
Donie O'Sullivan
@donie
Talk of a Myanmar-style coup in the United States has been popular among some Trump supporters and QAnon believers for months.
Maggie Haberman
@maggieNYT
It isn't happening in a vacuum. It is happening as he faced the possibility of an indictment from the Manhattan DA.
But he is not putting out statements about the "audits" in states just for the sake of it. He's been laser focused on them, according to several people who've spoken with him (as well as WaPo reporting a few weeks ago).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 01, 2021, 02:17:51 PM
Oh wow... I meant in the aftermath of the GOP winning elections in the future, whether they'd try the same putsch playbook again, but better organized rather than handing over power.

But if Trump tries to organize something in the next little while, that's a whole other thing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 01, 2021, 02:28:44 PM
It's a good idea to watch Tucker Carlson's call for the army to basically intervene "if they love their country". Just as a reminder of where things are going - and a reminder that Carlson has quite a bit of sway in setting the talking points of militant grassroots Republicans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 01, 2021, 02:59:19 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2021, 02:28:44 PM
It's a good idea to watch Tucker Carlson's call for the army to basically intervene "if they love their country". Just as a reminder of where things are going - and a reminder that Carlson has quite a bit of sway in setting the talking points of militant grassroots Republicans.

You don't even have to listen to Tucker Carlson to know that he is saying the most idiotic thing possible, and being believed by the most idiotic people possible.  He hasn't changed a bit.  I'm kinda hoping he lures the traitors in the US military out out from beneath their rocks so we can shitcan them.  We know that there's going to be a certain percentage of  pretty much any military that values their cosplay fantasies more than they value their country.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2021, 03:07:11 PM
I rate the probability of military coup: low.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on June 01, 2021, 03:10:56 PM
a call to treason on tv has to be serious... right? i mean in a rational world would Tucker be in shit?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 01, 2021, 03:16:56 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 01, 2021, 03:10:56 PM
a call to treason on tv has to be serious... right? i mean in a rational world would Tucker be in shit?

Tucker has already successfully defended himself from a slander suit on the grounds (which the judge accepted) that he is full of shit that no reasonable person would believe what he says.  https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye)

The judicial system of the US has basically ruled (accepting the pleading of his lawyer) that his listeners are morons.    That fact needs to be widely disseminated.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2021, 03:18:27 PM
On several occasions now, Fox has defended its "news anchors" by saying they are entertainment personalities that are deliberately trafficking in hyperbole, not facts.

But every show is prominently branded as "Fox News".

Is that not false advertising?

I ask because some state false advertising laws have statutory penalties for each offense.  Fox News probably has dozens of offenses every day.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 01, 2021, 03:21:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2021, 03:18:27 PM
On several occasions now, Fox has defended its "news anchors" by saying they are entertainment personalities that are deliberately trafficking in hyperbole, not facts.

Seriously? Holy shit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 01, 2021, 03:23:19 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2021, 02:28:44 PM
It's a good idea to watch Tucker Carlson's call for the army to basically intervene "if they love their country". Just as a reminder of where things are going - and a reminder that Carlson has quite a bit of sway in setting the talking points of militant grassroots Republicans.

That would be such a pointless coup. I don't even know what they are trying to accomplish. I mean once you cancel elections and suspend the Constitution what exactly are you defending? Not the United States because you pretty much just cancelled it. And what exactly would they change? Make it illegal to disagree with them? It just makes no sense. Even if they execute a bunch of opposition politicians for "treason" I mean all their supporters would still be out there to vote more opposition people in.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 01, 2021, 03:31:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2021, 03:07:11 PM
I rate the probability of military coup: low.

What sort of time horizon are you considering? The next few days? The Biden Presidency? The next two decades?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 01, 2021, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2021, 03:23:19 PM
That would be such a pointless coup. I don't even know what they are trying to accomplish. I mean once you cancel elections and suspend the Constitution what exactly are you defending? Not the United States because you pretty much just cancelled it.

We've discussed that before - but the Constitution in the US has mostly become a totem. It has little exisitence in the minds of the Republican grassroots beyond abortion, gun rights, white supremacy, and slogans about American superiority and freedom. The point of such a coup would be the point of many similar past coups: to purge political life of undesirable elements. In the minds of these Republicans, they are safeguarding the true US - one that has mostly been embodied in these empty slogans, rather than civics.

Regardless of whether or not it succeeds (and I would argue Americans need to seriously entertain the possibility such a thing may happen, if only to adapt their expectations and political actions accordingly), the fact that a major, mainstream party of the US is now more-than-tacitly embracing the possibility, and desirability of such a purge is MAJOR cause for concern and action. To brush it aside as the thinking of morons is all fine and good when these morons are marginal. But in the US, these morons have considerable institutional power. And a lot of people are willing, and able, to amplify that power.  It will not go away on its own.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 01, 2021, 03:33:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2021, 03:21:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2021, 03:18:27 PM
On several occasions now, Fox has defended its "news anchors" by saying they are entertainment personalities that are deliberately trafficking in hyperbole, not facts.

Seriously? Holy shit.

You didn't know that?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2021, 03:34:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 01, 2021, 03:31:58 PM
What sort of time horizon are you considering? The next few days? The Biden Presidency? The next two decades?

I was considering the short to medium term but I think it applies to the long term as well.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 01, 2021, 03:37:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 01, 2021, 03:33:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2021, 03:21:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2021, 03:18:27 PM
On several occasions now, Fox has defended its "news anchors" by saying they are entertainment personalities that are deliberately trafficking in hyperbole, not facts.

Seriously? Holy shit.

You didn't know that?

Reminds me of how Germany's biggest tabloid argued in court a few years ago that their main business is selling ad space and that editorial content and news stories are merely a vehicle for providing said ad space. :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 01, 2021, 05:01:07 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 01, 2021, 03:33:00 PM
We've discussed that before - but the Constitution in the US has mostly become a totem. It has little exisitence in the minds of the Republican grassroots beyond abortion, gun rights, white supremacy, and slogans about American superiority and freedom. The point of such a coup would be the point of many similar past coups: to purge political life of undesirable elements. In the minds of these Republicans, they are safeguarding the true US - one that has mostly been embodied in these empty slogans, rather than civics.

Regardless of whether or not it succeeds (and I would argue Americans need to seriously entertain the possibility such a thing may happen, if only to adapt their expectations and political actions accordingly), the fact that a major, mainstream party of the US is now more-than-tacitly embracing the possibility, and desirability of such a purge is MAJOR cause for concern and action. To brush it aside as the thinking of morons is all fine and good when these morons are marginal. But in the US, these morons have considerable institutional power. And a lot of people are willing, and able, to amplify that power.  It will not go away on its own.

I agree that there is a non-zero chance of something happening, but disagree that we need to watch more Tucker Carlson to figure out what the revolutionaries are planning.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 01, 2021, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2021, 03:18:27 PM
On several occasions now, Fox has defended its "news anchors" by saying they are entertainment personalities that are deliberately trafficking in hyperbole, not facts.

But every show is prominently branded as "Fox News".

Is that not false advertising?

I ask because some state false advertising laws have statutory penalties for each offense.  Fox News probably has dozens of offenses every day.

The mere puffery defence.  No reasonable person would mistake that to be a news broadcast.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 01, 2021, 05:17:15 PM
Why "Tucker"? Is he friarer?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 01, 2021, 05:32:50 PM
I'm definitely not allayed by the knowledge that the military swears to protect the Constitution.  I don't see why the interpretation of what it means to protect the Constitution is impervious to complete distortion of reality, when the rest of reality proved to be no match.  Retaking the power that is rightfully theirs may well be protecting the Constitution in the minds of those undertaking a coup.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 01, 2021, 08:35:50 PM
Successful military coups don't really happen anymore--they kind of went out with the cold war. What is far more common is that leaders become entrenched with elections still taking place but the opposition being hamstringed (and possible election fraud that isn't explicit). Maybe the best example is erdogan's Turkey, where a coup failed and Erdogan seems secure in power having been prime minister or president since 2003. This model even works in the EU framework: see Orban's Hungary.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 01, 2021, 08:49:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2021, 08:35:50 PM
Successful military coups don't really happen anymore--they kind of went out with the cold war. What is far more common is that leaders become entrenched with elections still taking place but the opposition being hamstringed (and possible election fraud that isn't explicit). Maybe the best example is erdogan's Turkey, where a coup failed and Erdogan seems secure in power having been prime minister or president since 2003. This model even works in the EU framework: see Orban's Hungary.
Coups don't happen anymore, but sometimes the military does step in to right a wrong committed by the civilian government, by removing said government.  Morsi was removed after he defied his defense minister's directive to restore order.

Even if you're right and a coup in the US will not happen, it's not like an auto-coup is a distant possibility.  We know the electorate will vote GOP back in sooner rather than later, and we know the commitment to democratic institutions is not particularly strong among the party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 02, 2021, 03:15:32 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 01, 2021, 08:49:46 PM

Even if you're right and a coup in the US will not happen, it's not like an auto-coup is a distant possibility.  We know the electorate will vote GOP back in sooner rather than later, and we know the commitment to democratic institutions is not particularly strong among the party.

That is my point...the military coup potential is a distraction. The game is that the next time the GOP wins the presidency it goes the Orban/Erdogan/Putin route.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on June 02, 2021, 05:53:42 PM
Trump's blog has now been abandoned after low readership.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2021, 07:22:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2021, 03:21:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2021, 03:18:27 PM
On several occasions now, Fox has defended its "news anchors" by saying they are entertainment personalities that are deliberately trafficking in hyperbole, not facts.

Seriously? Holy shit.

As one example - from McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC (SDNY 2020)

QuoteFox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect . . .As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to "challenge[] political correctness and media bias." Def. Br. at 14. This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in"exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary."  Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2021, 07:26:51 PM
The decision was nonsense of course - I'd hazard that the vast majority of Carlson's viewers believe him as preaching gospel truth.  At the very least it is a very significant question of fact that should have prevented dismissal of McDougal's case.  But we've already taken a couple steps towards the Orbanification of American justice.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 03, 2021, 10:32:42 AM
So is there something that can be done about Fox News?

IMO they're undermining democracy in the US and have been for decades.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 03, 2021, 10:39:04 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2021, 10:32:42 AM
So is there something that can be done about Fox News?

IMO they're undermining democracy in the US and have been for decades.
Not until we concede that in the 21st century, free speech may need more limits placed on it than it needed in the 20th century, due to technological advances in propaganda technology.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 03, 2021, 10:42:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2021, 10:39:04 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2021, 10:32:42 AM
So is there something that can be done about Fox News?

IMO they're undermining democracy in the US and have been for decades.
Not until we concede that in the 21st century, free speech may need more limits placed on it than it needed in the 20th century, due to technological advances in propaganda technology.

That's very much a wo-edged sword.  China is implementing your suggestion, and it isn't going well for the average Chinese person.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 03, 2021, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2021, 10:42:00 AM
That's very much a wo-edged sword.  China is implementing your suggestion, and it isn't going well for the average Chinese person.
Of course it is, which is why people are justifiably averse to the very concept.  Unfortunately it's very hard to have a system where you need to find a balance for optimal results, without opening yourself up to missing in one direction or another.  It would be easier and safer to build a system that relies solely on absolutist concepts that can be administered algorithmically without human judgment, but unfortunately no one invented such a system yet.

Democracy is an exercise at figuring out the minimum set of freedoms that need to be curtailed, and to what extent, in order to protect democracy itself, as well as to protect citizens from some of the externalities of fellow citizens exercising their freedoms.  The optimal answer may change as the threat to democracy and externalities change with technology or other external circumstances.  The total and absolute freedom of speech today won't give you much freedom tomorrow if it allows an authoritarian regime to take power and destroy democracy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 03, 2021, 12:10:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2021, 10:39:04 AM

Not until we concede that in the 21st century, free speech may need more limits placed on it than it needed in the 20th century, due to technological advances in propaganda technology.

Maybe we can conclude that "alls well that ends well", but democracy was rather touch and go for most of the 20th century, and anti-democratic forces made significant use of advances in propaganda technology.

Bigger picture, democracy has probably only been globally accepted as the best form of government by a majority of global citizens for a few decades in all of human history, and those of us coming of age as the iron curtain fell may be the most pro democratic of all time.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 03, 2021, 12:20:08 PM
-accepted as the best realistic form of government. The absolute best would be me as God-emperor.  ;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 03, 2021, 12:20:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2021, 10:39:04 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2021, 10:32:42 AM
So is there something that can be done about Fox News?

IMO they're undermining democracy in the US and have been for decades.
Not until we concede that in the 21st century, free speech may need more limits placed on it than it needed in the 20th century, due to technological advances in propaganda technology.

I think we are already doing that a bit. We will see if the cure is worse than the disease.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 03, 2021, 12:21:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2021, 07:22:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2021, 03:21:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2021, 03:18:27 PM
On several occasions now, Fox has defended its "news anchors" by saying they are entertainment personalities that are deliberately trafficking in hyperbole, not facts.

Seriously? Holy shit.

As one example - from McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC (SDNY 2020)

QuoteFox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect . . .As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to "challenge[] political correctness and media bias." Def. Br. at 14. This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in"exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary."  Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.

What the hell? That doesn't even make sense. He is trying to oppose bias and misleading ideologies by engaging in...saying non-true things? What?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 12:39:07 PM
I think it's quite possible that we've had peak democracy. The demand for democracy just isn't very strong. Which strikes me as destructive, but democracy ending by the will of the people makes at least some sense.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 03, 2021, 01:17:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2021, 10:39:04 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2021, 10:32:42 AM
So is there something that can be done about Fox News?

IMO they're undermining democracy in the US and have been for decades.
Not until we concede that in the 21st century, free speech may need more limits placed on it than it needed in the 20th century, due to technological advances in propaganda technology.

I would point out that "yellow journalism" has been a thing in the USA since, I don't know....always?

I don't know that we need to do anything about Fox in particular, but I would like to see how we could adjust incentives within modern journalism to make sober journalism more attractive then sensationalism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 03, 2021, 01:22:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 12:39:07 PM
I think it's quite possible that we've had peak democracy. The demand for democracy just isn't very strong. Which strikes me as destructive, but democracy ending by the will of the people makes at least some sense.

The data does not suggest that.


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.systemicpeace.org%2Fpolity%2Fpolity1800.jpg&hash=6496d3a546cf265ec721298f2485473867ae5ef7)

http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity1.htm (http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity1.htm)

It does not look at all like democracy has peaked.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 03, 2021, 01:30:00 PM
Berkut, unless I'm reading the data incorrectly (I could be it isn't entirely clear), it looks like your website is classifying places like Hungary and Russia in the democracy bucket. Which is a perspective... but isn't really in line with the discussion here.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 03, 2021, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2021, 01:17:23 PM
I would point out that "yellow journalism" has been a thing in the USA since, I don't know....always?
It was, what I'm arguing is that it's more effective now.  Maybe a hundred years ago the cure for yellow journalism was worse than the disease, due to the lesser potency of the disease.  In the age of Facebook microtargeted propaganda or reckless engagement algorithms turning people into zombies living in alternative reality, with no apparent pathway of shocking them back into fact-based reality, it may be that now disease has evolved into a more dangerous strain that warrants stronger response with more severe side effects.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 03, 2021, 02:05:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2021, 01:30:00 PM
Berkut, unless I'm reading the data incorrectly (I could be it isn't entirely clear), it looks like your website is classifying places like Hungary and Russia in the democracy bucket. Which is a perspective... but isn't really in line with the discussion here.

You can reasonably argue the particulars of course, but the overall trend is pretty clear.

I think they actually classify Hungary as a anocracy - partial democracy (something they moved the USA into in 2020 as well, btw).

But it looks like Hungrary in particular is based on 2010 data.

In any case, I think there is reason to be worried, but the overall trend is generally rather positive evn over just the last 40 years.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 03, 2021, 02:06:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2021, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2021, 01:17:23 PM
I would point out that "yellow journalism" has been a thing in the USA since, I don't know....always?
It was, what I'm arguing is that it's more effective now.  Maybe a hundred years ago the cure for yellow journalism was worse than the disease, due to the lesser potency of the disease.  In the age of Facebook microtargeted propaganda or reckless engagement algorithms turning people into zombies living in alternative reality, with no apparent pathway of shocking them back into fact-based reality, it may be that now disease has evolved into a more dangerous strain that warrants stronger response with more severe side effects.

I don't disagree with all this in theory, I would just rather consider how to think about this as a market that i not well aligned rather then going straight to the tool of greater authoritarianism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 03, 2021, 02:21:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2021, 02:05:14 PM

In any case, I think there is reason to be worried, but the overall trend is generally rather positive evn over just the last 40 years.

Of course the trend is positive over the last 40 years. That includes the collapse of most communist governments!

The question is what the trend will be during the 21st century, and I'm not sure the trend thus far is positive.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2021, 02:32:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2021, 02:05:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2021, 01:30:00 PM
Berkut, unless I'm reading the data incorrectly (I could be it isn't entirely clear), it looks like your website is classifying places like Hungary and Russia in the democracy bucket. Which is a perspective... but isn't really in line with the discussion here.

You can reasonably argue the particulars of course, but the overall trend is pretty clear.

I think they actually classify Hungary as a anocracy - partial democracy (something they moved the USA into in 2020 as well, btw).

But it looks like Hungrary in particular is based on 2010 data.

In any case, I think there is reason to be worried, but the overall trend is generally rather positive evn over just the last 40 years.

The trend over the past 40 years has been very positive.

The trend over the last 10 years has not.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 02:48:13 PM
The significant weakening of democracy in the US in recent years is one of the things that I find very disturbing. And in Sweden openly supporting democracy is best avoided if you don't want to be called evil, which is very different from the situation say 30 years ago.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 03, 2021, 03:05:11 PM
QuoteUsing the POLITY data series, The Center for Systemic Peace has downgraded the system of government of the United States of America from a democracy to an anocracy, a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features". From a notice on the front page of the CSP website:

The USA has dropped below the "democracy threshold" (+6) on the POLITY scale in 2020 and and is now considered an anocracy (+5). It has also lost its designation as the world's oldest, continuous democracy; that designation now belongs to Switzerland (171 years), followed by New Zealand (142) and the United Kingdom (139). Further degradation of democratic authority in the USA will trigger an Adverse Regime Change event.

The downgrade can be tied directly to the Trump administration's actions over the past four years:

In 2019, CSP changed the USA code for Executive Constraints from 7 to 6 due to the executive's systematic rejection of congressional oversight; dropping its POLITY score to +7 and resetting its DURABLE score to "0". In 2020, the coding for Executive Constraints will fall another point or two due to the executive's systematic purge of "disloyalists" from the administration, forceful response to protest, vilification of the main opposition parties; and undermining public trust in the electoral process, reducing the USA POLITY score in 2020 to +5 (anocracy).

Their analysis also places the US at "high risk of impending political instability (i.e., adverse regime change and/or onset of political violence)" and designates "the ongoing efforts of the USA executive to circumvent electoral outcomes and subvert democratic processes as an 'attempted (presidential) coup'".

I find this to be bizarre. Apparently we were a democracy from 1860 through 1900 and with Nixon, but not now...We used to have mass disenfranchisement, significant political violence, and people that would stand up in Congress and brag that the elections in their states were fixed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 03:14:33 PM
My understanding is that in the Nixon era GOP senators were prepared to tell a GOP president to go over something as trivial as Watergate. Today such a scenario is unthinkable.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 03, 2021, 08:17:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2021, 03:05:11 PM
I find this to be bizarre. Apparently we were a democracy from 1860 through 1900 and with Nixon, but not now...We used to have mass disenfranchisement, significant political violence, and people that would stand up in Congress and brag that the elections in their states were fixed.

Perhaps the bar for what qualifies as a democracy has moved since 1900?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2021, 08:32:14 PM
It seems to me like a measure expressly designed to call the post-Trump US something other than a democracy.

Just one point off America!  So close!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 03, 2021, 08:35:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 02:48:13 PM
The significant weakening of democracy in the US in recent years is one of the things that I find very disturbing. And in Sweden openly supporting democracy is best avoided if you don't want to be called evil, which is very different from the situation say 30 years ago.

What's the story with Sweden? I assume it's some sort of political correctness/ excess wokeness thing?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 03, 2021, 10:48:01 PM
Wait, Brain is a real person?  I thought he was an algorithm written by vM that posted semi-appropriate modified pop references.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 03, 2021, 11:24:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2021, 10:48:01 PM
Wait, Brain is a real person?  I thought he was an algorithm written by vM that posted semi-appropriate modified pop references.

He paints miniatures. As far as I know that's something only real people do.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2021, 11:52:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2021, 03:05:11 PM


I find this to be bizarre. Apparently we were a democracy from 1860 through 1900 and with Nixon, but not now...We used to have mass disenfranchisement, significant political violence, and people that would stand up in Congress and brag that the elections in their states were fixed.
Are they just ignoring the election of 1876?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 04, 2021, 12:25:15 AM
Democracy is great, but it relies on a politically educated and well informed electorate; this seems to me a major issue today - I feel in a lot of countries people have become apathetic because life in consumerist societies, on the whole, was good for the majority.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 02:31:44 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2021, 08:35:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 02:48:13 PM
The significant weakening of democracy in the US in recent years is one of the things that I find very disturbing. And in Sweden openly supporting democracy is best avoided if you don't want to be called evil, which is very different from the situation say 30 years ago.

What's the story with Sweden? I assume it's some sort of political correctness/ excess wokeness thing?

Well, many people today think that enemies of The Good should not be allowed any space in public discourse. If you express support for an open democratic society you support the enemies of The Good getting to speak, which these people find abhorrent. "-So you want Nazis to be allowed to march on our streets??!? -Yes, they and everyone else, since democr... -Monster!! Nazi!!!"

One of the mechanisms that drive them is that they themselves only view democracy as a tool to get what they want. When democracy results in something other than what they want they think it's OK and even great to take a dump on the democratic decisions they disagree with. They call it "activism". This also makes them completely unable to grasp that other people might actually genuinely support democracy, and any argument put forward by other people is viewed through the lens that they're familiar with and understand.

30 years ago the uncontroversial ideal was a society where ideas get to be expressed without fear and where democracy is desirable as a system, and that accepting democratic decisions even when you don't like them is important.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 02:32:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2021, 10:48:01 PM
Wait, Brain is a real person?  I thought he was an algorithm written by vM that posted semi-appropriate modified pop references.

I am unreal.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 02:53:51 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 02:48:13 PM
And in Sweden openly supporting democracy is best avoided if you don't want to be called evil, which is very different from the situation say 30 years ago.

Huh? What are you mumbling about?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 02:55:07 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 02:53:51 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 02:48:13 PM
And in Sweden openly supporting democracy is best avoided if you don't want to be called evil, which is very different from the situation say 30 years ago.

Huh? What are you mumbling about?

*shrug* I can only report what I see and experience.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 02:57:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 02:55:07 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 02:53:51 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 02:48:13 PM
And in Sweden openly supporting democracy is best avoided if you don't want to be called evil, which is very different from the situation say 30 years ago.

Huh? What are you mumbling about?

*shrug* I can only report what I see and experience.

I'm intrigued, tell me more.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 03:00:37 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 02:57:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 02:55:07 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 02:53:51 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 02:48:13 PM
And in Sweden openly supporting democracy is best avoided if you don't want to be called evil, which is very different from the situation say 30 years ago.

Huh? What are you mumbling about?

*shrug* I can only report what I see and experience.

I'm intrigued, tell me more.

See above.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2021, 03:19:26 AM
It was 12 years of repressed anti PC rage bubbling out.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 04:20:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 03:00:37 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 02:57:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 02:55:07 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 02:53:51 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 02:48:13 PM
And in Sweden openly supporting democracy is best avoided if you don't want to be called evil, which is very different from the situation say 30 years ago.

Huh? What are you mumbling about?

*shrug* I can only report what I see and experience.

I'm intrigued, tell me more.

See above.

Reading comprehension fail :blush:

I don't really agree with you, there's no difference from 30 years ago. You have a rose-tinted view of the past. There were the same debates when nazi's ran around on Nov 30th in the early nineties.

What has changed, and that's more of a 70's thing is the consensus politics. The Social Democrats always respected the opposition and let them have influence, but that changed with Palme and that's a loooong time ago. The lack of consensus makes the loser disrespect the decisions and that shit might trickle down. Nowadays they can't even agree on long term defense politics...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 04:29:59 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 04:20:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 03:00:37 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 02:57:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 02:55:07 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 02:53:51 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 02:48:13 PM
And in Sweden openly supporting democracy is best avoided if you don't want to be called evil, which is very different from the situation say 30 years ago.

Huh? What are you mumbling about?

*shrug* I can only report what I see and experience.

I'm intrigued, tell me more.

See above.

Reading comprehension fail :blush:

I don't really agree with you, there's no difference from 30 years ago. You have a rose-tinted view of the past. There were the same debates when nazi's ran around on Nov 30th in the early nineties.

What has changed, and that's more of a 70's thing is the consensus politics. The Social Democrats always respected the opposition and let them have influence, but that changed with Palme and that's a loooong time ago. The lack of consensus makes the loser disrespect the decisions and that shit might trickle down. Nowadays they can't even agree on long term defense politics...

I'm glad your experience is better than mine. 30 years ago I felt that it was possible to defend democracy without being called evil/Nazi. I don't feel that today. And I certainly won't defend democracy in public in Sweden ever again.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 04:32:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 04:29:59 AM
I'm glad your experience is better than mine. 30 years ago I felt that it was possible to defend democracy without being called evil/Nazi. I don't feel that today. And I certainly won't defend democracy in public in Sweden ever again.

Well, I don't live in the silly shrill hysteric world of our royal capital.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 04:33:27 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 04:32:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 04:29:59 AM
I'm glad your experience is better than mine. 30 years ago I felt that it was possible to defend democracy without being called evil/Nazi. I don't feel that today. And I certainly won't defend democracy in public in Sweden ever again.

Well, I don't live in the silly shrill hysteric world of our royal capital.

My interaction with Swedes is mostly online.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 04:59:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 04:33:27 AM
My interaction with Swedes is mostly online.

Online and offline are very different in my experience. Most sensible people don't post politics on Flashback, Facebook and Aftonbladet. It is a very loud and very small minority I hope.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 05:11:01 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 04:59:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 04:33:27 AM
My interaction with Swedes is mostly online.

Online and offline are very different in my experience. Most sensible people don't post politics on Flashback, Facebook and Aftonbladet. It is a very loud and very small minority I hope.

Haven't used any of those. My experience is that it's not a matter of online/offline.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 05:40:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 05:11:01 AM
Haven't used any of those. My experience is that it's not a matter of online/offline.

Ok. Try associating with better people.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 05:42:54 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 05:40:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 05:11:01 AM
Haven't used any of those. My experience is that it's not a matter of online/offline.

Ok. Try associating with better people.

Me living in a bubble wouldn't affect the world outside the bubble.

It's certainly possible that I'm completely misreading the situation in Sweden. But I think it's unlikely.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 04, 2021, 05:59:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 03:14:33 PM
My understanding is that in the Nixon era GOP senators were prepared to tell a GOP president to go over something as trivial as Watergate. Today such a scenario is unthinkable.

I disagree that watergate was trivial. But that said, the context was quite a bit different: Nixon's public support collapsed in a way that Trump's didn't. As Nixon's public support collapsed, so did his congressional support.

Why Nixon's support collapsed is debatable, but it certainly didn't hurt that Democrats had comfortable majorities and could control the process. Republicans either controlled the Senate when Trump was president or, as he left office, the Democrats got control of a 50-50 body with Harris as the tie breaking vote (and ran a much abbreviated trial on a very rushed time frame due to competing priorities).

The House inquiry to begin considering impeachment of Nixon was on October 30 and he didn't resign until August 20 of the following year. That initial House vote was a straight party line vote with no support from Republicans. The House had a month and a half of public hearings. Had the House and Senate moved on the timeframe used with Trump, and without hearings, I suspect Nixon would have served out his term.

Also, 7 republican senators did vote to convict. In a 50-50 senate that is a footnote, but in a 57-43 senate, 7 republican defectors would have left the president a stone's throw from removal.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 06:04:30 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2021, 05:59:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2021, 03:14:33 PM
My understanding is that in the Nixon era GOP senators were prepared to tell a GOP president to go over something as trivial as Watergate. Today such a scenario is unthinkable.

I disagree that watergate was trivial. But that said, the context was quite a bit different: Nixon's public support collapsed in a way that Trump's didn't. As Nixon's public support collapsed, so did his congressional support.

Why Nixon's support collapsed is debatable, but it certainly didn't hurt that Democrats had comfortable majorities and could control the process. Republicans either controlled the Senate when Trump was president or, as he left office, the Democrats got control of a 50-50 body with Harris as the tie breaking vote (and ran a much abbreviated trial on a very rushed time frame due to competing priorities).

The House inquiry to begin considering impeachment of Nixon was on October 30 and he didn't resign until August 20 of the following year. That initial House vote was a straight party line vote with no support from Republicans. The House had a month and a half of public hearings. Had the House and Senate moved on the timeframe used with Trump, and without hearings, I suspect Nixon would have served out his term.

Also, 7 republican senators did vote to convict. In a 50-50 senate that is a footnote, but in a 57-43 senate, 7 republican defectors would have left the president a stone's throw from removal.


Thank you.

Two comments: I think Watergate was trivial compared to the January coup. And the fact that Trump still had support after the coup seems to me to indicate a significant weakening of the support for democracy in the US.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 06:06:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 05:42:54 AM
Me living in a bubble wouldn't affect the world outside the bubble.

It's certainly possible that I'm completely misreading the situation in Sweden. But I think it's unlikely.

I was politically active at the turn of the century in Moderaterna and a lot of my circle of friends were leftists.
I was threatened with actual murder in an actual threatening way and I was a nobody.
I went to parties with friends and could find that someone had written death to rightists on the bathroom mirror.
I had people not talking to me at parties due to my politics.
People screamed fascist after me.
At a job meeting a girl almost screamed fascist after me when my activism came up.
My party comrades went around in a constant stupor of arrogance and metoo-moments, an absolute parody of brats.
At the Euro-referendum we watched the leftists No-group clash aggressively with rightist No-groups and we just looked on and felt smug. And lost.
and so on, and so forth...

What I'm trying to say is that lots of intolerant bastards is not a new thing, perhaps you are just now noticing them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 04, 2021, 06:14:27 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 06:04:30 AM

Two comments: I think Watergate was trivial compared to the January coup. And the fact that Trump still had support after the coup seems to me to indicate a significant weakening of the support for democracy in the US.

Nixon was legitimately evil, and legitimately smart and cunning.

Trump...

My opinion is that Watergate was more serious -- the state using its power to try to stack the deck in an election, and then cover up what they did. Versus Trump firing up the dumbest people on the planet to storm the capital and get arrested within an hour.

I do get the perspective on why people would feel otherwise though.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 04, 2021, 06:20:46 AM
Yeah I think Trump is more dangerous because he doesn't accept the system applies to him at all. He would never accept losing an election - including the GOP primaries - and I think democracies on the loser's consent. It sort of relies on both sides saying if we lose that's fair and we accept the legitimacy of the victory by the other side.

Trump has significantly weakened that on one side of American democracy - and, if you genuinely think the other side has stolen the election, as many Republicans do, you can take almost any measures to stop that from happening again.

I think Nixon attacked the "free and fair" bit of elections. Trump attacked the legitimacy of the elections themselves.

I don't know the solution/way back from there. I suspect it's probably something like a set of catastrophic results for Republicans - like 64 - but that's not happened yet.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 06:23:16 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 06:06:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 05:42:54 AM
Me living in a bubble wouldn't affect the world outside the bubble.

It's certainly possible that I'm completely misreading the situation in Sweden. But I think it's unlikely.

I was politically active at the turn of the century in Moderaterna and a lot of my circle of friends were leftists.
I was threatened with actual murder in an actual threatening way and I was a nobody.
I went to parties with friends and could find that someone had written death to rightists on the bathroom mirror.
I had people not talking to me at parties due to my politics.
People screamed fascist after me.
At a job meeting a girl almost screamed fascist after me when my activism came up.
My party comrades went around in a constant stupor of arrogance and metoo-moments, an absolute parody of brats.
At the Euro-referendum we watched the leftists No-group clash aggressively with rightist No-groups and we just looked on and felt smug. And lost.
and so on, and so forth...

What I'm trying to say is that lots of intolerant bastards is not a new thing, perhaps you are just now noticing them.

I don't think lots of intolerant people is a new thing. My experience is that the ideal has changed and is still changing in Sweden, away from an open democratic society.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 04, 2021, 06:29:15 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 04:33:27 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 04:32:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 04:29:59 AM
I'm glad your experience is better than mine. 30 years ago I felt that it was possible to defend democracy without being called evil/Nazi. I don't feel that today. And I certainly won't defend democracy in public in Sweden ever again.

Well, I don't live in the silly shrill hysteric world of our royal capital.

My interaction with Swedes is mostly online.

That's going to make it seem like people are far more extreme and politically active.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 06:30:46 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 04, 2021, 06:29:15 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 04:33:27 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 04:32:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 04:29:59 AM
I'm glad your experience is better than mine. 30 years ago I felt that it was possible to defend democracy without being called evil/Nazi. I don't feel that today. And I certainly won't defend democracy in public in Sweden ever again.

Well, I don't live in the silly shrill hysteric world of our royal capital.

My interaction with Swedes is mostly online.

That's going to make it seem like people are far more extreme and politically active.

That is not my experience. I have yet to meet someone who is significantly different online and offline.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 04, 2021, 06:31:35 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2021, 06:20:46 AM
Yeah I think Trump is more dangerous because he doesn't accept the system applies to him at all. He would never accept losing an election - including the GOP primaries - and I think democracies on the loser's consent. It sort of relies on both sides saying if we lose that's fair and we accept the legitimacy of the victory by the other side.

Trump has significantly weakened that on one side of American democracy - and, if you genuinely think the other side has stolen the election, as many Republicans do, you can take almost any measures to stop that from happening again.

I think Nixon attacked the "free and fair" bit of elections. Trump attacked the legitimacy of the elections themselves.

I don't know the solution/way back from there. I suspect it's probably something like a set of catastrophic results for Republicans - like 64 - but that's not happened yet.

I see things as the opposite. What gets people to accept election results is the chance to win down the road. A catastrophe can have the opposite effect: in 64 it didn't because the GOP understood it was nominating a radical and that didn't mean that party lost its viability if it returned to its more traditional roots.

A catastrophic electoral result that seems to indicate the damnation of future opportunity can promote a total breakdown. The best example is the election of 1860. Go back to the last John C. Calhoun speeches (died years before the election): the North was obtaining a dominate electoral position through decades of underhanded methods: taxing the south to subsidize northern interests. 1860 elected Lincoln. The result wasn't the south saying, "you beat us fair and square under the constitution, good job guys, now we need to find a new platform to get majority support", it was the civil war.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 06:35:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 06:23:16 AM
I don't think lots of intolerant people is a new thing. My experience is that the ideal has changed and is still changing in Sweden, away from an open democratic society.

Interesting. Will think about it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 06:37:43 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 06:35:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 06:23:16 AM
I don't think lots of intolerant people is a new thing. My experience is that the ideal has changed and is still changing in Sweden, away from an open democratic society.

Interesting. Will think about it.

Like I said, I may be wrong. :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Duque de Bragança on June 04, 2021, 07:54:03 AM
Quote from: Threviel on June 04, 2021, 05:40:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 05:11:01 AM
Haven't used any of those. My experience is that it's not a matter of online/offline.

Ok. Try associating with better people.

Take that Languish!  :face:  :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 04, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 04, 2021, 07:54:03 AM
Take that Languish!  :face:  :lol:

What if Languish is where you try to associate with better people :weep:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 04, 2021, 01:36:49 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2021, 06:14:27 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2021, 06:04:30 AM

Two comments: I think Watergate was trivial compared to the January coup. And the fact that Trump still had support after the coup seems to me to indicate a significant weakening of the support for democracy in the US.

Nixon was legitimately evil, and legitimately smart and cunning.

Trump...

My opinion is that Watergate was more serious -- the state using its power to try to stack the deck in an election, and then cover up what they did. Versus Trump firing up the dumbest people on the planet to storm the capital and get arrested within an hour.

I do get the perspective on why people would feel otherwise though.

Watergate was extra-legal.  They broke into a office building and tried to steal documents.  It's not really a state thing.  Also... Trump's people didn't get "arrested in an hour".  Most simply walked out.  Those that were arrested were arrested week often months later.  Currently the biggest danger is that state legislatures voting themselves the power to simply overturn elections they don't like.  That is a state thing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 04, 2021, 01:43:29 PM
Turns out some GOP snowflakes are ok with cancel culture. :P

https://secondnexus.com/surry-county-republicans-ban-coke

QuoteNC Republicans Ban Coke Machines After Coca-Cola Criticized Georgia Voter Suppression Law

The conservative crusade against so-called "cancel culture" has become a pillar of the Republican party's platform. Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that cancel culture was the "number one issue" facing the United States today. Earlier this year, he called for a congressional committee hearing to address the matter. At former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial for inciting an insurrection, his defense team claimed the process was "constitutional cancel culture."

But all too often, the same conservatives who rail against cancel culture simultaneously perpetuate it themselves.

This most recently manifested in Surry County, North Carolina, where the Republican officials banned all Coca-Cola machines from government facilities, citing the Atlanta-based company's opposition to the recently passed voter suppression law in Georgia, nearly 400 miles away.

In a letter written to the company's CEO and reported by NBC News, Surry County Commissioner Ed Harris said:

Quote"Our Board felt that was the best way to take a stand and express our disappointment in Coca-Cola's actions, which are not representative of most views of our citizens. Our Board hopes that other organizations across the country are taking similar stances against Coca-Cola and sincerely wishes that future marketing efforts and comments emanating from your company are more considerate of all your customers' viewpoints."

The letter was in response to comments from CEO James Quincey back in March, which called Georgia's new voting law "unacceptable" and "a step backwards."

Georgia saw backlash from a number of private companies after its Republican governor, Brian Kemp, signed into law the policy that limits ballot drop boxes, voter accessibility, and effectively bans giving food and water to voters in long lines.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 04, 2021, 01:51:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2021, 01:36:49 PM
Watergate was extra-legal.  They broke into a office building and tried to steal documents.  It's not really a state thing.  Also... Trump's people didn't get "arrested in an hour".  Most simply walked out.  Those that were arrested were arrested week often months later.  Currently the biggest danger is that state legislatures voting themselves the power to simply overturn elections they don't like.  That is a state thing.

Watergate was a state thing: executive branch officials were involved in a crime and the executive branch asserted it didn't need to comply with normal investigative procedures because of its constitutional position.

State legislatures have the constitutional authority to simply assign their electoral votes without an election. In fact, back when Berkut's source considered us to be a democracy (though we don't qualify now :( ), not all states let their citizens vote for president at all.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 04, 2021, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2021, 06:31:35 AM
I see things as the opposite. What gets people to accept election results is the chance to win down the road. A catastrophe can have the opposite effect: in 64 it didn't because the GOP understood it was nominating a radical and that didn't mean that party lost its viability if it returned to its more traditional roots.

A catastrophic electoral result that seems to indicate the damnation of future opportunity can promote a total breakdown. The best example is the election of 1860. Go back to the last John C. Calhoun speeches (died years before the election): the North was obtaining a dominate electoral position through decades of underhanded methods: taxing the south to subsidize northern interests. 1860 elected Lincoln. The result wasn't the south saying, "you beat us fair and square under the constitution, good job guys, now we need to find a new platform to get majority support", it was the civil war.
Yeah I may be under-rating the possibility of civil war because my assumption is that won't happen.

And my view is you can have the best constitution in the world but it doesn't mean anything if the parties don't accept its legitimacy. I basically think this is a political problem which means it needs a political solution and the best I can think of is comprehensive defeat leading to change within a party just as the John Birchers were purged post-64.

I actually think Trump is bad but possibly the more significant and important issue is that the GOP have basically decided to lean into minoritarian politics, which are very strong under the US constitution. But I don't really know how politics or democracy works if one side stops trying to actually win a majority or 50%+1 because they don't need to to achieve their goals. And I think that is a crucial difference with Orban - his approach to politics is basically majoritarian: he wins a huge percent of the vote and has a super-majority so refuses limits on his side's policies. The GOP is the opposite.

My suspicion is that it just results in increasing dysfunction, increasing dissatisfaction with politics and increasing polarisation. But I don't know how it ends - that scenario in other Presidential republics has led to coups, typically of a sort of "restorationist" approach - the politicians have broke the system the generals take over to "restore" it and possibly set new limits. The more likely alternatives I think would be if Biden is very successful or if the rules were changed to weaken the minoritarian protections (no filibuster, extra judges or whatever else) - because either of those would probably force the GOP to try and expand their vote and re-engage with the system. As long as they can broadly achieve their aims at a national level with the Supreme Court, with 40+ votes in the Senate and with the occasional presidential victory there's no real reason to engage. But that is a guess.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on June 04, 2021, 02:44:59 PM
No trump on fbook until at least 2023
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 08, 2021, 12:34:15 AM
https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1401978575054684175

QuoteGreg Abbott
@GregAbbott_TX

To keep Texas the best state in the nation, we can never forget WHY our state is so exceptional.

I signed a law establishing the 1836 project, which promotes patriotic education & ensures future generations understand TX values.

Together, we'll keep our rich history alive.

I assume the curriculum won't include:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3T4mtUVUBYd9Vu?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 11, 2021, 11:39:48 AM
Yesterday, the Florida board of education, under the leadership of its distinguished Pat Robertson's university graduate, issued a directive  banning the use of critical race theory and the 1619 project in the classroom. Texas and Iowa are currently envisionning similar prohibition either through laws or similar directives.

In Florida, the teaching of history "may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles states in the Declaration of Independance".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-critical-race-theory-bill-teachers/2021/06/02/4a72afda-bee9-11eb-9bae-5a86187646fe_story.html
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 11, 2021, 11:42:16 AM
Pretty sure we already have similar guidelines in Texas. But if there are going to be any laws passed about that they missed their chance, have to try again in 2023.

But my understanding is the 1619 thing is not the best history anyway.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 11, 2021, 11:44:48 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 08, 2021, 12:34:15 AM
I assume the curriculum won't include:

Why not? That was not written in 1836.

The declaration of secession will be in there along with Sam Houston's, the True Texan(tm), principled stand against it. You got to  know how we spin things.

The weird thing is is that WE ALREADY HAVE THESE EXACT STANDARDS ALREADY. They just want to pass more laws saying the same shit to please the culture warriors.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 11, 2021, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2021, 11:42:16 AM
But my understanding is the 1619 thing is not the best history anyway.

There are things to nitpick about it, to be sure. And it's possible to actually have a relly interesting conversation on American history from it.

But that's not really what it's about. It's about empowering state legislatures to fully participate in retaliatory politics against teachers, while scoring points with voters who know nothing about the 1619 project or "critical race theory" besides what FoxNews has fed them ("Marxist propaganda", "hateful communist indoctrination"). As I have heard, and read, the only thing that kids should be taught is how the US has been, is, and will be, the greatest country on Earth. Oh, and also, that Democrats are historically the party of racism, KKK and corruption. Oh, and by the way, why don't we have a white history month?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 11, 2021, 11:50:26 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 11, 2021, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2021, 11:42:16 AM
But my understanding is the 1619 thing is not the best history anyway.

There are things to nitpick about it, to be sure. And it's possible to actually have a relly interesting conversation on American history from it.

But that's not really what it's about. It's about empowering state legislatures to fully participate in retaliatory politics against teachers, while scoring points with voters who know nothing about the 1619 project or "critical race theory" besides what FoxNews has fed them ("Marxist propaganda", "hateful communist indoctrination"). As I have heard, and read, the only thing that kids should be taught is how the US has been, is, and will be, the greatest country on Earth. Oh, and also, that Democrats are historically the party of racism, KKK and corruption. Oh, and by the way, why don't we have a white history month?

Right it is culture wars all the time. Local government control? Communities making their own decisions? No. Big government will make sure they make the correct decisions. It is the Trump Republican Party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 11, 2021, 12:05:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2021, 11:50:26 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 11, 2021, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2021, 11:42:16 AM
But my understanding is the 1619 thing is not the best history anyway.

There are things to nitpick about it, to be sure. And it's possible to actually have a relly interesting conversation on American history from it.

But that's not really what it's about. It's about empowering state legislatures to fully participate in retaliatory politics against teachers, while scoring points with voters who know nothing about the 1619 project or "critical race theory" besides what FoxNews has fed them ("Marxist propaganda", "hateful communist indoctrination"). As I have heard, and read, the only thing that kids should be taught is how the US has been, is, and will be, the greatest country on Earth. Oh, and also, that Democrats are historically the party of racism, KKK and corruption. Oh, and by the way, why don't we have a white history month?

Right it is culture wars all the time. Local government control? Communities making their own decisions? No. Big government will make sure they make the correct decisions. It is the Trump Republican Party.

I am not sure I am all that keen on local goverment control.

In most places in the US, they are fucking nuts. And the more nuts they are, the more willing they are to put in the energy to dominate local politics.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on June 11, 2021, 12:07:21 PM
I think Valmy's point is that they're being hypocrites on the issue. The GOP used to go on and on about state's rahhts, federalism, local control, etc., and now just runs roughshod over it. Big government conservatism in service to the culture war is the name of the game now.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 11, 2021, 12:11:22 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 11, 2021, 12:07:21 PM
I think Valmy's point is that they're being hypocrites on the issue. The GOP used to go on and on about state's rahhts, federalism, local control, etc., and now just runs roughshod over it. Big government conservatism in service to the culture war is the name of the game now.

Oh, right. Yeah, I see what you (and Valmy) mean. Sorry Valmy!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on June 11, 2021, 07:38:19 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 11, 2021, 12:07:21 PM
I think Valmy's point is that they're being hypocrites on the issue. The GOP used to go on and on about state's rahhts, federalism, local control, etc., and now just runs roughshod over it. Big government conservatism in service to the culture war is the name of the game now.

It always was.  Local control went out the window in Georgia in November 2002, for example.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2021, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2021, 11:42:16 AM
But my understanding is the 1619 thing is not the best history anyway.

When you see something like:
"In Florida, the teaching of history "may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles states in the Declaration of Independance" --  It's pretty clear the issue is not about the "best history".

Personal irony: I actually believe that a certain degree of patriotic historical education is desirable in primary school.  But patriotic doesn't have to mean completely uncritical. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 12, 2021, 08:07:41 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2021, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2021, 11:42:16 AM
But my understanding is the 1619 thing is not the best history anyway.

When you see something like:
"In Florida, the teaching of history "may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles states in the Declaration of Independance" --  It's pretty clear the issue is not about the "best history".

Personal irony: I actually believe that a certain degree of patriotic historical education is desirable in primary school.  But patriotic doesn't have to mean completely uncritical.

Exactly.  I wouldn't build an entire curriculum around the 1619  Project or A People's History of the United States, but they are great for showing that there are valid alternative viewpoints on many of the most important issues in US history.   Students can't really understand an issue unless they have to reach conclusions about it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 14, 2021, 11:03:05 AM
I am very impressed with the American education system if you were until now teaching 8 year old Frantz Fanon :o
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 14, 2021, 11:05:56 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2021, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2021, 11:42:16 AM
But my understanding is the 1619 thing is not the best history anyway.

When you see something like:
"In Florida, the teaching of history "may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles states in the Declaration of Independance" --  It's pretty clear the issue is not about the "best history".

Personal irony: I actually believe that a certain degree of patriotic historical education is desirable in primary school.  But patriotic doesn't have to mean completely uncritical.

The history of african slavery in Florida goes back further than 1619. That is probably what republicans are upset about.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 14, 2021, 12:35:12 PM
From an interview with Moscow Mitch.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E32jVxZXwAAdJcF?format=png&name=900x900)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 15, 2021, 11:06:29 AM
Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation Saturday that invalidates federal gun laws in Missouri.

Missouri law enforcement officials no longer have to execute federal gun laws.

QuoteMissouri law enforcement officials no longer have to execute federal gun laws.

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed a bill Saturday that declares all federal gun laws past, present and future must be invalid in the state.This includes taxing, tracking and registration of weapons.

The bill is called the "Second Amendment Preservation Act."

He signed the bill in front of a large crowd inside Frontier Justice, a gun store and shooting range in Lee's Summit.

Parson, a former sheriff, said the purpose of this legislation is to stand up to the federal government.

"We're going to do things to make sure you don't overreach your authority from the federal government," he said, while seated at a desk in front of a large display of firearms.

The bill would bar local police from assisting federal agents in enforcing federal laws. And it allows for a $50,000 lawsuit against anyone who knowingly acts under any federal or state law to deprive a Missouri citizen of their Second Amendment rights.

Response to the signing was swift Saturday.

The Missouri chapters of Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action immediately released a statement condemning the bill.

"We are frustrated and disappointed that Governor Parson signed a dangerous bill into law today that ties the hands of law enforcement officers while Missouri is facing one of the worst gun violence epidemics in the country," said retired Sheriff Rick Walter, a volunteer with the Missouri chapter of Moms Demand Action.

Missouri House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, a Democrat from Springfield, called the bill a "radical, dangerous and obviously unconstitutional attempt to declare that Missouri will refuse to follow federal gun laws."

According to the Giffords Law Center, 20 out of every 100,000 people in Missouri die from gun violence. The average gun death rate in the country is 12 per 100,000. And Missouri ranks among the 10 worst states for gun deaths, according to the Giffords Law Center.

"When people are looking for real solutions on crime, policing and public safety, Governor Parson and the Republican legislature have instead chosen to preserve Missouri's growing reputation for extremist and dangerous laws," Quade said in a statement.

The Republican sponsor of the bill, Jered Taylor of Christian County, called it the strongest Second Amendment bill in the country. He said the bill was in response to federal overreach and likened the bill to how other states get around federal laws.

"The feds use us," he said. "They rely on us to enforce their laws. Look at medical marijuana in the state of Missouri — this is exactly what we do with that. It's exactly what sanctuary cities use."

Parson signed the bill in front of a crowd of supporters and was backed by several legislators who had a hand in crafting the bill and moving it through the legislature.


https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-06-12/missouri-law-enforcement-no-longer-required-to-enforce-federal-gun-laws?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&fbclid=IwAR1YDv0izZmOHaIb-lKFOaehdyuVq_eLy_TfBy5wOLiq6F8T9ldd_opnhLU
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
QuoteThe Republican sponsor of the bill, Jered Taylor of Christian County, called it the strongest Second Amendment bill in the country. He said the bill was in response to federal overreach and likened the bill to how other states get around federal laws.

"The feds use us," he said. "They rely on us to enforce their laws. Look at medical marijuana in the state of Missouri — this is exactly what we do with that. It's exactly what sanctuary cities use."


That's a grotesque lie.  This law doesn't merely limit the degree of affirmative cooperation of local law enforcement as occurs in state pot laws or "sanctuary city" policies.  It declares federal laws to be invalid and imposes harsh sanctions on anyone who follows the law.  Last time states tried to pull something like this it ended with Sherman burning half the South.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 15, 2021, 11:19:13 AM
I was about to say, simply not enforcing federal laws is not new.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 15, 2021, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
QuoteThe Republican sponsor of the bill, Jered Taylor of Christian County, called it the strongest Second Amendment bill in the country. He said the bill was in response to federal overreach and likened the bill to how other states get around federal laws.

"The feds use us," he said. "They rely on us to enforce their laws. Look at medical marijuana in the state of Missouri — this is exactly what we do with that. It's exactly what sanctuary cities use."


That's a grotesque lie.  This law doesn't merely limit the degree of affirmative cooperation of local law enforcement as occurs in state pot laws or "sanctuary city" policies.  It declares federal laws to be invalid and imposes harsh sanctions on anyone who follows the law.  Last time states tried to pull something like this it ended with Sherman burning half the South.

My knowledge of this is directly limited to the article above, but it only says: "The bill would bar local police from assisting federal agents in enforcing federal laws. And it allows for a $50,000 lawsuit against anyone who knowingly acts under any federal or state law to deprive a Missouri citizen of their Second Amendment rights".

Presumably the federal or state laws that deprive a Missouri citizen their second amendment rights would be unconstitutional and thus invalid?

Again not knowing anything about the statute, but if it is written exactly like the article, it might be a non sequitur -- can anyone really act under an invalid law?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 15, 2021, 12:12:02 PM
From skimming the law text as a layperson ( https://legiscan.com/MO/text/HB85/2021 ) it seems their argument is that the federal government is very limited in its authority, and therefore:

(https://i.postimg.cc/brJ7KT4r/2ar.jpg)

And then goes on that any state official, basically, is not permitted to enforce any such federal laws.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2021, 12:17:16 PM
Sections 1 and 2 of the bill define as invalid a whole series of categories of federal firearms regulations.  Those regs are defined under the law as depriving individuals of their Second Amendment rights (even though they are valid under federal law).  Thus, for example, if an FBI agent attempts to enforce a covered federal firearms law in Missouri, he can be sued for $50,000.

QuotePresumably the federal or state laws that deprive a Missouri citizen their second amendment rights would be unconstitutional and thus invalid?

Missorui doesn't get to decide what laws are invalid under the Second Amendment or not, that is for the Supreme Court to decide. Until that happens federal law is the supreme law of the land and Missouri can't contradict it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 15, 2021, 12:25:32 PM
Mitch McConnell is furious about the illegal actions of ...

... the people who disclosed rich people's tax data.

https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-republicans-to-biden-doj-do-your-jobs-on-irs-leaks-

QuoteSenate Republicans to Biden DOJ: "Do Your Jobs" on IRS Leaks

'Find those responsible for these disclosures and ensure they are punished as directed by law. Unless you do, ordinary Americans will fall victim to these politicized and criminal disclosures, and trust in the IRS and our tax system will continue to erode.'

WASHINGTON D.C. — U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID) sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding a prompt investigation and prosecution of the latest IRS leak of confidential taxpayer information. The following are excerpts from the letter:

[...]

"Paying one's taxes is a civic duty, and that duty requires taxpayers to disclose to the IRS deeply personal financial information... But those compelled disclosures should not, and do not, make that financial information public.

[...]

"Th[e] rule of confidentiality is about more than just protecting individual privacy, although that is an important objective. The rule is a vital check against the use of the incredible power of federal taxation for nefarious political purposes."

[...]

"Although we are alarmed by this disclosure, we are far more alarmed by what it portends for everyday Americans... Ordinary Americans who turn over their personal information to the IRS because they will go to jail if they don't have every reason to fear that they may too become a victim to the political machinations of activists inside and outside of the IRS."

[...]

"It has become clear that bad actors are more than happy to weaponize Americans' tax information for political purposes. It is further clear that this wanton and criminal abuse of the tax system disproportionately—indeed, exclusively—advances the objectives of the political left in this country."

[...]

"Ultimately, the only way to prevent these dangerous disclosures is to ensure that those who unlawfully disclose tax information go to jail. That's why Congress imposed serious criminal penalties on illegal disclosures like those published by ProPublica."

###


Full letter: https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20the%20AG%20and%20Director%206.11.2021.pdf
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 15, 2021, 12:51:59 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2021, 12:17:16 PM
Sections 1 and 2 of the bill define as invalid a whole series of categories of federal firearms regulations.  Those regs are defined under the law as depriving individuals of their Second Amendment rights (even though they are valid under federal law).  Thus, for example, if an FBI agent attempts to enforce a covered federal firearms law in Missouri, he can be sued for $50,000.

QuotePresumably the federal or state laws that deprive a Missouri citizen their second amendment rights would be unconstitutional and thus invalid?

Missorui doesn't get to decide what laws are invalid under the Second Amendment or not, that is for the Supreme Court to decide. Until that happens federal law is the supreme law of the land and Missouri can't contradict it.

Obviously. I guess a devious approach would be to impose penalties on people violating some subset of constitutional rights in areas where there is ambiguity on what the USSC might permit. If the USSC strikes down certain laws as unconstitutional at some point in the future, they arguably weren't valid laws in the first place.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2021, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 15, 2021, 12:51:59 PM
Obviously. I guess a devious approach would be to impose penalties on people violating some subset of constitutional rights in areas where there is ambiguity on what the USSC might permit. If the USSC strikes down certain laws as unconstitutional at some point in the future, they arguably weren't valid laws in the first place.

No there is nothing devious about it - it is just illegal harassment. A state has no business interfering with federal officials or imposing sanctions on others dealing with federal officials. If the state has a constitutional objection with how federal officials are conducting themselves, assuming it has standing to do so.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 17, 2021, 07:54:23 AM
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/17/secret-recording-florida-republican-threat-hit-squad-494976

QuoteIn secret recording, Florida Republican threatens to send Russian-Ukrainian 'hit squad' after rival

"I really don't want to have to end anybody's life for the good of the people of the United States of America. ... But if it needs to be done, it needs to be done," William Braddock says in the clip.


MIAMI — A little-known GOP candidate in one of Florida's most competitive congressional seats was secretly recorded threatening to send "a Russian and Ukrainian hit squad" to a fellow Republican opponent to make her "disappear."

During a 30-minute call with a conservative activist that was recorded before he became a candidate, William Braddock repeatedly warned the activist to not support GOP candidate Anna Paulina Luna in the Republican primary for a Tampa Bay-area congressional seat because he had access to assassins. The seat is being vacated by Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.), who is running for governor.

"I really don't want to have to end anybody's life for the good of the people of the United States of America," Braddock said at one point in the conversation last week, according to the recording exclusively obtained by POLITICO. "That will break my heart. But if it needs to be done, it needs to be done. Luna is a f---ing speed bump in the road. She's a dead squirrel you run over every day when you leave the neighborhood."

Reached by text message, Braddock refused to say whether he made any threats about Luna to the person who recorded him, Erin Olszewski.

Asked repeatedly via text if he mentioned Russian-Ukrainian hit squads, Braddock wouldn't give a yes or no answer, saying he had not heard the recording and that it's "allegedly me ... there is no proof of that." He also suggested the recording "may even be altered and edited."

"This is a dirty political tactic that has caused a lot of people a lot of stress and is completely unnecessary," he said.

Olszewski denied editing or altering the recording. She said she made it because she was concerned about Braddock's "unhinged" dislike of Luna that he had previously expressed. After she made the recording just after midnight last Wednesday, she promptly turned it over to St. Petersburg, Fla., police and gave a heads-up to her friend Luna, who filed a petition for an injunction against Braddock. Luna received a temporary restraining order against him last Friday. Braddock filed to run Monday.

In the recording, Braddock early in the call brought up the alleged assassins. He also made rambling statements about getting financial help from fellow Freemasons or by somehow importing millions of dollars from Malta and Gibraltar.

"I have access to a hit squad, too, Ukrainians and Russians," he said about three minutes into the call, adding "don't get caught out in public supporting Luna. ... Luna's gonna go down and I hope it's by herself."

Braddock went on to explain that he didn't think Luna could win in the general election. Luna, an Air Force veteran and former model who went on to become a conservative activist, won a crowded GOP primary in the state's 13th Congressional District last year but lost the general election to Crist.

It's unclear exactly why Braddock has such dislike toward Luna. The two do not appear to have any previous connection to one another, and Braddock is a lower-tier candidate in an increasingly crowded race for Crist's seat. Already, two state lawmakers and a former Obama administration official have entered the race, with others expected to jump in.

The threats, claims of assassins and political backstabbing put an only-in-Florida stamp on what was already shaping up to be a wild midterm of congressional races. Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz in the Panhandle is still batting back accusations in an ongoing federal sex trafficking probe.

Democratic Rep. Val Demings is leaving her Orlando seat to run for Senate, causing a mad scramble to replace her. And the state is getting an additional congressional seat that is certain to lead to another crush of candidates after redistricting before next year's elections.

Olszewski, who initiated and recorded the call just after midnight on June 9, said she phoned Braddock at his insistence because he kept trying to get her to appear on a health care panel for an event he was organizing.

Olszewski, a nurse by training, became a conservative figure last year after penning a book called "Undercover Epicenter Nurse: How Fraud, Negligence, and Greed Led to Unnecessary Deaths at Elmhurst Hospital," which some in the health care industry have called disinformation.

After having a few conversations with Braddock, however, Olszewski said she became concerned that he wanted to use her to advance his candidacy and that he left her "threatening" messages about Luna that sounded "unhinged."

With such a closely divided Congress currently in Democratic control, Braddock said on the recorded call that the "pivotal" St. Petersburg-based district will take on outsized importance in 2022 to keep America from devolving into a "communist-socialist s---hole." When Olszewski asked him why he had Russians at the ready, Braddock indicated they were to stop Luna.

"My polling people are going to charge me $20,000 to do a poll right before the primary. And if the poll says Luna's gonna win, she's gonna be gone. She's gonna disappear," Braddock said in the recorded call, pledging Olszewski to secrecy. "For the good of our country, we have to sacrifice the few. ... For the better or the good of the majority of the people, we've got to sacrifice the few."

Later in the call, Olszewski asked what would happen if "Luna is gonna win" and Braddock assured her that wouldn't happen.

"She's gonna be gone. Period. That's the end of the discussion. Luna is not an issue," he said.

Olszewski pushed him, asking "how do we make her go, though? I just don't understand that."

"I call up my Russian and Ukrainian hit squad, and within 24 hours, they're sending me pictures of her disappearing," he replied. "No, I'm not joking. Like, this is beyond my control this point."

Asked if the killers were snipers, Braddock described them as, "Russian mafia. Close-battle combat, TEC-9s, MAC-10s, silencers kind of thing. No snipers. Up close and personal. So they know that the target has gone."


Olszewski said that threats like the ones Braddock made "you can't take lightly. Normal people don't say these things."

Olszewski called Braddock on one smartphone and recorded video of the call with another, occasionally displaying his name and number on the video to show it was him on the call. POLITICO also obtained a separate recording, a voicemail message, Braddock left with a consultant in which his phone number was identical and voice seemed to match the information Olszewski shot in her video.

In Florida, it's a third-degree felony to record another person without their knowledge. But Olszewski said that St. Petersburg police told her she had nothing to worry about in recording the conversation and turning it over to authorities. A spokesperson for the St. Petersburg police declined to comment on the recording or whether it was legally recorded.

Braddock, though, indicated he was ready to sue Olszewski.

"The folks in possession of whatever recording they think they have of myself or someone else (which may even be altered and edited) will be facing civil damages suit(s) when the paperwork is file [sic] with the county and felony charges after I file with the local police department," Braddock said in his text message to POLITICO. "I strongly advise not to get involved because the civil suits will continue to be filed until people stop sharing them because whomever is on the recording did not consent to be recorded in my humble opinion."

In her filing for an injunction, Luna also mentioned how Braddock claimed in the call with Olszewski that two other potential Republican candidates in the race, Amanda Makki and Matt Tito, had formed an alliance with him to stop Luna. Braddock briefly posted the petition for the injunction on his Facebook page Friday but then took them down.

Both Makki and Tito denied the claims of an alliance with Braddock and each of them criticized Luna for mentioning their names in the injunction she filed against Braddock.

"The fact she dragged me through the mud, after not seeing or talking to me after 11 months, it really calls into question her judgment," said Makki, who ran unsuccessfully in the GOP primary against Luna in 2020, despite earning the endorsement of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Tito, also, was displeased with the fact that he was named in the injunction.

"This is a total political hit job. I wasn't served. I'm not in legal trouble," he said. "Luna doesn't want me to get in the Republican race because she knows I'll beat her. I'm a better candidate. She's trying to wipe me out of the race, trying to embarrass me, intimidate me, smear my name so she has a wider path to the nomination."

In the call, Braddock mentioned that he offered Tito a job on his campaign to keep him on the sidelines, but Tito said he had no intention to work for Braddock.

James Blair, a spokesperson for Luna, said she wouldn't comment on the ongoing investigation. But he suggested Makki had "sour grapes" for losing the primary last year to Luna. And he faulted Tito because he "immediately blamed the woman" by accusing Luna of a political hit job.

"The content of the protective order filed is based upon Mr. Braddock's own threats, actions, and statements," Blair said. "I understand that Mr. Braddock is the one who stated he is working with Mr. Tito and Ms. Makki, so perhaps they should take it up with him instead of attacking the person he said he was going to kill if that's what it took to keep her from winning."

In her petition for the restraining order, Luna made it clear that she took Braddock's threats seriously.

"I do not feel safe and am currently in fear for my life," Luna wrote, according to a copy of it.

Olszewski, too, said Braddock sounded dangerous. At one point, Braddock even said he was scared himself.

"Don't be on the f---ing wrong side of supporting Luna because if you're near her when the time comes, I just don't want that to happen to you because you've got kids," Braddock said on the call. "So don't be associated with Luna under any circumstances. Please. And do not repeat this anybody because both of us will be in jeopardy if you do. I'm not just blowing smoke here. I'm f---ing being dead ass serious and it scares the s--- out of me, too."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 17, 2021, 07:59:46 AM
Oh, GOP. Always up to something.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 17, 2021, 08:55:01 AM
I am not sure I would bet on the hit squad against her.


(https://scontent-qro1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/202634105_10157730326800947_8657815054772686537_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=63X7igHydFgAX_dZUzv&_nc_ht=scontent-qro1-1.xx&oh=41006a5474fb51ffeb2bed4895146769&oe=60CFB19A)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on June 17, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
Is this "gun chick" kind of persona en vogue amongst conservatives in the US nowadays?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 17, 2021, 10:29:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2021, 08:55:01 AM
I am not sure I would bet on the hit squad against her.

I could take a picture with some guns as well, doesn't mean I could use them in a high stress situation.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on June 17, 2021, 10:30:35 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 17, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
Is this "gun chick" kind of persona en vogue amongst conservatives in the US nowadays?

Very much so. Has been for a few years.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2021, 10:36:30 AM
The way she is holding her guns in that picture, she wouldn't be in a position to defend herself from a first grade dodgeball game, much less a professional hit squad.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 17, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
Be that as it may, she still gets my vote. :mmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 17, 2021, 11:02:23 AM
To paraphrase George S. Patton, only a pimp in a Louisiana whore-house carries a gold-colored M4.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 17, 2021, 12:10:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2021, 11:02:23 AM
To paraphrase George S. Patton, only a pimp in a Louisiana whore-house carries a gold-colored M4.

Seems Patton was wrong. She clearly isn't a pimp; though I concede she might work in a whore-house.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 17, 2021, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2021, 12:10:31 PM
Seems Patton was wrong. She clearly isn't a pimp; though I concede she might work in a whore-house.

Those pointy elbows mean that, if she's working in a whore house, she's pimping, not being pimped.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 17, 2021, 02:55:41 PM
Dude, she's definitely attractive enough to be pimped.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 17, 2021, 04:57:24 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 17, 2021, 02:55:41 PM
Dude, she's definitely attractive enough to be pimped.

I guess I thought that the "pointy elbows" schtick was more widely known on Languish than it actually is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: frunk on June 17, 2021, 05:32:29 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 17, 2021, 10:30:35 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 17, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
Is this "gun chick" kind of persona en vogue amongst conservatives in the US nowadays?

Very much so. Has been for a few years.

It's been around for at least 30 years.  Take a listen to Negativland's Guns EP, which took audio from a VHS tape of Bikini models advertising/shooting guns.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on June 18, 2021, 07:52:24 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 17, 2021, 10:30:35 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 17, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
Is this "gun chick" kind of persona en vogue amongst conservatives in the US nowadays?

Very much so. Has been for a few years.

You meant "for a few decades."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on June 18, 2021, 07:53:22 AM
I think I wrote what I meant.

It seems clear to me that the trend started much earlier, but doesn't seem to have come into full force until around the time of Palin. Now it's much more prevalent. Your interpretation of "en vogue" may vary.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 18, 2021, 09:04:40 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-riot-capitol-police-house-republicans/2021/06/16/3ba60b7c-cee4-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html

QuoteGOP congressman refuses to shake hands with D.C. police officer who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6, officer says

Rep. Andrew S. Clyde (R-Ga.), who voted against awarding police officers the Congressional Gold Medal for their bravery in protecting the U.S. Capitol against violent, pro-Trump rioters on Jan. 6, refused to shake hands Wednesday with a D.C. police officer who responded to the violence, according to the officer.

Officer Michael Fanone was beaten unconscious after he voluntarily rushed to the Capitol in January to help defend it from those who breached the building. He suffered a concussion and a mild heart attack. In the months since, Fanone has been one of the leading voices pushing back against Republicans who have sought to play down the severity of what happened that day.

Joined by U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, Fanone returned to the Capitol on Wednesday, the day after 21 House Republicans voted against the Gold Medal resolution, in an effort to meet them and tell his story.

He said that he recognized Clyde at an elevator and that he and Dunn hopped in with the congressman.

"I simply extended my hand and said, 'How are you doing today, Congressman.' I knew immediately he recognized me by the way he reacted. He completely froze. He just stared at me," Fanone said in an interview.

Fanone said Clyde did not motion to shake his hand in return.

"I said, 'I'm sorry, you're not going to shake my hand?' " Fanone said he told Clyde.

He said Clyde answered, "I don't know who you are."

Fanone said he responded: "I'm sorry, sir, my name is Michael Fanone. I'm a D.C. police officer and I fought to defend the Capitol on Jan. 6." Fanone said he described being stunned repeatedly in the back of the neck and beaten unconscious, stripped of his badge and radio.

"His response was nothing," Fanone said. "He turned away from me, pulled out his cellphone and started thumbing through the apps." Fanone said Clyde turned on the camera app but did not point the phone in his direction. Fanone said he believes Clyde was trying to record audio of the encounter.

"After that, I just simply stood there," Fanone said.

He said Clyde bolted when the doors opened.

Fanone shared his encounter with Clyde with Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), who both tweeted about it.

"#BREAKING Officer Fanone just ran into @Rep_Clyde at Capitol (he's the "Jan 6 was a typical tour" guy). Fanone introduced himself as "someone who fought to defend the Capitol" and put out his hand. Clyde refused to shake it. To honor Trump, @HouseGOP will dishonor the police," Swalwell tweeted.

"I just called Officer Fanone and confirmed this story," Kinzinger tweeted. "This is really incredible. Also relayed an interaction he had with another members Chief of Staff that was really incredibly bad and disrespectful."

Clyde's office did not respond to repeated requests for comment. An aide who answered the phone Thursday said Clyde's press secretary, Claire Hurley, was in a meeting and then, when pressed, said she would not take the call.

21 House Republicans vote against awarding Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers who responded on Jan. 6

Clyde, in addition to voting against the Gold Medal honor, said at a hearing last month on the Jan. 6 attack that the images from the day look like a "normal tourist visit."

Fanone did not meet any other representatives, and he said staff members were all cordial and polite, though he did confirm a run-in with James Braid, chief of staff for Rep. Matthew M. Rosendale (R-Mont.).

Rosendale was also among the 21 Republicans who voted against the Gold Medal.

Fanone said Braid "was super confrontational" and demanded his badge number, even after he said he provided his email address and telephone number. Fanone is on leave and is not on duty. Dunn had just gotten off duty and was wearing his uniform.

Fanone said the chief of staff "really got aggressive with Harry."

Fanone said he told Braid, "I'm simply here to schedule a meeting with the congressman to discuss my experience on Jan. 6."

Rosendale's spokesman, Harry Fones, confirmed that Fanone stopped by the office and met with Braid but said it wasn't an adversarial exchange.

"Two men came into our office, unannounced, one dressed in plainclothes and one in uniform including a firearm. Our chief politely asked if they were on duty and for their names as well as badge number, since we had individuals that had now entered our office, unannounced with a firearm and dressed as an officer," Fones said.

Fones said they wouldn't give their badge numbers, but Fanone, who was in plainclothes, gave his name and email address. Fones said Braid told them that they could meet with the congressman soon.

"Our office intends to follow up on that promise if they reach out," Fones said.

'Normal tourist visit': Republicans recast deadly Jan. 6 attack by pro-Trump mob

Kinzinger, who has been among the most outspoken in his party against efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results and in speaking against those who have refused to back an independent commission to investigate the insurrection, said it's a terrible blow to law enforcement officers who risked their lives that day not to feel supported by some of the men and women they protected.

"Every now and again I think we have to be at the bottom of how low we can get," Kinzinger said. "You don't have to admit you should have voted for [the Gold Medal] by shaking a guy's hand. The presence of these heroes can make some people uncomfortable."

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 19, 2021, 07:43:21 PM
Interesting piece on the NYT. It's particularly striking because I think I said before but the bit of the American system that held up best in Trump's challenge to norms wasn't the courts or the formal checks and balances, but America's deep decentralised democracy - which it seems many Republicans across the country are looking to challenge/exercise more political control over how elections are run.

It also feels like Republicans are moving to a position that only they can be trusted to run elections and elections are only legitimate if they win. That's problematic:
QuoteHow Republican States Are Expanding Their Power Over Elections
In Georgia, Republicans are removing Democrats of color from local boards. In Arkansas, they have stripped election control from county authorities. And they are expanding their election power in many other states.
By Nick Corasaniti and Reid J. Epstein
June 19, 2021Updated 10:06 a.m. ET

LaGRANGE, Ga. — Lonnie Hollis has been a member of the Troup County election board in West Georgia since 2013. A Democrat and one of two Black women on the board, she has advocated Sunday voting, helped voters on Election Days and pushed for a new precinct location at a Black church in a nearby town.

But this year, Ms. Hollis will be removed from the board, the result of a local election law signed by Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican. Previously, election board members were selected by both political parties, county commissioners and the three biggest municipalities in Troup County. Now, the G.O.P.-controlled county commission has the sole authority to restructure the board and appoint all the new members.

"I speak out and I know the laws," Ms. Hollis said in an interview. "The bottom line is they don't like people that have some type of intelligence and know what they're doing, because they know they can't influence them."

Ms. Hollis is not alone. Across Georgia, members of at least 10 county election boards have been removed, had their position eliminated or are likely to be kicked off through local ordinances or new laws passed by the state legislature. At least five are people of color and most are Democrats — though some are Republicans — and they will most likely all be replaced by Republicans.

Ms. Hollis and local officials like her have been some of the earliest casualties as Republican-led legislatures mount an expansive takeover of election administration in a raft of new voting bills this year.

G.O.P. lawmakers have also stripped secretaries of state of their power, asserted more control over state election boards, made it easier to overturn election results, and pursued several partisan audits and inspections of 2020 results.

Republican state lawmakers have introduced at least 216 bills in 41 states to give legislatures more power over elections officials, according to the States United Democracy Center, a new bipartisan organization that aims to protect democratic norms. Of those, 24 have been enacted into law across 14 states.


G.O.P. lawmakers in Georgia say the new measures are meant to improve the performance of local boards, and reduce the influence of the political parties. But the laws allow Republicans to remove local officials they don't like, and because several of them have been Black Democrats, voting rights groups fear that these are further attempts to disenfranchise voters of color.

The maneuvers risk eroding some of the core checks that stood as a bulwark against former President Donald J. Trump as he sought to subvert the 2020 election results. Had these bills been in place during the aftermath of the election, Democrats say, they would have significantly added to the turmoil Mr. Trump and his allies wrought by trying to overturn the outcome. They worry that proponents of Mr. Trump's conspiracy theories will soon have much greater control over the levers of the American elections system.

"It's a thinly veiled attempt to wrest control from officials who oversaw one of the most secure elections in our history and put it in the hands of bad actors," said Jena Griswold, the chairwoman of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State and the current Colorado secretary of state. "The risk is the destruction of democracy."

Officials like Ms. Hollis are responsible for decisions like selecting drop box and precinct locations, sending out voter notices, establishing early voting hours and certifying elections. But the new laws are targeting high-level state officials as well, in particular secretaries of state — both Republican and Democratic — who stood up to Mr. Trump and his allies last year.

Republicans in Arizona have introduced a bill that would largely strip Katie Hobbs, the Democratic secretary of state, of her authority over election lawsuits, and then expire when she leaves office. And they have introduced another bill that would give the Legislature more power over setting the guidelines for election administration, a major task currently carried out by the secretary of state.

Under Georgia's new voting law, Republicans significantly weakened the secretary of state's office after Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who is the current secretary, rebuffed Mr. Trump's demands to "find" votes. They removed the secretary of state as the chair of the state election board and relieved the office of its voting authority on the board.

Kansas Republicans in May overrode a veto from Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, to enact laws stripping the governor of the power to modify election laws and prohibiting the secretary of state, a Republican who repeatedly vouched for the security of voting by mail, from settling election-related lawsuits without the Legislature's consent.

And more Republicans who cling to Mr. Trump's election lies are running for secretary of state, putting a critical office within reach of conspiracy theorists. In Georgia, Representative Jody Hice, a Republican who voted against certifying President Biden's victory, is running against Mr. Raffensperger. Republican candidates with similar views are running for secretary of state in Nevada, Arizona and Michigan.

"In virtually every state, every election administrator is going to feel like they're under the magnifying glass," said Victoria Bassetti, a senior adviser to the States United Democracy Center.

More immediately, it is local election officials at the county and municipal level who are being either removed or stripped of their power.

In Arkansas, Republicans were stung last year when Jim Sorvillo, a three-term state representative from Little Rock, lost re-election by 24 votes to Ashley Hudson, a Democrat and local lawyer. Elections officials in Pulaski County, which includes Little Rock, were later found to have accidentally tabulated 327 absentee ballots during the vote-counting process, 27 of which came from the district.

Mr. Sorvillo filed multiple lawsuits aiming to stop Ms. Hudson from being seated, and all were rejected. The Republican caucus considered refusing to seat Ms. Hudson, then ultimately voted to accept her.

But last month, Arkansas Republicans wrote new legislation that allows a state board of election commissioners — composed of six Republicans and one Democrat — to investigate and "institute corrective action" on a wide variety of issues at every stage of the voting process, from registration to the casting and counting of ballots to the certification of elections. The law applies to all counties, but it is widely believed to be aimed at Pulaski, one of the few in the state that favor Democrats.


The author of the legislation, State Representative Mark Lowery, a Republican from a suburb of Little Rock, said it was necessary to remove election power from the local authorities, who in Pulaski County are Democrats, because otherwise Republicans could not get a fair shake.

"Without this legislation, the only entity you could have referred impropriety to is the prosecuting attorney, who is a Democrat, and possibly not had anything done," Mr. Lowery said in an interview. "This gives another level of investigative authority to a board that is commissioned by the state to oversee elections."

Asked about last year's election, Mr. Lowery said, "I do believe Donald Trump was elected president."

A separate new Arkansas law allows a state board to "take over and conduct elections" in a county if a committee of the legislature determines that there are questions about the "appearance of an equal, free and impartial election."

In Georgia, the legislature passed a unique law for some counties. For Troup County, State Representative Randy Nix, a Republican, said he had introduced the bill that restructured the county election board — and will remove Ms. Hollis — only after it was requested by county commissioners. He said he was not worried that the commission, a partisan body with four Republicans and one Democrat, could exert influence over elections.


"The commissioners are all elected officials and will face the voters to answer for their actions," Mr. Nix said in an email.

Eric Mosley, the county manager for Troup County, which Mr. Trump carried by 22 points, said that the decision to ask Mr. Nix for the bill was meant to make the board more bipartisan. It was unanimously supported by the commission.

"We felt that removing both the Republican and Democratic representation and just truly choose members of the community that invest hard to serve those community members was the true intent of the board," Mr. Mosley said. "Our goal is to create both political and racial diversity on the board."

In Morgan County, east of Atlanta, Helen Butler has been one of the state's most prominent Democratic voices on voting rights and election administration. A member of the county board of elections in a rural, Republican county, she also runs the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, a group dedicated to protecting the voting rights of Black Americans and increasing their civic engagement.

But Ms. Butler will be removed from the county board at the end of the month, after Mr. Kemp signed a local bill that ended the ability of political parties to appoint members.

"I think it's all a part of the ploy for the takeover of local boards of elections that the state legislature has put in place," Ms. Butler said. "It is them saying that they have the right to say whether an election official is doing it right, when in fact they don't work in the day to day and don't understand the process themselves."


It's not just Democrats who are being removed. In DeKalb County, the state's fourth-largest, Republicans chose not to renominate Baoky Vu to the election board after more than 12 years in the position. Mr. Vu, a Republican, had joined with Democrats in a letter opposing an election-related bill that eventually failed to pass.

To replace Mr. Vu, Republicans nominated Paul Maner, a well-known local conservative with a history of false statements, including an insinuation that the son of a Georgia congresswoman was killed in "a drug deal gone bad."

Back in LaGrange, Ms. Hollis is trying to do as much as she can in the time she has left on the board. The extra precinct in nearby Hogansville, where the population is roughly 50 percent Black, is a top priority. While its population is only about 3,000, the town is bifurcated by a rail line, and Ms. Hollis said that sometimes it can take an exceedingly long time for a line of freight cars to clear, which is problematic on Election Days.

"We've been working on this for over a year," Ms. Hollis said, saying Republicans had thrown up procedural hurdles to block the process. But she was undeterred.

"I'm not going to sit there and wait for you to tell me what it is that I should do for the voters there," she said. "I'm going to do the right thing."

Nick Corasaniti covers national politics. He was one of the lead reporters covering Donald Trump's campaign for president in 2016 and has been writing about presidential, congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral campaigns for The Times since 2011. @NYTnickc • Facebook

Reid J. Epstein covers campaigns and elections from Washington. Before joining The Times in 2019, he worked at The Wall Street Journal, Politico, Newsday and The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 19, 2021, 08:51:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 19, 2021, 07:43:21 PMIt also feels like Republicans are moving to a position that only they can be trusted to run elections and elections are only legitimate if they win. That's problematic:

Ya think?  :P

They aren't "moving" there. They've been there for a while. It began with the shock of Obama's election. That shock has been transformed into suspicion that he only could have won through some sort of manipulation. Fox has been hammering variations of this message: how could the country you know and love, have elected Obama/Democrats? Something must be fishy. The information/social bubble only contributes to this narrative: when everyone you know votes the same, and shares the same memes, it's easier to think the conspiracy narrative has merit.

Quite frankly, I think Syt's Facebook thread is a good historical resource to see how that transformation took place.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 19, 2021, 11:39:22 PM
So, obviously some (a lot?) of this is going to be challenged in court, right? Which the Republicans have worked hard to fill with friendly judges? (though Trump picked judges did rule against him during his election nonsense, so there's that)

And this partisan hijacking of the electoral process in states has to lead to some sort of backlash eventually, right?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 20, 2021, 10:30:20 AM
I spent the day yesterday playing poker in Atlantic City, and inadvertently getting an up close and personal look at the mindset of Trumpists.  I was surrounded by three middle-aged white guys at my table who seemed to be middle class, and being a bald approaching-middle-age guy myself, they probably assumed I was one of them, or didn't care if I wasn't.  I was planning on taking a stand and letting them know that I was the disdained lefty, and then stay there and take the abuse, but the golden opportunity never came up.  I did push back on the joke about the black people and the sandbox, at which point one of them mumbled "a lefty" under their breath.  At least I took most of my day's profit off of them, so that's something.

After yesterday, I came away convinced that a real coup of some kind is brewing in this country, and people like Manchin as well as the progressives overly preoccupied with imposing new woke facts on society are enabling them.  They aren't nearly as bad as the frankly despicable dregs of society I was sitting with yesterday, but they're the only ones who can modulate their actions to try to avert a catastrophe.  I really don't think they get how precarious the situation is.  Given the right opportunity, the right wing will take power, and not care to justify it with anything more than a nonsense uttered with a Putin smirk; "yeah, we both know this is nonsense, but what are you going to do about it?  :)"
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 20, 2021, 10:45:25 AM
I get that wokeism has become the bee in your bonnet, but I think the people you'd associate with the tendency are actually acutely aware of the danger and have been banging that drum for a while. Your blame is misplaced.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 20, 2021, 10:57:26 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 20, 2021, 10:45:25 AM
I get that wokeism has become the bee in your bonnet, but I think the people you'd associate with the tendency are actually acutely aware of the danger and have been banging that drum for a while. Your blame is misplaced.
If they are acutely aware of the danger, then it's even more inexcusable.  When faced with a great danger, one should become more pragmatic rather than more dogmatic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 20, 2021, 11:02:02 AM
I've never been more phlegmatic in my life.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 20, 2021, 11:33:55 AM
Or less enigmatic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 20, 2021, 11:45:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2021, 10:57:26 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 20, 2021, 10:45:25 AM
I get that wokeism has become the bee in your bonnet, but I think the people you'd associate with the tendency are actually acutely aware of the danger and have been banging that drum for a while. Your blame is misplaced.
If they are acutely aware of the danger, then it's even more inexcusable.  When faced with a great danger, one should become more pragmatic rather than more dogmatic.

I am not sure who you are referring to. Actual progressists in Congress? Actual activists? Twitter mobs? And what would pragmatism look like, right now?

The actual progressists and activists I know continuously push against the complacency and apathy of establishment democrats for Republican shenanigans. Is that a refusal for pragmatism?

I think you'd be hard pressed to find some woke thinker or propagandist that has as much influence as Tucker Carlson has on the Republican agenda and talking points, which I think is indicative of your misplaced blame. Republicans have entrenched positions of power, with real legislative legitimacy. I don't think you can point to similar power for progressists activists. Dislike wokes all you want. They are not responsible for the GOP's slide into autocracy. Otherwise, it's a bit of a variation of the old argument that it's anti fascism that forces you to become a fascist.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 20, 2021, 12:04:19 PM
"Wokes" may be more receptive to his arguments than Republicans are.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 20, 2021, 02:08:15 PM
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/559298-graham-calls-voting-right-bill-biggest-power-grab-in-history

QuoteGraham calls voting rights bill 'biggest power grab' in history

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Sunday that a sweeping Democratic-backed election reform bill was "the biggest power grab in the history of the country."

"In my view, S.R. 1 is the biggest power grab in the history of the country. It mandates ballot harvesting, no voter ID. It does away with the states being able to redistrict when you have population shifts. It's just a bad idea, and it's a problem that most Republicans are not going to sign — they're trying to fix a problem most Republicans have a different view of," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."

Graham also said he would not support a compromise offered last week by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

"Well, one, I like Joe Manchin a lot, but we had the largest turnout in the history the United States, and states are in charge of voting in America, so I don't like the idea of taking the power to redistrict away from the state legislators," Graham said.

"You're having people move from blue states to red states. Under this proposal, you'd have some kind of commission redraw the new districts, and I don't like that," he added. "I want states where people are moving to have control over how to allocate new congressional seats."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said late last week that Republicans would oppose Manchin's compromise proposal.

"I would make this observation about the revised version. ... All Republicans, I think, will oppose that as well if that were to be what surfaced on the floor," McConnell told reporters.

McConnell's comments are the latest signal that the election bill will fail during a procedural vote this week due to a GOP filibuster.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 20, 2021, 02:30:17 PM
QuoteGraham said on "Fox News Sunday."

So, according to Fox lawyers, no reasonable person would believe that he actually said this?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 20, 2021, 03:12:56 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 20, 2021, 12:04:19 PM
"Wokes" may be more receptive to his arguments than Republicans are.

But there could be an advantage to using just (or, if you prefer, "woke") laws to provoke the Republicans into an over-hasty coup attempt.  It seems unwise of me to counsel that justice should be delayed so as to allow the Republicans to time their coup for the maximum probability of success.  I'm with Oex on this one.  Justice delayed is justice denied.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 20, 2021, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2021, 02:30:17 PM
QuoteGraham said on "Fox News Sunday."

So, according to Fox lawyers, no reasonable person would believe that he actually said this?

They might have restricted that argument to Tucker Carlson.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 20, 2021, 03:25:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2021, 03:12:56 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 20, 2021, 12:04:19 PM
"Wokes" may be more receptive to his arguments than Republicans are.

But there could be an advantage to using just (or, if you prefer, "woke") laws to provoke the Republicans into an over-hasty coup attempt.  It seems unwise of me to counsel that justice should be delayed so as to allow the Republicans to time their coup for the maximum probability of success.  I'm with Oex on this one.  Justice delayed is justice denied.

Is that something Guller is advocating here?

I was responding to Oex's "blame Republicans, not us" comment by noting that they aren't listening.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 20, 2021, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2021, 10:30:20 AM
I spent the day yesterday playing poker in Atlantic City, and inadvertently getting an up close and personal look at the mindset of Trumpists.  I was surrounded by three middle-aged white guys at my table who seemed to be middle class, and being a bald approaching-middle-age guy myself, they probably assumed I was one of them, or didn't care if I wasn't.  I was planning on taking a stand and letting them know that I was the disdained lefty, and then stay there and take the abuse, but the golden opportunity never came up.  I did push back on the joke about the black people and the sandbox, at which point one of them mumbled "a lefty" under their breath.  At least I took most of my day's profit off of them, so that's something.

After yesterday, I came away convinced that a real coup of some kind is brewing in this country, and people like Manchin as well as the progressives overly preoccupied with imposing new woke facts on society are enabling them.  They aren't nearly as bad as the frankly despicable dregs of society I was sitting with yesterday, but they're the only ones who can modulate their actions to try to avert a catastrophe.  I really don't think they get how precarious the situation is.  Given the right opportunity, the right wing will take power, and not care to justify it with anything more than a nonsense uttered with a Putin smirk; "yeah, we both know this is nonsense, but what are you going to do about it?  :) "

I wonder what it would look like if a state legistlauture overturned a presidential election.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2021, 09:07:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2021, 04:33:42 PM
I wonder what it would look like if a state legistlauture overturned a presidential election.

Pretty straightforward. the state authorities would refuse to certify the results by the safe harbor date (e.g. do what those 2 Michigan commissioners considered doing).  The legislature would meet and vote to appoint a slate of Electors.  Those Electors would prepare a certificate and send it to the state governor. The governor would sign it and send the certificate to Congress. Under the Electoral Count Act, the certificate that bears the governor's signature is presumptively valid if there is a dispute.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 09:11:19 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2021, 09:07:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2021, 04:33:42 PM
I wonder what it would look like if a state legistlauture overturned a presidential election.

Pretty straightforward. the state authorities would refuse to certify the results by the safe harbor date (e.g. do what those 2 Michigan commissioners considered doing).  The legislature would meet and vote to appoint a slate of Electors.  Those Electors would prepare a certificate and send it to the state governor. The governor would sign it and send the certificate to Congress. Under the Electoral Count Act, the certificate that bears the governor's signature is presumptively valid if there is a dispute.

What is interesting about that is that the process allows for over-turning the outcome of an election with zero reason, evidence, or legal justification. The consequences to stop that are simply political, and most of the time would presumably be adequate.

But now we actually live in a world where that is VERY easy to contemplate. Indeed, I will actually be surprised if something like this doesn't happen. One party has expunged itself of anyone who would suffer such a political consequence, and has doubled down on straight minority rule through exploitation of non-representative mechanics.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2021, 09:22:14 AM
I wouldn't say that the process allows for it; although the procedure I just mentioned would fall within the letter of the Count Act, it would violate 2 USC 7 and the principle that the rules for selecting electors can't be changed after the election.  But the discussion of laws and principles is academic if people in power decide to ignore them.  We got through 2020 without catastrophe because there were enough GOP state level officials still committed to democracy and the rule of law, and willing to court the death threats, abuse and destruction of political careers that resulted from that commitment.  Will that still be true in 2024?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 21, 2021, 09:25:43 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2021, 09:22:14 AM
the Count Act,

It regulates Hot Wheels tracks and Asian women?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 09:45:23 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2021, 09:22:14 AM
I wouldn't say that the process allows for it; although the procedure I just mentioned would fall within the letter of the Count Act, it would violate 2 USC 7 and the principle that the rules for selecting electors can't be changed after the election.  But the discussion of laws and principles is academic if people in power decide to ignore them.  We got through 2020 without catastrophe because there were enough GOP state level officials still committed to democracy and the rule of law, and willing to court the death threats, abuse and destruction of political careers that resulted from that commitment.  Will that still be true in 2024?

Given that there is a concerted effort to replace those very officials, it would be stupid to assume that was true.

I think if the setup the Georgia GOP put in place since the election were in place before the election, Georgia goes to Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2021, 09:54:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 09:45:23 AM
Given that there is a concerted effort to replace those very officials, it would be stupid to assume that was true.

I think if the setup the Georgia GOP put in place since the election were in place before the election, Georgia goes to Trump.

That is probably true but irrelevant.  Count-related problems won't be an issue in Georgia because unless Manchin and Sinema give the Justice Department the power to protect voting rights, a bunch of people who voted for Biden-Warnock-Osoff will be tossed off the rolls or otherwise suppressed.  You don't have to worry about cooking the vote count if you can make sure only your people vote.  It's Iranian style democracy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 21, 2021, 01:33:58 PM
Any thoughts as to what Manchin's real game plan is?  Does he genuinely believe that he can get 10 authoritarians on board to agree on limiting the danger of authoritarianism?  Is he genuinely oblivious to the peril the country is still facing?  Does he secretly not mind Republicans performing an auto-coup?  Is he a coward willing to lose the country just so that he doesn't lose his seat?  Is he putting on an act, so that he can say he had no choice but to gut the filibuster to get the election law passed?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 01:43:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2021, 01:33:58 PM
Any thoughts as to what Manchin's real game plan is?  Does he genuinely believe that he can get 10 authoritarians on board to agree on limiting the danger of authoritarianism?  Is he genuinely oblivious to the peril the country is still facing?  Does he secretly not mind Republicans performing an auto-coup?  Is he a coward willing to lose the country just so that he doesn't lose his seat?  Is he putting on an act, so that he can say he had no choice but to gut the filibuster to get the election law passed?

As far as I can read it from here, Manchin is concerned about the GOP's anti-democratic bill but knows HR 1 was a messaging bill that never stood a chance (it was first introduced 2 years ago when it stood no chance of ever being passed).  He does think a more tightly focused voting rights bill has a chance at getting 10 GOP votes.  I don't think he's a coward - he knows if he loses his seat that's one more GOP senator (trump won WV by 39 points).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2021, 01:55:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 01:43:36 PM
He does think a more tightly focused voting rights bill has a chance at getting 10 GOP votes.

That's the questionable proposition.  I'm not a Senate insider but I don't see where those 10 votes are coming from.
McConnell publicly stated he believes all 50 will oppose and not one GOP senator has yet agreed to clear the bill to even reach the floor.

I guess we will know more tomorrow.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 21, 2021, 02:33:37 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2021, 01:55:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 01:43:36 PM
He does think a more tightly focused voting rights bill has a chance at getting 10 GOP votes.

That's the questionable proposition.  I'm not a Senate insider but I don't see where those 10 votes are coming from.
McConnell publicly stated he believes all 50 will oppose and not one GOP senator has yet agreed to clear the bill to even reach the floor.

I guess we will know more tomorrow.

Agreed.  I think that the game here is to expose the GOP as being purely obstructionist.   The Dems can say "hey, you wouldn't vote for the first bill so we compromised, but then you wouldn't vote for the compromise, either.  You were never interested in election reform."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 02:52:53 PM
So Stacy Abrams came out in support of Manchin's compromise bill.

McConnell immediately put out a press conference stating that there was no way Senate Republicans can support the Stacy Abrams bill.

The bill did not change one bit when Abrams announced she would support it, of course.

If Manchin continues to bleat about bi-partisanship, I have to conclude he is simply a Republican, in the worst sense of the word.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 03:10:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 02:52:53 PM
If Manchin continues to bleat about bi-partisanship, I have to conclude he is simply a Republican, in the worst sense of the word.

That seems unfair.

Here's a list of Manchin's important votes the last few years, showing the times he voted with (and against) Trump. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/joe-manchin-iii/

If Manchin was replaced with an actual Republican (from WV no less) it would look a lot different.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2021, 03:37:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 03:10:49 PM
If Manchin was replaced with an actual Republican (from WV no less) it would look a lot different.

yes that is true. But you could say the same thing about every other Dem senator as well since there is a 0+1 majority.

The problem is that GOP state legislatures are making sure that their party wins any competitive race going forward.  It is a brutal naked power move to cut voters out of the system.  The only way to stop it is to interpose federal power to protect voting rights.  if it doesn't happen the Democrats can kiss their national representation goodbye.



Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 21, 2021, 05:54:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2021, 03:37:28 PM
yes that is true. But you could say the same thing about every other Dem senator as well since there is a 0+1 majority.

The problem is that GOP state legislatures are making sure that their party wins any competitive race going forward.  It is a brutal naked power move to cut voters out of the system.  The only way to stop it is to interpose federal power to protect voting rights.  if it doesn't happen the Democrats can kiss their national representation goodbye.

And Manchin and his ilk are going to have to decide very soon whether they want to preserve the filibuster or preserve democracy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 21, 2021, 07:09:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2021, 01:33:58 PM
Any thoughts as to what Manchin's real game plan is?  Does he genuinely believe that he can get 10 authoritarians on board to agree on limiting the danger of authoritarianism?  Is he genuinely oblivious to the peril the country is still facing?  Does he secretly not mind Republicans performing an auto-coup?  Is he a coward willing to lose the country just so that he doesn't lose his seat?  Is he putting on an act, so that he can say he had no choice but to gut the filibuster to get the election law passed?


He wants to believe, as I want to believe, that there are some Republicans who believe in rule-of-law.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 07:40:21 PM
If wishes were fishes, AOC would have caught one by now and wished away the filibuster.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 21, 2021, 08:14:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2021, 07:09:57 PM

He wants to believe, as I want to believe, that there are some Republicans who believe in rule-of-law.

if there aren't, then we should cut short the prelude and get to the shooting.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 21, 2021, 09:08:29 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 21, 2021, 08:14:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2021, 07:09:57 PM

He wants to believe, as I want to believe, that there are some Republicans who believe in rule-of-law.

if there aren't, then we should cut short the prelude and get to the shooting.

There's a reason why all those militias are stockpiling AR15s...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2021, 07:09:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2021, 01:33:58 PM
Any thoughts as to what Manchin's real game plan is?  Does he genuinely believe that he can get 10 authoritarians on board to agree on limiting the danger of authoritarianism?  Is he genuinely oblivious to the peril the country is still facing?  Does he secretly not mind Republicans performing an auto-coup?  Is he a coward willing to lose the country just so that he doesn't lose his seat?  Is he putting on an act, so that he can say he had no choice but to gut the filibuster to get the election law passed?


He wants to believe, as I want to believe, that there are some Republicans who believe in rule-of-law.

There are not.

There was, but they all

1. Died
2. Got primaried out
3. Have decided that being in power is more important to them

Surely Romney would not go along with this, right? Isn't he supposed to be the one Republican senator with a safe seat and some principles?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 22, 2021, 12:27:10 AM
https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/arizona-voting-system-data-sent-to-montana-lab-as-part-of-latest-audit

QuoteArizona voting system data sent to Montana lab as part of latest audit

MISSOULA, Mont. — New developments in the latest audit of Arizona's Maricopa County 2020 general election results reveal a connection to a cabin in the remote Swan Valley of northwest Montana.

Earlier this year, a judge ordered Maricopa County to hand over 2.1 million ballots from the 2020 general election to the Arizona state Senate, which is trying to prove unfounded claims of voter fraud there after President Joe Biden won the county by about 45,000 votes.

The Senate hired a cybersecurity firm called Cyber Ninjas to conduct its own audit after multiple others found no fraud. It also hired former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett as its liaison.

Sophia Solis, deputy communications director for the Arizona secretary of state, said in an email that Cyber Ninjas doesn't have any experience with election auditing.

"We have addressed our concerns over this partisan review with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors as well as to the Senate," Solis wrote. "Our office was only provided access to observe after we sought a court order. The policies and processes related to many of the details of this partisan review have not been provided to this office -- so unfortunately we do not have the information you are looking for."

The observers are documenting what they see on a section of the SOS website, where Arizona Republic reporter Jen Fifield noticed something that sent her down a Montana rabbit hole this week.

"Observation: On May 24, 2021, Senate Liaison Ken Bennett confirmed that copies of voting system data was sent to a lab in Montana. He did not specify what security measures were in place, or what the lab in Montana will do with the data or how long it will be in possession of the copies," a line under the Equipment Concerns section read.

"At this point in the audit, nothing really is surprising to me, because there's been so many connections that have come up. The Senate has never told us the full list of contractors involved and the names of the people," Fifield said. "And so it's been like a puzzle trying to put everything together."

Fifield's digging led her to CyFIR, a digital security company that subcontracts for Cyber Ninjas. It shows an address in Virginia, with its parent company Cyber Technology Services listing the address of the cabin near Swan Lake, technically a Bigfork address.

Montana property records show the cabin is owned by CyTech's CEO and CyFIR founder Ben Cotton.

So is the data being reviewed there?

We called Bennett, the Senate liaison, who confirmed the Montana lab mentioned on the SOS site is run by Cotton, but he didn't know where in Montana it was located.

Bennett said the lab has data downloaded from the hard drives Maricopa County used in the election, which he says they physically picked up and drove to Montana. He said it may or may not include voter registration data, and some of it could be sensitive. He says Cyber Ninjas picked CyFIR to review the data.

"The original evidence was left completely intact," Bennett told 12 News, an NBC affiliate in Phoenix. "A copy was taken to do whatever evaluation they are doing for Cyber Ninjas."

"I talked to an elections technology expert about this, and they say that the fact that the data is in Montana isn't significant in itself, but the fact that they have unfettered access to the data without oversight, and we don't really know what data they have -- they could have our private voter information as well," Fifield said. "So until we know exactly what they have, and the terms they're using to keep that data secure, that's the overlying concern, not really that it's in Montana."

We asked Bennett if he has any documentation the Montana lab is secure. He said he hasn't seen documentation, but CyFIR told Cyber Ninja's CEO Doug Logan it is and he trusts their word.

"We have not received any additional information about this since the secretary of state's observers confirmed that the data was being sent to Montana," Solis said in an email to 12 News reporter Josh Saunders in Phoenix. "This is deeply concerning from both a security and privacy perspective, especially because many of the policies and processes related this partisan review are not available. We just don't know exactly where they plan to send it or what they plan to use it for."

We called Cotton, who told us he's in a non-disclosure agreement and can't talk about the audit -- not even where his Montana lab is located or if it's secure.

Cyber Technology Services was registered as a for-profit business in Montana up until November 2020, when it went inactive because it didn't complete an annual report with the secretary of state.

Maricopa County released results from two independent audits in February, neither of which found fraud.

The Arizona state Senate wanted its own audit, which is what's happening now.

Fifield says it is expected to wrap up by June 30.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 22, 2021, 01:22:33 AM
Meet the man who will lose to such a mediocre person as Sarah Huckabee Sanders

https://youtu.be/iYMznvmx2oU
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2021, 05:37:53 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 22, 2021, 01:22:33 AM
Meet the man who will lose to such a mediocre person as Sarah Huckabee Sanders

https://youtu.be/iYMznvmx2oU
It's a good ad, but he has no hope of victory.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 22, 2021, 05:43:16 AM
You never know, maybe Sanders has been hanging out at the mall.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 22, 2021, 07:06:35 AM
That is just fucking depressing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 22, 2021, 08:52:29 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 22, 2021, 01:22:33 AM
Meet the man who will lose to such a mediocre person as Sarah Huckabee Sanders

https://youtu.be/iYMznvmx2oU (https://youtu.be/iYMznvmx2oU)


Well, he hit all the right notes for me.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 04:50:54 PM
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1408049366036844544?s=20

:mellow: :blink:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 24, 2021, 09:23:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 04:50:54 PM
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1408049366036844544?s=20

:mellow: :blink:

I don't think that he understands the implications of his "execute the traitors" stance for the Trumpeters that tried to stop the election by invading Congress.  By next week OAN will be calling for the execution of the 84 million "traitors" who didn't vote for Trump.

How ironic that the fascists call their network the "One America Network."  It's like a direct play on "The Peoples' Democratic Republic" of X.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 24, 2021, 10:47:18 PM
This is my periodical reminder to Americans that American democracy is in peril and that you should get involved directly *now*.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2021, 01:53:09 AM
And we disagree about the optimal involvement.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 25, 2021, 07:36:36 AM
Hey, it's your country dude. By all means, I am sure a strongly worded letter to your representative about how your are not a crazy leftist is going to make a change.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on June 25, 2021, 08:04:46 AM
How about a nice compromise?
Maybe we execute just a few hundred "traitors."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Legbiter on June 25, 2021, 02:05:28 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 25, 2021, 08:04:46 AM
How about a nice compromise?
Maybe we execute just a few hundred "traitors."

This entire thread is Languish posters rewording their preferred media pundits deeply troubling mental health issues as their own. So me reading these moronic, deranged scribblings is what...third hand mental health issue exposure? :huh: :hmm:

Stop watching cable. Stop reading the NYT, etc. Live your life.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 25, 2021, 02:09:07 PM
I never do either of those things but somehow it all seems to filter down to me anyway. I know way too much about Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow for somebody who has never watched a second of either of their shows.

Stupid internet age.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2021, 02:46:04 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 25, 2021, 02:05:28 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 25, 2021, 08:04:46 AM
How about a nice compromise?
Maybe we execute just a few hundred "traitors."

This entire thread is Languish posters rewording their preferred media pundits deeply troubling mental health issues as their own. So me reading these moronic, deranged scribblings is what...third hand mental health issue exposure? :huh: :hmm:

Stop watching cable. Stop reading the NYT, etc. Live your life.

Isn't that the advice you gave us Yank posters when your guy Trump got elected?  Don't get your panties in a bunch, etc.

How did that turn out? 

Since I'm guessing you lack psychiatric training, I'll let you in a little rule of thumb I follow - when trying to identify media pundits with mental health issues, the guy talking about why his political opponents should be executed is the better candidate then the guys calling that guy out.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Legbiter on June 25, 2021, 03:03:55 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2021, 02:46:04 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 25, 2021, 02:05:28 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 25, 2021, 08:04:46 AM
How about a nice compromise?
Maybe we execute just a few hundred "traitors."

This entire thread is Languish posters rewording their preferred media pundits deeply troubling mental health issues as their own. So me reading these moronic, deranged scribblings is what...third hand mental health issue exposure? :huh: :hmm:

Stop watching cable. Stop reading the NYT, etc. Live your life.

Isn't that the advice you gave us Yank posters when your guy Trump got elected?  Don't get your panties in a bunch, etc.

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/l2SpKYxR6gew5mWNq/giphy.gif)

Mental health recovery is often slow and relapses are common.



Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 25, 2021, 03:06:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2021, 02:46:04 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 25, 2021, 02:05:28 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 25, 2021, 08:04:46 AM
How about a nice compromise?
Maybe we execute just a few hundred "traitors."

This entire thread is Languish posters rewording their preferred media pundits deeply troubling mental health issues as their own. So me reading these moronic, deranged scribblings is what...third hand mental health issue exposure? :huh: :hmm:

Stop watching cable. Stop reading the NYT, etc. Live your life.

Isn't that the advice you gave us Yank posters when your guy Trump got elected?  Don't get your panties in a bunch, etc.

How did that turn out? 

Since I'm guessing you lack psychiatric training, I'll let you in a little rule of thumb I follow - when trying to identify media pundits with mental health issues, the guy talking about why his political opponents should be executed is the better candidate then the guys calling that guy out.

Legbiter complaining about the posting of others being "moronic, deranged scribblings" is excruciatingly funny, because he simply doesn't demonstrate the slightest hint that he sees the irony in his moaning.  Only Mono comes along as less self-aware.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on June 25, 2021, 03:11:23 PM
I love that Legbiter is now denying he chumped for Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2021, 03:16:23 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 25, 2021, 07:36:36 AM
Hey, it's your country dude. By all means, I am sure a strongly worded letter to your representative about how your are not a crazy leftist is going to make a change.

Do you really want to get into a pissing contest about results?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Legbiter on June 25, 2021, 03:17:59 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 25, 2021, 03:11:23 PM
I love that Legbiter is now denying he chumped for Trump.

Yeah, it all comes down to Hillary dosen't it?  :bleeding:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 25, 2021, 03:52:41 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 25, 2021, 03:03:55 PM

Mental health recovery is often slow and relapses are common.



:yeahright:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 25, 2021, 04:28:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2021, 03:16:23 PM
Do you really want to get into a pissing contest about results?

What results? What pissing contest?

I am reminding people to *get directly involved*. Whether or not you think that for your county, it's to work tirelessly to take back the Republican party from crazies and push it back towards your favorite brand of Shrine to The Market, or whether it is to reluctantly join force with Crazy Woke Pronoun Leftists - is something only you can adequately judge, and I do not care at all - I only care about which option is the more appropriate to fight the danger you are in.

The apathy I am seeing, the wishful thinking I am seeing that at some point the magic unicorn candidate that will be all I desire, or the aimless hope that somehow the next election will fix things, doesn't seem to address *at all* the danger you are all in. Writing a strongly worded letter ain't gonna cut it. And if joining Crazy Woke Leftist isn't either - you all should be spending way more energy than you collectively seem to be spending, to find a cure. And not in a "it's an amusing thought experiment" way. I mean in an actual, political involvement way.

Now, if it's because you think I am wrong about political involvement, and that it's much better to just wait it out - you do you. I just think it's a hell of a wager to make, and I am not a betting man. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2021, 04:32:54 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 25, 2021, 04:28:14 PM
What results? What pissing contest?

The results of our respective styles of involvement.

Your mockery of my email to Grassley sounded like a challenge.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 25, 2021, 06:42:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2021, 02:46:04 PM

Isn't that the advice you gave us Yank posters when your guy Trump got elected?  Don't get your panties in a bunch, etc.

How did that turn out? 


It didn't turn out so bad. Life went on.

That isn't defending Trump: he was a shit president, corrupt, and displayed the maturity of a child.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 25, 2021, 07:20:31 PM
Except for some of those 600,000 people.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 25, 2021, 09:14:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2021, 07:20:31 PM
Except for some of those 600,000 people.

Trump didn't kill 600k people. The death rate in the us is within the range of other developed western countries, if at the higher end of the range.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 25, 2021, 09:21:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2021, 09:14:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2021, 07:20:31 PM
Except for some of those 600,000 people.

Trump didn't kill 600k people. The death rate in the us is within the range of other developed western countries, if at the higher end of the range.

It's true. It was not just Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 25, 2021, 09:40:05 PM
That's why I said some of those 600,000 people.  Obviously many would die anyway, but I have a hard time believing that obvious buffoonery and politicizing did not exacerbate the death toll significantly.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 26, 2021, 03:02:50 AM
Trump was shit, but most of the covid management wasn't done at the federal level.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2021, 03:14:00 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 26, 2021, 03:02:50 AM
Trump was shit, but most of the covid management wasn't done at the federal level.

Sure, but then you have to ask how Republican governors and Trumptards would have acted if he had been sane.  Would anti-masking have become a culture war issue if not for Trump?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 26, 2021, 04:03:44 AM
Hard to say. I don't think Trump is the primary driver of culture war craziness though.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 26, 2021, 04:16:02 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 26, 2021, 04:03:44 AM
Hard to say. I don't think Trump is the primary driver of culture war craziness though.


With masks he certainly was the primary driver.  The whole concept of anti-lockdown protests and anti-mask rallies is so absurd it's hard to imagine that people would consider it if Trump had not endorsed this bullshit.  I suspect that he influenced the anti-lockdown protests in other countries.  The man is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2021, 06:41:48 AM
I say 150,000 in the US.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 26, 2021, 06:59:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2021, 04:16:02 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 26, 2021, 04:03:44 AM
Hard to say. I don't think Trump is the primary driver of culture war craziness though.


With masks he certainly was the primary driver.  The whole concept of anti-lockdown protests and anti-mask rallies is so absurd it's hard to imagine that people would consider it if Trump had not endorsed this bullshit.  I suspect that he influenced the anti-lockdown protests in other countries.  The man is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

You are giving Trump way too much credit if you think that Trump--one of the most unpopular leaders internationally the US ever had--touched off a global trend of anti lockdown rallies. I get that his leadership was absolute shit on this front, but he ultimately wore masks and advocated their use. He has advocated vaccines.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 26, 2021, 07:12:25 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2021, 09:40:05 PM
That's why I said some of those 600,000 people.  Obviously many would die anyway, but I have a hard time believing that obvious buffoonery and politicizing did not exacerbate the death toll significantly.

Cigarette smoking causes 480,000 deaths EVERY YEAR per the CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm

So a new disease came along and killed more people than it could have with a different response. A response that would have resulted in a shittier covid experience for the bulk of us that couldn't live normal lives.

If on day 1 Trump somehow stopped smoking but also somehow convinced the US to have virtually no covid response and the estimated 2 million people died from covid, we would have roughly come out neutral in terms of death but day to day life would have been less intruded on.

The focus is all on covid because it is shiny and new and there are lots of scary stories on the news, but in terms of carnage there are other preventable things that no one cares about because they are just consistent background noise.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on June 26, 2021, 08:02:42 AM
600,000 dead is nothing compared to being unable to go rock climbing. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on June 26, 2021, 08:04:11 AM
The worst thing the Nazis did, btw? Stopped Dorsey's great grandpa from going rock climbing in the Alps for four whole years.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 26, 2021, 08:13:07 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 26, 2021, 08:04:11 AM
The worst thing the Nazis did, btw? Stopped Dorsey's great grandpa from going rock climbing in the Alps for four whole years.

And those were the years that the hills were alive with the sound of music.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 26, 2021, 08:14:20 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 26, 2021, 08:04:11 AM
The worst thing the Nazis did, btw? Stopped Dorsey's great grandpa from going rock climbing in the Alps for four whole years.

:hmm: Both of my grandfathers got free trips to Europe out of the Nazi regime.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 26, 2021, 08:14:29 AM
I could be wrong - but I suspect the bigger impact of a Trump administration on covid response was actually incompetence/indifference/infighting within the Federal government. Especially once it was clear Trump didn't really care and sort of wanted to underplay it - I think there was a fair amount of "working towards Trump" among a lot of his appointees (especially the dimmer ones).

I get the sense that there was just a bit of a vacuum in a lot of places where the Federal government should have been helping spread information, coordinating etc and a lot of states were sort of left on their own (there was, incidentally, a similar process in Russia but it was more deliberate). As I say I might be wrong but I suspect that may have had a bigger impact than the public messaging failures.

It was my constant panic during the Trump years: what happens if there's a crisis? Because it wasn't just that I thought Trump wouldn't deal with it well, but that the people willing to be appointed in a Trump administration would also not be able to make the sort of gears of state work as they should.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 26, 2021, 09:47:08 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 26, 2021, 08:02:42 AM
600,000 dead is nothing compared to being unable to go rock climbing.

It is just a bizarre trope on this forum. I'm been vociferously complaining about getting a government order to not leave my home last year, facing penalties of up to a year in jail.

Imagine tomorrow the government of some state announces that some minority group can't leave their homes for non essential reasons under penalties of up to a year in jail and that policy is in place for a few weeks or a month. That shit would be (quite rightly) massively criticized for a very long time. Would it be better if it was everyone subject to that policy rather than just a minority group?

I get that they weren't actively trying to be oppressive but the WHO has come out against lockdowns in all but the worst cases which I was never in. It was as extreme government reaction. It never should have happened.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 26, 2021, 09:52:21 AM
Also I support lockdown's but AR is right that it is - and always has been - ridiculous to impose on outdoor gatherings as if they're the same as indoor gatherings when, in the context of an airborne disease, they're nowhere near the same risk.

I still think we don't emphasise enough the importance of that difference and focus too much, still, on stuff that has limited effectiveness in reducing transmission. But stopping people from doing outdoor things, making people wear masks outdoors etc is not really that helpful.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on June 26, 2021, 11:47:40 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2021, 06:59:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2021, 04:16:02 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 26, 2021, 04:03:44 AM
Hard to say. I don't think Trump is the primary driver of culture war craziness though.


With masks he certainly was the primary driver.  The whole concept of anti-lockdown protests and anti-mask rallies is so absurd it's hard to imagine that people would consider it if Trump had not endorsed this bullshit.  I suspect that he influenced the anti-lockdown protests in other countries.  The man is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

You are giving Trump way too much credit if you think that Trump--one of the most unpopular leaders internationally the US ever had--touched off a global trend of anti lockdown rallies. I get that his leadership was absolute shit on this front, but he ultimately wore masks and advocated their use. He has advocated vaccines.

Dude, our extreme rightwingers love Trump. One of the leading figures and presidential candidate of Finland's far right nationalist party (with 20-25% support) speaks of being at Trump's prayer breakfast like a religious experience.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 26, 2021, 11:57:41 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2021, 09:52:21 AM
Also I support lockdown's but AR is right that it is - and always has been - ridiculous to impose on outdoor gatherings as if they're the same as indoor gatherings when, in the context of an airborne disease, they're nowhere near the same risk.
don't know about Georgia, but restrictions on outdoor gatherings were the same as indoor for only the first few months, before we knew with certainty it was airborne, and could be transmitted asymptomatically.

there was no mask mandate for outdoor activities here, until the UK variant gave birth to the 3rd wave.  And small outdoor gatherings were always tolerated, compared to indoor ones.  No ban on outdoor activities outside the first few months (March-May).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 26, 2021, 12:51:11 PM
Like I said, Trump was not alone in getting many thousands more killed then needed to be. He had considerably help from the useful idiots out there doing their part to undermine and politicize the response.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 26, 2021, 01:39:38 PM
The president of the US has a bully pulpit and institutional influence. It has the most impact in the US, but American influence is felt throughout the world.

If Trump had been "this is a serious issue" and "follow the science" out the gate, fewer people would've died in the US and across the world.

Leadership matters.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 26, 2021, 02:51:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2021, 01:39:38 PM
The president of the US has a bully pulpit and institutional influence. It has the most impact in the US, but American influence is felt throughout the world.

If Trump had been "this is a serious issue" and "follow the science" out the gate, fewer people would've died in the US and across the world.

Leadership matters.


Yeah, I think it's easy to underestimate the influence an American president has.  Other leaders have done damage as well, most notably Bolsarno in Brazil, the US president is the one everyone looks to.  Love us or hate us the US is still the most powerful country on Earth and that power comes with responsibility.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 26, 2021, 04:07:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2021, 01:39:38 PM

If Trump had been "this is a serious issue" and "follow the science" out the gate, fewer people would've died in the US and across the world.


All of you are absurdly narrowly focused on covid, for reasons I don't understand rather than it being shiny and new. Why should covid be any different than cigarette smoking? If he was inaugurated in 2016 and been like "this is a serious issue" and "follow the science", he could have saved almost 2 million lives by banning smoking. Which is far more than whatever incremental gain you think there could have been had Trump not been a dumbass regarding covid.

Second, "follow the science" really doesn't take you to a neat partisan "democrats rule republicans drool" conclusion. In the early days of this thing Florida opened its public beaches to overwhelming criticism, while for a very long time California kept theirs closed and were doing shit like arresting windsurfers off empty beaches.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 26, 2021, 07:06:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2021, 04:07:15 PM
All of you are absurdly narrowly focused on covid, for reasons I don't understand rather than it being shiny and new. Why should covid be any different than cigarette smoking? If he was inaugurated in 2016 and been like "this is a serious issue" and "follow the science", he could have saved almost 2 million lives by banning smoking. Which is far more than whatever incremental gain you think there could have been had Trump not been a dumbass regarding covid.

Covid is a pandemic. It's happening right now. It's a crisis where strong leadership would've made a difference and saved lives. Trump flubbed it massively.

All the other problems in the world, past or present, does not change the fact that if there'd been a good leader in place fewer people would've died.

QuoteSecond, "follow the science" really doesn't take you to a neat partisan "democrats rule republicans drool" conclusion.

That's cool, because I don't care about that neat partisan conclusion. Trump was in the big seat in the moment of national and international crisis and flunked the test in the most transparently pathetic way possible. Republicans drool to the degree they enabled and supported the lousy handling. IIRC there are some Republican governors who did not follow Trump's lead on Covid, and they don't drool IMO.

QuoteIn the early days of this thing Florida opened its public beaches to overwhelming criticism, while for a very long time California kept theirs closed and were doing shit like arresting windsurfers off empty beaches.

Agreed, the panic closing of outdoor widely spaced public places was foolish. I don't think that was following the science particularly, and for what it's worth we never did anything like that where I'm at.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 26, 2021, 07:25:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2021, 04:07:15 PMAll of you are absurdly narrowly focused on covid, for reasons I don't understand rather than it being shiny and new. Why should covid be any different than cigarette smoking? If he was inaugurated in 2016 and been like "this is a serious issue" and "follow the science", he could have saved almost 2 million lives by banning smoking. Which is far more than whatever incremental gain you think there could have been had Trump not been a dumbass regarding covid.
Because it's the crisis that happened on his watch. I have far more forgiveness for leaders failing to address systemic, long-term issues because they're systemic and long-term normally because they're difficult. The new event from outside our normal politics - or, you know, the crisis management - is a large part of what leaders are responsible for managing as well as maybe moving the dial on those long-term systemic issues.

Though - incidentally one area related to smoking where I think there has been a disgraceful failure to follow the science is e-cigarettes. The NHS will prescribe e-cigarettes to people who are quitting smoking because their position is (I think rightly) that there are minor risks about them but they are significantly better than actually smoking and, just like the patch or the lozenge or the gum, if they get a few percent of people off cigarettes (and the evidence is they do) then it is worth it from a public health perspective. I think the moral panic over e-cigarettes in the US and the WHO recommendation to take a hardline on them is really, really bad public health policy that is going to cost millions of lives globally.

QuoteSecond, "follow the science" really doesn't take you to a neat partisan "democrats rule republicans drool" conclusion.
Sure but I think to a large extent that reflects my issue and concern with covid in the US which was not that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad but that the entire issue would become politicised/partisan because that is what happens to everything in the US. So it becomes the politically correct thing for Republicans to be openly wondering about hydoxychloroquine because that's the line Trump took, similarly there was a policing/moral judgement tone around the whole mask issue that I just found incredible - on the one hand that wearing them is the greatest infringement on your liberty and on the other that failure to wear one almost indicates visually your moral worth as someone who "follows the science"/doesn't deserve to die from covid.

QuoteIn the early days of this thing Florida opened its public beaches to overwhelming criticism, while for a very long time California kept theirs closed and were doing shit like arresting windsurfers off empty beaches.
Agreed - and I was almost always really annoyed about the moral panic about outdoor spaces and thoughts about closing parks or the police telling of bird watchers (:P) or people going for walks in national parks. I don't think think there was ever any evidence for it and I think it was always a way of signifying which group you belong to.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 26, 2021, 09:18:22 PM
I think the important thing though is to focus on people who could not rock climb or go to the beach for 5 minutes, rather then 100,000 excess deaths and untold number of people in ICUs and deadly sick.

And to be clear...Florida did not open their beaches because they were so damn smart, they did it because it was seen as a way to stick it to those snooty scientists. The same people who did that were going on about "over by Easter" and "Maybe some bleach would help".

It's not like any of their positions were based on anything but bullshit. The fact that they did 100 stupid things and 2 of them turned out to not be stupid isn't all that interesting, at least to anyone who cares about actual science and policy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on June 27, 2021, 09:33:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2021, 09:18:22 PM
I think the important thing though is to focus on people who could not rock climb or go to the beach for 5 minutes, rather then 100,000 excess deaths and untold number of people in ICUs and deadly sick.

And to be clear...Florida did not open their beaches because they were so damn smart, they did it because it was seen as a way to stick it to those snooty scientists. The same people who did that were going on about "over by Easter" and "Maybe some bleach would help".

It's not like any of their positions were based on anything but bullshit. The fact that they did 100 stupid things and 2 of them turned out to not be stupid isn't all that interesting, at least to anyone who cares about actual science and policy.
"Science" means whatever my feelings tell me it does. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 27, 2021, 09:38:37 AM
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1408925252181127168?s=20

QuoteMarjorie Taylor Greene calls AOC a little communist and says locking her up is a good idea. She also says AOC isn't an American
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 27, 2021, 01:12:52 PM
And she wants to be allowed to carry a firearm into the capital.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2021, 02:47:23 PM
This is usually the point at one gets a restraining order.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 27, 2021, 02:56:28 PM
I don't think the courts could handle the volume if they issued restraining orders every time someone was called an un-American communist.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2021, 03:12:00 PM
It's quite a bit more than that. Creepy, stalkery stuff.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2021, 03:14:47 PM
You sure you want to focus the debate on size Marge?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 04:53:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2021, 07:06:17 PM

Covid is a pandemic. It's happening right now. It's a crisis where strong leadership would've made a difference and saved lives. Trump flubbed it massively.

All the other problems in the world, past or present, does not change the fact that if there'd been a good leader in place fewer people would've died.


I disagree.

Government responses to covid were multifaceted and regionalized so it is really tough to compare, but lets try. Canada had a death rate per million of 689, the US of 1,861, which is roughly in line with Georgia at 1,940.

So Georgia had a death rate about 1,251 per million higher than Canada, meaning a Georgian had a higher risk of death 0.13%. 1 in about 803.

In Georgia, by May 1, 2020, I could go to the gym, restaurants reopened, movie theaters reopened, I could get a haircut, go to church, go bowling if I wanted. Only a few things remained closed (I think it was just bars and nightclubs, but I could be wrong). I've been able to attend sporting events like college football games last fall and baseball games this year. During 2020 I was able to get on a plane to take trips for vacation to Utah, Nevada, and Alaska. Schools were more of a mixed bag: while they could reopen it was a local decision, as with in person graduation last year.

My point: I would 100% risk a 1 in 803 chance of death to live in Georgia last year versus a more restrictive place like Canada. For all its flaws, my assessment is the government response has been dramatically better. I concede that there is a value judgment in this: quality of life versus maintenance of life. But considering the limited life expectancy we all have, our current baseline mortality, and this shit has gone on for 15 months, 1 in 803 isn't bad.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 05:48:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2021, 09:18:22 PM

And to be clear...Florida did not open their beaches because they were so damn smart, they did it because it was seen as a way to stick it to those snooty scientists.

I've been trying to decipher the thought process here, and am coming up empty.

So there wasn't really any study showing that closing beaches did anyone any good, and early studies were pointing to this being a respiratory disease with very little outdoor transmission. There were differences of opinion on what to do in the face of uncertainty, and you think that Florida chose to open its beaches because the scientists on the "close" side of opinion were judged to be "snooty" and it would be a way to stick it to them?

If the "snooty" people were urging the beaches to be open, would Florida close the beaches? I'm kind of not seeing it. I kind of think they opened the beaches because they wanted to beaches to be open.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 07:17:00 AM
Once again, we see how critical to Trumps ability to get a couple extra hundred thousand people killed were the happy idiots to go along with him and tell us all how it was no big deal, nothing a little internal bleach could not handle, and MUH FREEDOM demands that I get to do whatever the fuck I want!


Trump was not working alone, for sure.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 07:32:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 07:17:00 AM
Once again, we see how critical to Trumps ability to get a couple extra hundred thousand people killed were the happy idiots to go along with him and tell us all how it was no big deal, nothing a little internal bleach could not handle, and MUH FREEDOM demands that I get to do whatever the fuck I want!


Trump was not working alone, for sure.

You just move from lie to lie completely unmoored from facts or reason.

Why don't you go back to dropping hints that you were fucking Meri?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 07:40:16 AM
Also Berkut, getting shit from you about covid is ridiculous.

YOU FUCKING GOT YOURSELF INFECTED, PARTICIPATING IN A TEAM SPORT!

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 08:19:40 AM
Firearms have been discharged!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 09:36:08 AM
:lmfao:

I think the poor guy has been triggered.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 09:44:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 09:36:08 AM
:lmfao:

I think the poor guy has been triggered.

100%. You are a useless piece of shit. Keep it up and I'm going to start throwing some real mud your way.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 10:30:50 AM
 :yawn:


Starting throwing, because I am definitely not going to stop observing that Trump had a lot of help from useful idiots in getting a lot more people killed then needed to - if you think "Gosh, why....I totally fit that mold Berkut is talking about!" then I suspect that says more about you then it does about me and my uselessness.


Here is a hint for you though - I am not saying *anything* that everyone else isn't saying as well. So get your shovel ready, snowflake.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 10:50:20 AM
At risk of walking into the crossfire . . .

When COVID first became publicly recognized in the early months of 2020, we didn't know a lot about it.  Other than the fact that it was a form of coronavirus, and thus probably would act something like other coronaviruses. But we lacked specific data about basic facts about transmission, spread, and mortality among many other things.

The question is - given that state of knowledge - what was the optimal course of action?  And what level of risk aversion should be adopted balancing the unclearly specified risks to health and life vs the risks to disruption to economic and leisure activity?

In evaluating the wisdom of decisions made back then - it isn't a proper argument from either side to focus on exclusively on endpoints. E.g. comparing the realized death rate of Georgia to say Canada. Not just because it is an apples to oranges geographically and not just because the concept of "Georgia" and state boundaries generally is not that helpful a concept in thinking about movement of a virus. But because it's like arguing that a 50-50 bet of rolling a 12 on a pair of dice was a smart move because hey look I rolled the dice it came up 12.

My own view then and now was to err on the side of caution.  COVID was pretty awful but it could have been a nothingburger on the level of a bad cold, or if could have been quite a lot worse in terms of deadliness and virulence.  There was no way to know for sure exactly where it would fall on that continuum ex ante. To my mind taking more stringent measures made sense until we could be sure they weren't needed.  It's possible that others who are less risk averse or more personally impacted by such measures could take a different view - that's perfectly legit.  But in thinking about that balance, we have to base it the knowledge known at the time.

But although there are an array of rational ex ante approaches, whatever view was taken, you can still evaluate policy based on the process. The criticisms of Trump are valid because regardless of the outcome good or bad, the processes he followed were utter shit. It was based on his view of the politics and his own crazy michegas.  And that's how you ended up with stuff like keeping healthy people on a boat full of infected people because allowing them entry would cause US case numbers to rise. Or informing the American people it would all go away magically by Easter.  Or that it would go away in summer because President Xi said so.  Or shilling for quack remedies on national TV. Etc. etc. etc..
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 11:23:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 10:50:20 AM
But because it's like arguing that a 50-50 bet of rolling a 12 on a pair of dice was a smart move because hey look I rolled the dice it came up 12.

Or in this case, it is like arguing that its a great bet because you rolled the dice 50 times, and it came up 12 twice, and you just kind of pretend the other 48 losing rolls (and all the money you lost on them) didn't happen.

It is, in fact, something that casinos absolutely count on - the ability of humans to simply ignore the parts that don't align with their preconceptions, while crowing about the parts that do align.

They still walk out of the casino broke in the end, much more often then not.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 28, 2021, 12:48:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 10:50:20 AM
When COVID first became publicly recognized in the early months of 2020, we didn't know a lot about it.  Other than the fact that it was a form of coronavirus, and thus probably would act something like other coronaviruses. But we lacked specific data about basic facts about transmission, spread, and mortality among many other things.

As an example think about the early days when people crowded into washrooms to carefully wash their hands...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:15:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 10:50:20 AM
At risk of walking into the crossfire . . .

When COVID first became publicly recognized in the early months of 2020, we didn't know a lot about it.  Other than the fact that it was a form of coronavirus, and thus probably would act something like other coronaviruses. But we lacked specific data about basic facts about transmission, spread, and mortality among many other things.

The question is - given that state of knowledge - what was the optimal course of action?  And what level of risk aversion should be adopted balancing the unclearly specified risks to health and life vs the risks to disruption to economic and leisure activity?

In evaluating the wisdom of decisions made back then - it isn't a proper argument from either side to focus on exclusively on endpoints. E.g. comparing the realized death rate of Georgia to say Canada. Not just because it is an apples to oranges geographically and not just because the concept of "Georgia" and state boundaries generally is not that helpful a concept in thinking about movement of a virus. But because it's like arguing that a 50-50 bet of rolling a 12 on a pair of dice was a smart move because hey look I rolled the dice it came up 12.

My own view then and now was to err on the side of caution.  COVID was pretty awful but it could have been a nothingburger on the level of a bad cold, or if could have been quite a lot worse in terms of deadliness and virulence.  There was no way to know for sure exactly where it would fall on that continuum ex ante. To my mind taking more stringent measures made sense until we could be sure they weren't needed.  It's possible that others who are less risk averse or more personally impacted by such measures could take a different view - that's perfectly legit.  But in thinking about that balance, we have to base it the knowledge known at the time.

But although there are an array of rational ex ante approaches, whatever view was taken, you can still evaluate policy based on the process. The criticisms of Trump are valid because regardless of the outcome good or bad, the processes he followed were utter shit. It was based on his view of the politics and his own crazy michegas.  And that's how you ended up with stuff like keeping healthy people on a boat full of infected people because allowing them entry would cause US case numbers to rise. Or informing the American people it would all go away magically by Easter.  Or that it would go away in summer because President Xi said so.  Or shilling for quack remedies on national TV. Etc. etc. etc..

You are arguing in circles. What started this was you asked Legbiter, "Isn't that the advice you gave us Yank posters when your guy Trump got elected?  Don't get your panties in a bunch, etc.

How did that turn out?"

And I responded:

"It didn't turn out so bad. Life went on."

In such a discussion you should look at things after the fact with hindsight. Playing Russian Roulette is extremely dumb, but if you play it and the gun doesn't fire, I will point out the obvious that it didn't turn out poorly and that life went on.

You may not like comparing a US state to a country--but we are a federal republic and the restrictions put in place in each state differed dramatically. After the fact it is exceedingly difficult to measure benefits from specific policies to outcomes. I was pointing out that even if we attribute significant portions of negative outcomes to laxer policies, it isn't at all clear those were not worth the incremental cost. I don't agree with Jacob's blanket initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 10:30:50 AM
:yawn:


Starting throwing, because I am definitely not going to stop observing that Trump had a lot of help from useful idiots in getting a lot more people killed then needed to - if you think "Gosh, why....I totally fit that mold Berkut is talking about!" then I suspect that says more about you then it does about me and my uselessness.


Here is a hint for you though - I am not saying *anything* that everyone else isn't saying as well. So get your shovel ready, snowflake.

Why don't you explain to the group why you drop hints about having a sexual relationship with Meri? How is that gentlemanly behavior?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 28, 2021, 01:24:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:15:04 PM
I don't agree with Jacob's blanket initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US.

604,000 dead versus 26,000 makes me pretty easily disagree with you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 01:29:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2021, 01:24:08 PM
604,000 dead versus 26,000 makes me pretty easily disagree with you.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:32:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2021, 01:24:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:15:04 PM
I don't agree with Jacob's blanket initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US.

604,000 dead versus 26,000 makes me pretty easily disagree with you.

We have 10 times your population - but that aside I made my point above. Would you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened? (which I grant not all this country had, but the parts that did were in line with the national average)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:32:52 PM
We have 10 times your population - but that aside I made my point above. Would you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened? (which I grant not all this country had, but the parts that did were in line with the national average)

10 times the population doesn't really justify 24 times the death rate.

And here's the thing - it's about the health of the population and the country as whole - not your individual "I'd take those odds."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 28, 2021, 01:36:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:32:52 PMWould you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened?

It's not just about you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on June 28, 2021, 01:37:01 PM
Comparing Canada to the US is not useful.

Keeping things opened was not politically feasible. Our provincial governments #1 spending category is healthcare. In Quebec's, it's 50% of the provincial budget. Our governments are healthcare managers that have to run for office.

Even GOP-lite Jason Kenney's UCP shut things down when it became untenable in the HC system.

GOP-like Drug dealing Ford in Ontario did the same.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 01:40:30 PM
I think in terms of deaths - if that's your metric and it's clearly not for AR - that the US basically is in the group of rich countries that had a bad pandemic like the UK, Italy etc:
(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fd6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net%2Fprod%2Fb0f2e3a0-ada1-11eb-9534-658bf408d54a-fullwidth.png?dpr=1&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&source=next&width=1260)

Canada's around the level of Austria, Israel France. Not great, not terrible.

I am happy taking a 1 in 800 risk personally - but that wasn't the risk socially to everyone I interact with. The risk wasn't equal and - for me - I've personally never had any particular concerns about covid. For someone in my age group it's a pretty low risk, but it was not about me personally in my view.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 28, 2021, 01:43:09 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:32:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2021, 01:24:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:15:04 PM
I don't agree with Jacob's blanket initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US.

604,000 dead versus 26,000 makes me pretty easily disagree with you.

We have 10 times your population - but that aside I made my point above. Would you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened? (which I grant not all this country had, but the parts that did were in line with the national average)

I thought the population difference between our countries was pretty obvious, and even per capita Canada faired much better than the US.

Where do you get your 1 in 800 figure from?  Taking the number of dead divided by the total US population shows about 1 in 500 people died from Covid.

As you have whined about even parts of the US that were more open still had Covid restrictions.  And it's not like we've been locked in our houses either in Canada.  Biggest thing for me was no hockey for a year.  Would I trade hockey for a year in exchange for a 1 in 500 chance of dieing?  No I would not.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:46:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:32:52 PM
We have 10 times your population - but that aside I made my point above. Would you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened? (which I grant not all this country had, but the parts that did were in line with the national average)

10 times the population doesn't really justify 24 times the death rate.

10 times the population means that 24 times the death means just 2.4 times the death rate / capita.
Quote
And here's the thing - it's about the health of the population and the country as whole - not your individual "I'd take those odds."

Society is just the aggregation of individuals. I unquestionably want to take that risk and I actually think it is the only rational response.

I honestly think Canada (and a lot of other places) are being ridiculously restrictive. I still can't visit Canada -- that isn't based on science--it is political--I got my second dose of Pfizer in April.


Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:51:54 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 28, 2021, 01:36:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:32:52 PMWould you take a 1 in 800 chance of death to live the past 14 months with almost everything opened?

It's not just about you.

So on this forum, a majority seem to agree with you. But what about in places where the majority doesn't? In those places, why is the response "It's not just about you" to the dude saying, "I don't want to bear the risk of open bars", not equally effective? maybe moreso because no one is forcing him to go to the bars?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:46:17 PM
10 times the population means that 24 times the death means just 2.4 times the death rate / capita.

Yes. More than double.

QuoteSociety is just the aggregation of individuals. I unquestionably want to take that risk and I actually think it is the only rational response.

It's not just about you. Your selfishness is a danger to society.

QuoteI honestly think Canada (and a lot of other places) are being ridiculously restrictive. I still can't visit Canada -- that isn't based on science--it is political--I got my second dose of Pfizer in April.

I'm glad.

We are not managing our borders in accordance with your individual risk appetite, but in accordance with the needs of our population. And we prioritize having fewer Canadians die over the convenience of people like you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2021, 01:43:09 PM

Where do you get your 1 in 800 figure from?  Taking the number of dead divided by the total US population shows about 1 in 500 people died from Covid.


It is the incremental death the US had over Canada.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 01:55:17 PM
Society is more than aggregation of individuals, that's where the disconnect is.  You deciding to play with a nuclear bomb can still affect the people around you who decided not to play with it.  You getting Covid because you were okay with the risk increases the risk of other people getting Covid, even the ones who decided to hunker down (because everyone needs groceries, or because you keeping the plague going forces them to hunker down for longer).  When your decisions make other people pay some or all of the consequences, the other people have a stake in your decisions.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:56:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 01:53:05 PM

We are not managing our borders in accordance with your individual risk appetite, but in accordance with the needs of our population. And we prioritize having fewer Canadians die over the convenience of people like you.

Why do you think I'm a risk? I've been vaccinated. Do you not trust the vaccines? If you get proof of my vaccine records at the airport and get proof of a recent negative test, why do you think Canadians will die?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 28, 2021, 02:00:19 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 01:55:17 PM
Society is more than aggregation of individuals, that's where the disconnect is.  You deciding to play with a nuclear bomb can still affect the people around you who decided not to play with it.  You getting Covid because you were okay with the risk increases the risk of other people getting Covid, even the ones who decided to hunker down (because everyone needs groceries, or because you keeping the plague going forces them to hunker down for longer).  When your decisions make other people pay some or all of the consequences, the other people have a stake in your decisions.

I mean I am still not clear what diabetes did to my Covid risk. It was hard to get good medical information.

But yeah the main thing was to make sure those who were obese and/or elderly did not get it since their risk of death was very high and it is not like such people are that rare in first world countries.

I think if we made all of our restrictions based on medical and scientific data we know now we could have made better less socially and economically damaging restrictions that might have saved more lives as well. But we didn't as the facts were not clear yet. However, It also got really culture war and political here in the United States and once the narrative and the cultural tribe becomes a thing things like scientific facts cease to matter much to people.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 28, 2021, 02:00:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:51:54 PM
So on this forum, a majority seem to agree with you. But what about in places where the majority doesn't? In those places, why is the response "It's not just about you" to the dude saying, "I don't want to bear the risk of open bars", not equally effective? maybe moreso because no one is forcing him to go to the bars?
But again I don't think that individual/personal argument was ever the one that was made.

I've never heard someone phrasing their support for lockdown as a personal risk/choice because, as you say, it is easy to avoid the risk. The way it's always been discussed in the UK is it will increase transmission and prevalence in general which will increase the risks for people who aren't making a choice - people in care homes, the elderly, the clinically vulnerable etc.

If it was framed as about avoiding individual risk then I'd agree. But this is why I have sympathy with the argument about the wider social costs of lockdown rather than the individual accepting risk argument.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 02:01:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:56:59 PM
Why do you think I'm a risk? I've been vaccinated. Do you not trust the vaccines? If you get proof of my vaccine records at the airport and get proof of a recent negative test, why do you think Canadians will die?

Our ability to distinguish between you and your equivalent who's also an anti-vaxxer is limited.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 01:55:17 PM
Society is more than aggregation of individuals, that's where the disconnect is.  You deciding to play with a nuclear bomb can still affect the people around you who decided not to play with it.  You getting Covid because you were okay with the risk increases the risk of other people getting Covid, even the ones who decided to hunker down (because everyone needs groceries, or because you keeping the plague going forces them to hunker down for longer).  When your decisions make other people pay some or all of the consequences, the other people have a stake in your decisions.

That is madness. The risk was not that high. 1 in 800 is an extremely high number for the risk in a day but certainly not over a 14 year period where most of us won't live more than ~40 years and the costs are so extensive in terms of quality of life.

The flip side of this is being ignored. What about those that valued life their life in lockdown at a very low level and were being forced to surrender their limited time on this planet so others could avoid a negligible risk?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:06:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 02:01:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:56:59 PM
Why do you think I'm a risk? I've been vaccinated. Do you not trust the vaccines? If you get proof of my vaccine records at the airport and get proof of a recent negative test, why do you think Canadians will die?

Our ability to distinguish between you and your equivalent who's also an anti-vaxxer is limited.

No it isn't. I have a vaccine card from a federal vaccine site. When I was traveling internationally in May that was checked. Canada can do so as well.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 02:11:29 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:03:57 PM
That is madness. The risk was not that high. 1 in 800 is an extremely high number for the risk in a day but certainly not over a 14 year period where most of us won't live more than ~40 years and the costs are so extensive in terms of quality of life.

The flip side of this is being ignored. What about those that valued life their life in lockdown at a very low level and were being forced to surrender their limited time on this planet so others could avoid a negligible risk?
Why should we regulate commercial airlines?  In the US, two people died in commercial aviation accidents in the last 10 years.  Obviously the risk is extremely low, just two people in ten years, it's beyond idiotic to not just let commercial airlines do as they please.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Legbiter on June 28, 2021, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2021, 09:52:21 AM
Also I support lockdown's but AR is right that it is - and always has been - ridiculous to impose on outdoor gatherings as if they're the same as indoor gatherings when, in the context of an airborne disease, they're nowhere near the same risk..

Yeah.

Also this has to be said, it's extremely tiresome watching otherwise reliable, staid and slightly boring centrist dad Yanks turn into what I can only describe as Serbtards ca. 2000 OT Paradox forum with their impotent extreme creep revenge fantasies, disaster porn and broad, sweeping pronouncements of imminent catastrophe. All directed against their own countrymen. :huh:



Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 02:17:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:06:12 PM
No it isn't. I have a vaccine card from a federal vaccine site. When I was traveling internationally in May that was checked. Canada can do so as well.

How easy is it to fake? How easy is it to obtain fraudulently? How many different vaccine cards are there to keep track of?

What are the risks that someone vaccinated in another jurisdiction has received a faulty vaccine? What are the risks that someone who's been vaccinated can still carry the virus and spread it to the unprotected? What are the risks that a vaccinated person carries a new variant across the border?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:15:04 PM
You are arguing in circles. What started this was you asked Legbiter, "Isn't that the advice you gave us Yank posters when your guy Trump got elected?  Don't get your panties in a bunch, etc.

How did that turn out?"

And I responded:

"It didn't turn out so bad. Life went on."

Did I say anything about COVID in that exchange?  I'll save you the trouble of looking: I didn't.  I didn't because I was even thinking about COVID when I wrote that, nor was that the context of the exchange.

The Trump presidency culminated in the assault of the nation's Capitol Building by a pack of vandals who came within a hair breadth of lynching a politician.  That's pretty damn bad.

Did life go on?  Sure. And life also went on for Japan after the USAF hit them in 45.  Hell within a matter of years they were even better off than before.  Does life go on is an absurdly low standard.

QuoteYou may not like comparing a US state to a country--but we are a federal republic and the restrictions put in place in each state differed dramatically. After the fact it is exceedingly difficult to measure benefits from specific policies to outcomes. I was pointing out that even if we attribute significant portions of negative outcomes to laxer policies, it isn't at all clear those were not worth the incremental cost. I don't agree with Jacob's blanket initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US.

It's not what I like or don't like.  Viruses don't really care about the nuances of federalism.  They are oblivious to the location of state lines. If state X acts irresponsibly but other states act more responsibly then state X still gets the benefit of responsible behavior elsewhere.  That has to be taken into account.  There are also characteristics of different places - e.g. density and other conditions favoring or disfavoring spread in particular places that have to be taken into account.   Either one does a proper study with real controls or you are just picking out a bunch of numbers and throwing them around .

if the focus is just on straight fatality outcome data, then Jacob's initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US is unimpeachable. Canada's death/person number are way lower.  I don't think that is the end of the discussion but on the standard you seem to be proposing it should be.

Is Georgia's number better than Nova Scotia?  Is Atlanta better than Montreal?  Is Yonkers better than Thunder Bay?  Does any of that matter?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 28, 2021, 02:24:37 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 28, 2021, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2021, 09:52:21 AM
Also I support lockdown's but AR is right that it is - and always has been - ridiculous to impose on outdoor gatherings as if they're the same as indoor gatherings when, in the context of an airborne disease, they're nowhere near the same risk..

Yeah.

Also this has to be said, it's extremely tiresome watching otherwise reliable, staid and slightly boring centrist dad Yanks turn into what I can only describe as Serbtards ca. 2000 OT Paradox forum with their impotent extreme creep revenge fantasies, disaster porn and broad, sweeping pronouncements of imminent catastrophe. All directed against their own countrymen. :huh:

Welcome to the culture war!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 02:28:57 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 28, 2021, 02:13:56 PM
Also this has to be said, it's extremely tiresome watching otherwise reliable, staid and slightly boring centrist dad Yanks turn into what I can only describe as Serbtards ca. 2000 OT Paradox forum with their impotent extreme creep revenge fantasies, disaster porn and broad, sweeping pronouncements of imminent catastrophe. All directed against their own countrymen. :huh:

Hence the subject matter of this thread.  Glad to see you are now as much of a critic of the Trumpist GOP as I am.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 28, 2021, 02:29:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 02:19:20 PM
Is Georgia's number better than Nova Scotia?  Is Atlanta better than Montreal?  Is Yonkers better than Thunder Bay?  Does any of that matter?

Anywhere has to be better than Thunder Bay... <_<
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Legbiter on June 28, 2021, 02:35:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2021, 02:24:37 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 28, 2021, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2021, 09:52:21 AM
Also I support lockdown's but AR is right that it is - and always has been - ridiculous to impose on outdoor gatherings as if they're the same as indoor gatherings when, in the context of an airborne disease, they're nowhere near the same risk..

Yeah.

Also this has to be said, it's extremely tiresome watching otherwise reliable, staid and slightly boring centrist dad Yanks turn into what I can only describe as Serbtards ca. 2000 OT Paradox forum with their impotent extreme creep revenge fantasies, disaster porn and broad, sweeping pronouncements of imminent catastrophe. All directed against their own countrymen. :huh:

Welcome to the culture war!

The only way to win is not to play?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 02:36:27 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 28, 2021, 02:35:48 PM
The only way to win is not to play?

Wish the GOP had thought of that before they kicked it off :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on June 28, 2021, 02:36:32 PM
Yes, basically.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 02:38:03 PM
This is awesome.

I mean, I don't think you could get a better example of just outright arrogant and malicious contempt for other human beings if you were writing a story about it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 02:40:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2021, 02:29:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 02:19:20 PM
Is Georgia's number better than Nova Scotia?  Is Atlanta better than Montreal?  Is Yonkers better than Thunder Bay?  Does any of that matter?

Anywhere has to be better than Thunder Bay... <_<

Normally I'd start making snide comments about Yonkers at this point, but since they have a Pepe's pizza now, your point is probably well taken.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Legbiter on June 28, 2021, 02:40:49 PM
How so Berkut?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 28, 2021, 02:41:47 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 28, 2021, 02:35:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2021, 02:24:37 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 28, 2021, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2021, 09:52:21 AM
Also I support lockdown's but AR is right that it is - and always has been - ridiculous to impose on outdoor gatherings as if they're the same as indoor gatherings when, in the context of an airborne disease, they're nowhere near the same risk..

Yeah.

Also this has to be said, it's extremely tiresome watching otherwise reliable, staid and slightly boring centrist dad Yanks turn into what I can only describe as Serbtards ca. 2000 OT Paradox forum with their impotent extreme creep revenge fantasies, disaster porn and broad, sweeping pronouncements of imminent catastrophe. All directed against their own countrymen. :huh:

Welcome to the culture war!

The only way to win is not to play?

Pretty much. I mean there are important issues at play, ones that you can certainly have strong opinions on. But, most of it just hysteria, fear mongering, and us vs them thinking. So even if you care greatly about some of the issues involved you have to be very careful not to be caught up in the nonsense.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 28, 2021, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 02:40:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2021, 02:29:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 02:19:20 PM
Is Georgia's number better than Nova Scotia?  Is Atlanta better than Montreal?  Is Yonkers better than Thunder Bay?  Does any of that matter?

Anywhere has to be better than Thunder Bay... <_<

Normally I'd start making snide comments about Yonkers at this point, but since they have a Pepe's pizza now, your point is probably well taken.

I was just cracking wise - I enjoyed T Bay the one time I was there (went to Lakehead University for a MOdel UN conference in the mid-90s).  It was a long-ass drive though with nothing but empty Canadian sheid for hours in every direction though.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:50:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 02:38:03 PM
This is awesome.

I mean, I don't think you could get a better example of just outright arrogant and malicious contempt for other human beings if you were writing a story about it.

You actually got yourself infected with covid participating in a team sporting event (high school football), after defending to me the Pac 12's decision to hardly play any games last year because of safety. You knew it was a covid risk environment but still participated. Which is probably more high risk than anything I did prior to getting vaccinated.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 02:52:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:50:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 02:38:03 PM
This is awesome.

I mean, I don't think you could get a better example of just outright arrogant and malicious contempt for other human beings if you were writing a story about it.

You actually got yourself infected with covid participating in a team sporting event (high school football), after defending to me the Pac 12's decision to hardly play any games last year because of safety. You knew it was a covid risk environment but still participated. Which is probably more high risk than anything I did prior to getting vaccinated.

Your information is, unsurprisingly, incorrect.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:53:57 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 01:15:04 PM
You are arguing in circles. What started this was you asked Legbiter, "Isn't that the advice you gave us Yank posters when your guy Trump got elected?  Don't get your panties in a bunch, etc.

How did that turn out?"

And I responded:

"It didn't turn out so bad. Life went on."

Did I say anything about COVID in that exchange?  I'll save you the trouble of looking: I didn't.  I didn't because I was even thinking about COVID when I wrote that, nor was that the context of the exchange.

The Trump presidency culminated in the assault of the nation's Capitol Building by a pack of vandals who came within a hair breadth of lynching a politician.  That's pretty damn bad.

Did life go on?  Sure. And life also went on for Japan after the USAF hit them in 45.  Hell within a matter of years they were even better off than before.  Does life go on is an absurdly low standard.

QuoteYou may not like comparing a US state to a country--but we are a federal republic and the restrictions put in place in each state differed dramatically. After the fact it is exceedingly difficult to measure benefits from specific policies to outcomes. I was pointing out that even if we attribute significant portions of negative outcomes to laxer policies, it isn't at all clear those were not worth the incremental cost. I don't agree with Jacob's blanket initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US.

It's not what I like or don't like.  Viruses don't really care about the nuances of federalism.  They are oblivious to the location of state lines. If state X acts irresponsibly but other states act more responsibly then state X still gets the benefit of responsible behavior elsewhere.  That has to be taken into account.  There are also characteristics of different places - e.g. density and other conditions favoring or disfavoring spread in particular places that have to be taken into account.   Either one does a proper study with real controls or you are just picking out a bunch of numbers and throwing them around .

if the focus is just on straight fatality outcome data, then Jacob's initial premise that Canada had a better outcome than the US is unimpeachable. Canada's death/person number are way lower.  I don't think that is the end of the discussion but on the standard you seem to be proposing it should be.

Is Georgia's number better than Nova Scotia?  Is Atlanta better than Montreal?  Is Yonkers better than Thunder Bay?  Does any of that matter?

During covid times, I'm certainly glad I lived in Georgia versus Canada. When I was in Utah I heard a few complaints about the influx of west coasters moving in because of the laxer policies--voting with their feet. I know several people that moved out of NYC as covid refugees as they had the option while working remotely: you know anyone that moved to the city due to its covid restrictions?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 28, 2021, 02:57:15 PM
I mean Covid restrictions were pretty poorly and arbitrarily enforced for the most part. I don't think I would have done much differently regardless of where I lived. The only thing that really impacted me was whether schools were open.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:57:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 02:52:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:50:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 02:38:03 PM
This is awesome.

I mean, I don't think you could get a better example of just outright arrogant and malicious contempt for other human beings if you were writing a story about it.

You actually got yourself infected with covid participating in a team sporting event (high school football), after defending to me the Pac 12's decision to hardly play any games last year because of safety. You knew it was a covid risk environment but still participated. Which is probably more high risk than anything I did prior to getting vaccinated.

Your information is, unsurprisingly, incorrect.

Sweet jesus, I looked it up and you are even more despicable than I thought!

Here is your post:

QuoteGot my first jab Feb 5th. NYS considers sports officials school employees.

Got diagnosed with Covid on the 15th, probably exposed at a basketball game I officiated on the 12th.

Got my second shot on the 26th.

You were officiating an indoor team sporting event!!!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 28, 2021, 03:00:45 PM
OMG I AM BEING SO PWNED!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 03:02:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 02:17:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:06:12 PM
No it isn't. I have a vaccine card from a federal vaccine site. When I was traveling internationally in May that was checked. Canada can do so as well.

How easy is it to fake? How easy is it to obtain fraudulently? How many different vaccine cards are there to keep track of?

What are the risks that someone vaccinated in another jurisdiction has received a faulty vaccine? What are the risks that someone who's been vaccinated can still carry the virus and spread it to the unprotected? What are the risks that a vaccinated person carries a new variant across the border?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but the risks aren't zero! Better to keep yourself locked off from the rest of the world!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 28, 2021, 03:04:16 PM
I mean the risks are never zero. A virus may sneak inside your house Dorsey.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 03:05:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:53:57 PM
I know several people that moved out of NYC as covid refugees as they had the option while working remotely: you know anyone that moved to the city due to its covid restrictions?

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Yes people moved out of NYC during the pandemic. 
Was that due to the fact that people were dying like flies in the city in the early months in 2020? that seems to have scared some people off.
Or due to the fact that major employers shut down offices during the pandemic to protect staff - something that would have happened regardless of what Cuomo or deBlasio did?
Or was it because being in a dense city where many popular leisure activities take place in cramped spaces with poor ventilation isn't the best place to be during an airborne pandemic?
Where the principal method of transit is the electric sewer? (aka the subway)
Or was it particularly due to specific actions taken by the NYC govt authorities?

I have no idea how to deconstruct those different causes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on June 28, 2021, 03:07:23 PM
Tamas, if you are reading this; Do not scroll up. DO NOT SCROLL UP.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 03:05:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:53:57 PM
I know several people that moved out of NYC as covid refugees as they had the option while working remotely: you know anyone that moved to the city due to its covid restrictions?

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Yes people moved out of NYC during the pandemic. 
Was that due to the fact that people were dying like flies in the city in the early months in 2020? that seems to have scared some people off.
Or due to the fact that major employers shut down offices during the pandemic to protect staff - something that would have happened regardless of what Cuomo or deBlasio did?
Or was it because being in a dense city where many popular leisure activities take place in cramped spaces with poor ventilation isn't the best place to be during an airborne pandemic?
Where the principal method of transit is the electric sewer? (aka the subway)
Or was it particularly due to specific actions taken by the NYC govt authorities?

I have no idea how to deconstruct those different causes.

We can claim ignorance about what is going on, but places like Moab, UT and Red Rocks, NV were swarming with cars from California and Washington State in the winter wave when I was there...and people were open about coming because stuff was shutting down at home. I'm in the state that probably opened up faster than anywhere else and I've never heard of anyone living because of it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 28, 2021, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 03:05:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:53:57 PM
I know several people that moved out of NYC as covid refugees as they had the option while working remotely: you know anyone that moved to the city due to its covid restrictions?

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Yes people moved out of NYC during the pandemic. 
Was that due to the fact that people were dying like flies in the city in the early months in 2020? that seems to have scared some people off.
Or due to the fact that major employers shut down offices during the pandemic to protect staff - something that would have happened regardless of what Cuomo or deBlasio did?
Or was it because being in a dense city where many popular leisure activities take place in cramped spaces with poor ventilation isn't the best place to be during an airborne pandemic?
Where the principal method of transit is the electric sewer? (aka the subway)
Or was it particularly due to specific actions taken by the NYC govt authorities?

I have no idea how to deconstruct those different causes.

We can claim ignorance about what is going on, but places like Moab, UT and Red Rocks, NV were swarming with cars from California and Washington State in the winter wave when I was there...and people were open about coming because stuff was shutting down at home. I'm in the state that probably opened up faster than anywhere else and I've never heard of anyone living because of it.

Paging Dr. Freud.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 28, 2021, 03:16:51 PM
Look I don't think anybody was saying shut downs are pleasant and how much we want things shut down Dorsey.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 28, 2021, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2021, 03:16:08 PM
Paging Dr. Freud.

:lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 03:25:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 03:15:05 PM
We can claim ignorance about what is going on, but places like Moab, UT and Red Rocks, NV were swarming with cars from California and Washington State in the winter wave when I was there...and people were open about coming because stuff was shutting down at home. I'm in the state that probably opened up faster than anywhere else and I've never heard of anyone living because of it.

QuoteWe have heard of Moab's pride—

how great is her arrogance!—

of her conceit, her pride and her insolence;

but her boasts are empty
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 03:02:28 PM
I don't know the answer to these questions, but the risks aren't zero! Better to keep yourself locked off from the rest of the world!

I disagree.

That said, I trust my relevant health authorities - and my elected officials - to assess those risks more than I trust you to do so.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 03:44:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 03:02:28 PM
I don't know the answer to these questions, but the risks aren't zero! Better to keep yourself locked off from the rest of the world!

I disagree.

That said, I trust my relevant health authorities - and my elected officials - to assess those risks more than I trust you to do so.

I can travel to Denmark for tourism. The requirements may have been adjusted, but I think they just want a covid test before departure, an antibody test in the airport, and a vaccine card.

I take it you disagree with that policy?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 03:44:12 PM
I take it you disagree with that policy?

The traffic between Denmark and the US is very different than the traffic between Canada and the US :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 04:01:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 03:44:12 PM
I take it you disagree with that policy?

The traffic between Denmark and the US is very different than the traffic between Canada and the US :)

Fascinating. So your thought process is that Canada should ban US travelers because they are Canada's most important trading partner and source of tourists, while Denmark should let them in because they are relatively unimportant?

I'm genuinely confused.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 04:13:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 04:01:52 PM
I'm genuinely confused.

Look, if you don't like Berkut putting words in your mouth maybe you shouldn't do it to other people?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 04:41:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 04:13:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 04:01:52 PM
I'm genuinely confused.

Look, if you don't like Berkut putting words in your mouth maybe you shouldn't do it to other people?

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was asking what the rationale was for thinking there should be a difference, and trying to make it clear that I don't think that there is a good one. Mostly to provoke you into responding.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on June 28, 2021, 04:47:32 PM
Can we also include Australia in the country comparison?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 04:50:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 04:41:41 PM
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was asking what the rationale was for thinking there should be a difference, and trying to make it clear that I don't think that there is a good one. Mostly to provoke you into responding.

I believe I explained adequately.

In any case, I'm not really interested in trying to convince you nor do I want to substitute into your shit-fights with Berkut.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 28, 2021, 04:55:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 04:50:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 04:41:41 PM
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was asking what the rationale was for thinking there should be a difference, and trying to make it clear that I don't think that there is a good one. Mostly to provoke you into responding.

I believe I explained adequately.

You didn't. Increased volume just scales the cost/benefit ratio, it doesn't fundamentally alter it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 05:07:33 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 28, 2021, 04:55:21 PM
You didn't. Increased volume just scales the cost/benefit ratio, it doesn't fundamentally alter it.

Oh well.

EDIT: okay, maybe that's a bit dismissive, but I'm really not interested in trying to convince anyone here.

Basically it's not about cost/benefit, it's about overall risk - that is, absolute numbers. Increased volume increases the risk straight up. Letting, say, 25 people in tightly controlled circumstances is unlikely to be disastrous even if it goes wrong. Letting 250,000 people in means the circumstances are going to be much less tight, and if it goes wrong it's more likely to be disastrous. So yes, increased volume absolutely does alter the risk factor.

Secondly, the profile of people travelling from the US to Denmark is going to be different than the potentially travellers between the US and Canada, which again alters the risk profile.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 05:14:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 02:53:57 PM
During covid times, I'm certainly glad I lived in Georgia versus Canada. When I was in Utah I heard a few complaints about the influx of west coasters moving in because of the laxer policies--voting with their feet. I know several people that moved out of NYC as covid refugees as they had the option while working remotely: you know anyone that moved to the city due to its covid restrictions?
I don't think people left NYC during the pandemic due to Covid restrictions.  They left because they could do their job just as well from their vacation home, and I image most people prefer their vacation home to their apartment in the crowded city.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 05:17:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2021, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 03:15:05 PM
We can claim ignorance about what is going on, but places like Moab, UT and Red Rocks, NV were swarming with cars from California and Washington State in the winter wave when I was there...and people were open about coming because stuff was shutting down at home. I'm in the state that probably opened up faster than anywhere else and I've never heard of anyone living because of it.

Paging Dr. Freud.
:XD:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 05:19:03 PM
#1: I truly hate the world since covid.

#2: In March / April last year I alienated almost everyone by strenuously arguing on a very small handful of points.
-Outdoor restrictions were stupid and counterproductive.
-The "everyone stay in cities" thing was dumb.
-The actual infected fatality rate would be less than 1% rather than the 4% being tossed out at the time.
-The initial responses were unsustainable and were going to be counterproductive long term.

When Georgia was the first state to reopen, and did so in an extreme way, I was triumphant that I was being provided right that the initial response was unsustainable -- but no one agreed with me that a governor being stupid proved anything. Fast forward a number of months and no one stuck with their restrictions and we got a bunch of waves...I'm not sure where I was wrong. I offered a couple of bets to people making projections: like when Tim posted how many people would be dead by a certain date, I said it would definitely be lower; no one took me up and I would have won them.

What seems to be important is that I was wrong. Not because I was wrong but because I was an asshole. I've been referred to as an anti masker (never have been, I always wore a mask in public places indoors, and was cool with mask mandates), Trump synchophant (I staked out these positions when I was still under lockdown supported by Trumpnation), someone who said covid is no worse than the flu (never did that - it certainly is).

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 28, 2021, 05:38:25 PM
Dorsey nailing himself to a cross is no more attractive than Dorsey engaging in ad hom arguments, red herrings, false dichotomies, and strawman arguments.  It used to be kind of funny, but now it's just pathetic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 28, 2021, 05:39:30 PM
Hang in there, ar. I like that you challenge Languish.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on June 28, 2021, 05:39:59 PM
Douches gotta douche.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 05:41:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 05:19:03 PM
What seems to be important is that I was wrong.

I think there are least a *few* more important things.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 28, 2021, 06:02:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 05:19:03 PM
What seems to be important is that I was wrong.

Understanding it is not all about you is part of growing up.  You will get there.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 28, 2021, 06:12:32 PM
It's not all about you either. Dorsey is correct that society has to engage in cost/benefit analysis.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 06:18:56 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 28, 2021, 06:12:32 PM
It's not all about you either. Dorsey is correct that society has to engage in cost/benefit analysis.

Of course there's always a cost/ benefit analysis. The issue is how you count the costs and benefits.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 06:28:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 05:14:47 PM

I don't think people left NYC during the pandemic due to Covid restrictions.  They left because they could do their job just as well from their vacation home, and I image most people prefer their vacation home to their apartment in the crowded city.

What is worth remembering is this is where I first started getting shit. When I first got the sense that this was going to cause work to go remote (I work with an office in China that did in early February), I was excited: "This isn't going to end soon, so I'm going to spend the next year renting a series of cabins across the country and visiting national parks and other outdoor areas." Grey Fox anticipated correctly the parks would shut down--which I thought was insane because why would you close a park with wide open spaces in a pandemic (I get the visitor's center but the hiking trails)?

In the early days leaving the cities for the countryside was not cool. The idea covid was ever staying out of towns outside of major cities was insane. Some counties in Georgia even banned people from Atlanta from entering. Now their death rates are just as high, no one will wear masks or get vaccinated, and half the people think covid was a plot to undermine trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 06:53:01 PM
AR - what I've noticed is that in talking about COVID you've frequently mixed together your analytical views of about what was going on with your own personal experience and perspective.  When you do that you run the risk that an analytical disagreement bleeds over into personal commentary.  Everyone brings a personal perspective and it can make sense to mention that perspective by way of explaining background, experience and even potential bias.  But if it gets too mixed up, it becomes difficult for someone to critique what you are saying without it coming off as a personal attack.

For example, from the beginning you took the position that restrictions on rural, outdoor activities was a bad idea.  That was a rational, defensible position then and now.  But you also cast that position in very personal terms about what you personally were doing or could or could not do.  That made it hard to critique your position without seeming to cast blame on you personally. 

That trend is continuing here.  The discussion isn't about whether showing whether your are right or wrong or whether you are prophet, an a-hole or both. At least it shouldn't be about that.  But it keeps creeping back in because the discussion always seems to veer back into "I couldn't go to National Park X" or "Berkut was reffing a football game" 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 06:55:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 05:07:33 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 28, 2021, 04:55:21 PM
You didn't. Increased volume just scales the cost/benefit ratio, it doesn't fundamentally alter it.

Oh well.

EDIT: okay, maybe that's a bit dismissive, but I'm really not interested in trying to convince anyone here.

Basically it's not about cost/benefit, it's about overall risk - that is, absolute numbers. Increased volume increases the risk straight up. Letting, say, 25 people in tightly controlled circumstances is unlikely to be disastrous even if it goes wrong. Letting 250,000 people in means the circumstances are going to be much less tight, and if it goes wrong it's more likely to be disastrous. So yes, increased volume absolutely does alter the risk factor.

Secondly, the profile of people travelling from the US to Denmark is going to be different than the potentially travellers between the US and Canada, which again alters the risk profile.

I could be reading Canada's policy wrong, but I don't think their issue is US specific. It seems they don't offer tourists a chance to demonstrate they are not a risk while Denmark does (unless they are from a country designated as at particular risk).

It seems they really do have significantly different policies.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 28, 2021, 07:06:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2021, 06:53:01 PM
AR - what I've noticed is that in talking about COVID you've frequently mixed together your analytical views of about what was going on with your own personal experience and perspective.  When you do that you run the risk that an analytical disagreement bleeds over into personal commentary.  Everyone brings a personal perspective and it can make sense to mention that perspective by way of explaining background, experience and even potential bias.  But if it gets too mixed up, it becomes difficult for someone to critique what you are saying without it coming off as a personal attack.

For example, from the beginning you took the position that restrictions on rural, outdoor activities was a bad idea.  That was a rational, defensible position then and now.  But you also cast that position in very personal terms about what you personally were doing or could or could not do.  That made it hard to critique your position without seeming to cast blame on you personally. 

That trend is continuing here.  The discussion isn't about whether showing whether your are right or wrong or whether you are prophet, an a-hole or both. At least it shouldn't be about that.  But it keeps creeping back in because the discussion always seems to veer back into "I couldn't go to National Park X" or "Berkut was reffing a football game"
I think these are wise words. :yes:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on June 29, 2021, 03:51:00 AM
Don't we have another specific thread for AR to get dunked on repeatedly on all kind of Covid related topics? I thought this was about GOP politicians saying stupid things, not for AR doing so.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 07:58:42 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 29, 2021, 03:51:00 AM
Don't we have another specific thread for AR to get dunked on repeatedly on all kind of Covid related topics? I thought this was about GOP politicians saying stupid things, not for AR doing so.

To circle this back to the thread topic, I had to go down to midtown Saturday with my wife to pick up some papers, and we decided to take the chance to eat at a restaurant in the heart of the city. First time since the pandemic started: the first three restaurants we went to had all permanently closed. There were a lot of empty store fronts.

I kind of get the impression from the discussion with Jake upthread that he is kind of indifferent to policies regarding nonessential international travel. Canada basically shuts it down, he is cool with that, Denmark allows it, he is cool with that too. Why should he care? Like almost all of us he is a middle aged college educated white guy, with a career involving staring into a computer screen with enough spare time to post on languish during the workday. His whole career isn't based around some shop selling dumb shit to tourists or selling them ice cream. Those people are totally fucked but they aren't represented on languish or probably our social circles.

I used to get all my work clothes professionally cleaned--I'd drop clothes off every couple weeks and knew the owners of the shop--a couple from India. Late last year I stopped by for the first time in forever since I don't wear work clothes anymore--one owners said things were so bad and he was praying every day people would start going back to the office. I didn't have the heart to tell him that it isn't going to go back to the way it was anytime soon, if ever (I'm not going back until September, and even then just two days a week). I drive by that cleaners and they keep cutting back their hours and it is always empty--they just need to shut down. It is a sinking ship. Oh well--none of us work at a dry cleaner! We elected Biden who gave them $1,400 - what more could they want? If the business actually goes under, they will also get $300 in extra unemployment. What a gravy train!

The point here: in 2020 Trump and the GOP made significant gains with minority voters. There was a lot of head scratching on why. Are minority voters attracted to racism against them? I think the answer is that a lot of working class voters are just desperate to work, and get their kids into schools, and the GOP is associated with opening up and the democrats with shutting things down. Which if true is probably good news for the DNC: covid will go away in four years. But the bigger issue is being totally out of touch with the working class.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 09:38:19 AM
It's good to know your rage over not being able to rock climb in Utah is all really a proxy for your heartfelt concern for immigrants and the working class. Touching.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 29, 2021, 10:07:38 AM
Dorsey, as MM said you do have some reasonable points though you're making them poorly IMO. As someone else said, they appreciate that you're bringing a different perspective to the threads. I agree with both of those things.

However, you're being a complete cunt about it - ironically attempting to bait me the same way you get so upset about (even in this very thread) when done to you.

I recognize now that it was a mistake for me to respond to your initial points.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 11:27:58 AM
During the early days of WW2, after Germany declared war on the US, there was pressure to implement blackout procedures along the East Coast, along with making moving merchant ships in convoys mandatory (up until then it was optional).

Some people resisted these efforts as being either too much of a burden. Not letting people travel after dark along the coasts would hurt businesses, and tourism. Small businesses would go out of business. And would it even work anyway?

And why do people need to blackout in areas where Uboats could not realistically get to, like inside harbors or estuaries?

The Germans sent about half a dozen Uboats over to the US East Coast, were they had the German "Happy Time" - Uboats destroying ships at will, killing large numbers of merchant marine sailors, and generally wreaking havoc along the US East coast. Due to range considerations, the Germans focused Operation Drumbeat on the northern East Coast - North Caroline to Maine, primarily.

And what a happy time it was for them.

QuoteFor the five Type IX boats in the first wave of attack, known as Operation Drumbeat, it was a bonanza. They cruised along the coast, safely submerged through the day, and surfacing at night to pick off merchant vessels outlined against the lights of the cities.

Reinhard Hardegen in U-123 sank seven ships totalling 46,744 tons before he ran out of torpedoes and returned to base;
Ernst Kals in U-130 sank six ships of 36,988 tons;
Robert-Richard Zapp in U-66 sank five ships of 33,456 tons;
Heinrich Bleichrodt in U-109 sank four ships of 27,651 tons; and
Ulrich Folkers on his first patrol in U-125 sank one 6,666-ton vessel, the West Ivis (he was criticized by Dönitz for his poor performance, although he would later win the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross).[3]:p271

The tanker Pennsylvania Sun torpedoed by U-571 on 15 July 1942 (was saved and returned to service in 1943).

When the first wave of U-boats returned to port through the early part of February, Dönitz wrote that each commander "had such an abundance of opportunities for attack that he could not by any means utilize them all: there were times when there were up to ten ships in sight, sailing with all lights burning on peacetime courses."

Now, I don't doubt that there were people before the restrictions went into place that complained about them. Too restrictive! It's not that bad! Most people on those ships that are sunk probably survive anyway!

But of course once the German got going, most of those objections quickly went away - it was obvious that the threat was real and serious.

I have to wonder  though - were there people in 1943 saying "You know, it really wasn't THAT bad! We didn't need to black out and form convoys, after all! And just look - those convoys lost lots of ships too, it's not like they actually worked! Also, I said it was silly to make the blackouts mandatory everywhere, and I was proven right because hardly any ships were sunk off the Texas coast, so obviously I was right!"

I bet there were....
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 11:32:37 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 29, 2021, 10:07:38 AM
Dorsey, as MM said you do have some reasonable points though you're making them poorly IMO. As someone else said, they appreciate that you're bringing a different perspective to the threads. I agree with both of those things.

However, you're being a complete cunt about it - ironically attempting to bait me the same way you get so upset about (even in this very thread) when done to you.

I recognize now that it was a mistake for me to respond to your initial points.

that is probably fair. I have an extremely negative attitude.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 11:37:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 11:27:58 AM

I have to wonder  though - were there people in 1943 saying "You know, it really wasn't THAT bad! We didn't need to black out and form convoys, after all! And just look - those convoys lost lots of ships too, it's not like they actually worked! Also, I said it was silly to make the blackouts mandatory everywhere, and I was proven right because hardly any ships were sunk off the Texas coast, so obviously I was right!"

I bet there were....

What is the point here? Is it that because people were against blackouts along the coast in WWII, and you think there might have been people that thought the blackouts were bad ideas in 1943, we shouldn't let vaccinated people with negative covid tests (and able to produce evidence of both) travel for tourism?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 12:08:08 PM
I am confident that if you actually do not understand my point such that you could confuse it with that strawman, nothing I can say can illuminate it better for you.

Also...I think you understand the point perfectly well.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 12:08:08 PM
I am confident that if you actually do not understand my point such that you could confuse it with that strawman, nothing I can say can illuminate it better for you.

Also...I think you understand the point perfectly well.

If I understand your point, that wasn't a strawman. You actually were bringing up attitudes in WWII regarding coastal blackouts as an argument in support of the migration restrictions that were being discussed upthread.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 12:24:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2021, 06:55:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2021, 05:07:33 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 28, 2021, 04:55:21 PM
You didn't. Increased volume just scales the cost/benefit ratio, it doesn't fundamentally alter it.

Oh well.

EDIT: okay, maybe that's a bit dismissive, but I'm really not interested in trying to convince anyone here.

Basically it's not about cost/benefit, it's about overall risk - that is, absolute numbers. Increased volume increases the risk straight up. Letting, say, 25 people in tightly controlled circumstances is unlikely to be disastrous even if it goes wrong. Letting 250,000 people in means the circumstances are going to be much less tight, and if it goes wrong it's more likely to be disastrous. So yes, increased volume absolutely does alter the risk factor.

Secondly, the profile of people travelling from the US to Denmark is going to be different than the potentially travellers between the US and Canada, which again alters the risk profile.

I could be reading Canada's policy wrong, but I don't think their issue is US specific. It seems they don't offer tourists a chance to demonstrate they are not a risk while Denmark does (unless they are from a country designated as at particular risk).

It seems they really do have significantly different policies.

Since the vast majority of our tourism comes from the US, it just makes good sense to fashion a policy regarding tourism with the US primarily in mind.  I am not sure what sort of numbers Denmark has to deal with, but we have the largest undefended border in the world with many more crossing points than Denmark could ever have.  It does not makes sense for us to create a system that is administratively burdensome and particularly when the percentage of people who are fully vaccinated varies a great deal from state to state within your country, including the states which border our country.

One of the things that will make the prospect of opening the border more likely is an agreement as to what form of proof a person will be required to present that they have been fully vaccinated. 

As Jacob has already explained, it is not yet worth the risk to open the border.  But it might happen soon.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 03:00:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 12:24:00 PM

As Jacob has already explained, it is not yet worth the risk to open the border.  But it might happen soon.

Lots of countries have already figured this out, I don't know of a single case of transmission globally from someone who presented a negative covid result and vaccine certificate on arrival.

Anyway, on the topic of this thread, Herschel Walker announced he is running for the senate in Georgia with Trump's endorsement. He actually lives in Texas and has for a while so he will have to move, but he will be the front runner for the GOP nomination. He was a football star at UGA, and I would say he was the most pivotable person in putting together the Dallas Cowboys dynasty in the early to mid 90s. In the republican primary that may be enough to overcome his lack of any relevant experience, history of mental illness, and domestic violence. The domestic violence problem will be partially offset by the fact by the accusations involving holding a gun to his wife's head, which establishes pro gun bona fides.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 03:22:59 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 03:00:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 12:24:00 PM

As Jacob has already explained, it is not yet worth the risk to open the border.  But it might happen soon.

Lots of countries have already figured this out, I don't know of a single case of transmission globally from someone who presented a negative covid result and vaccine certificate on arrival.

Anyway, on the topic of this thread, Herschel Walker announced he is running for the senate in Georgia with Trump's endorsement. He actually lives in Texas and has for a while so he will have to move, but he will be the front runner for the GOP nomination. He was a football star at UGA, and I would say he was the most pivotable person in putting together the Dallas Cowboys dynasty in the early to mid 90s. In the republican primary that may be enough to overcome his lack of any relevant experience, history of mental illness, and domestic violence. The domestic violence problem will be partially offset by the fact by the accusations involving holding a gun to his wife's head, which establishes pro gun bona fides.

You cut out all the reasons for why we are doing what we are doing.  Also, I have no comfort that your knowledge of what is happening or not should be determinative.  You might want to go back and re-read JR's post.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 29, 2021, 03:29:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 03:00:04 PM
I would say he was the most pivotable person in putting together the Dallas Cowboys dynasty in the early to mid 90s.

I see what you did there.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 29, 2021, 03:38:19 PM
Okay, you guys need to stop arguing with AR on this or argue in a more entertaining manner.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 03:47:08 PM
I am curious AR.

You are saying, as an example, that you think Canada should open their border with the US.

But that is not really what you are saying, what you are really saying is "Those officials responsible for making this determination are wrong, and I am right. I know more, or am smarter, or something along those lines, then those who have the actual responsibility, and they are wrong."

I wonder....if this is so obvious to you, WHY are they incapable of seeing what you see, that this is not just the right thing to do, but it is the blindingly obviously right thing to do such that you are absolutely certain you are right, and there is no possible information or consideration they might be operating under that could even possibly, even theoretically, suggest that perhaps they might be doing the right thing? You have not even acknowledged that they MIGHT possibly be correct.

So given that...are they just morons? Do they hate freedom and this is their way to, I don't know....just lash out against people in general by not letting them cross the border?

Personally, I can understand their reluctance - not so much because I am some kind of expert, as you clearly are, but simply because I operate under the presumption that by and large they are likely smart, reasonable people doing their best in tough times to make tough decisions. They might be right, they might be wrong, but I am quite certain that the only way to determine that conclusively will be with hindsight. They don't get to make decisions with hindsight however, they have to make decisions only with the knowledge they have now.

The distinction here is important - I am not sitting here saying the US-Canada border should be closed. Or that it should be open. MY position (and the position, I suspect, of Jake and others) is that it's not anything simple or obvious, the decision is complex and about a lot more then just "does some person claim to be vaccinated or not?", and that those who are tasked with making that decision are likely doing so in good faith, and we are going to accept it whatever it might be. We might be wrong, and maybe they open the border tomorrow, and Canada gets nailed with a new wave of Delta Covid that they could have avoided, and everyone will say "Damnit, you guys fucked up!" But we don't claim to simply know the answer RIGHT NOW....you do.

The irony is that you have been arguing in most every single case that the restrictions are too much, that the danger is over stated, that the problems of lockdown are understated given the danger. With hindsight, we look back at nearly twice as many dead Americans as were lost in 4 years of the worst war the world has ever seen, and IN HINDSIGHT, even after the results of what actions was taken is you crowing about how right you were, and the demand that we all acknowledge that in fact had we listened to you, if the world had put YOU in charge, why, there would only have been....a couple hundred thousand more dead Americans? Ten thousand more?....and that would have been ok? A small price to pay to not have the economic disruption we actually saw?

That is what I don't get - WITH hindsight, most of us look at the results and are horrified that we fucked this up so very, very badly. You look at the results with hindsight of more than half a million dead Americans and actually conclude that we should have done LESS to prevent those deaths, and are so certain of your own intelligence and brilliance in contrast to the experts that you confidently state that not only were they wrong before, you are sure they are wrong right now. Absolutely, positively, no possibility of even doubt, certain that you know best. The hindsight you have, the lesson you learned, was that you really do know better then everyone else - that is what you get out of 600,000 dead Americans. And then you actually show up and crow "SEE!!!! I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" It's macabre.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 04:01:04 PM
Berkut--the real reason I brought up the border stuff was that I figured Jacob would take Canada's side versus mine, and then I'd bring up that Denmark has the opposite policy, which would force him to choose between two sets of authority that he seems to want to defer to.

But: covid isn't going away. Variants aren't going away and will likely multiply. Vaccines are going to lose their effectiveness over time and lots of experts think booster shots will start to be needed in a matter of months. Unfortunately it seems the international community decided we aren't going to have a vaccine standard for international travel like we do with yellow fever.

In short there is no wonderful future that is going to appear anytime soon that is going to really change the risk profile for people coming into Canada. They are going to have to relax the border controls at some point and when they do the situation will probably look a lot like it does now. And honestly: if you check vaccine records, and require a covid test, while it is likely in the nonstandardized world some people will fake them, most people won't and the risks are pretty low.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 29, 2021, 04:12:59 PM
AR, you are STILL missing the point that everyone here has repeatedly made, and you have repeatedly ignored:  what gives you superior knowledge to those making the decisions about border opening in Canada?  You claim that you know better than they do, but you haven't explained the source of this information (which must be a source they don't have, or else they'd agree with you)?

Or is this just another manifestation of your bizarre "smartest guy in the room" delusion?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 29, 2021, 04:16:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 29, 2021, 04:12:59 PM
AR, you are STILL missing the point that everyone here has repeatedly made, and you have repeatedly ignored:  what gives you superior knowledge to those making the decisions about border opening in Canada?  You claim that you know better than they do, but you haven't explained the source of this information (which must be a source they don't have, or else they'd agree with you)?

His answer above is that he wasn't claiming superior knowledge but attempting to present Jacob with the paradox of the apparently conflicting authority of the Canadian and Danish health authorities. 

Which raises the question of why he wouldn't anticipate the move of pointing out the contextual differences between Canada and Denmark but that is another, different question.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 04:19:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 04:01:04 PM
Berkut--the real reason I brought up the border stuff was that I figured Jacob would take Canada's side versus mine, and then I'd bring up that Denmark has the opposite policy, which would force him to choose between two sets of authority that he seems to want to defer to.

You think this is some kind of "Gotcha!" moment. It is not.

The difference is that Jake doesn't feel any need to take the side of either sets of authority. He is fine (and excuse me if I am speaking for you incorrectly Jacob) with accepting that they both made decisions based on different circumstances, different priorities, and he can accept that for Denmark it might make sense for them to open up, while for Canada it does not. He probably even feels that while either of them might be wrong about either decision, he is probably not in any position to claim some kind of clearly superior knowledge such that he could reasonably even determine for himself that one is right and the other wrong.

Because he isn't invested in some kind of determinative outcome, like you are.

I think we could have all predicted before you said a word that you think Denmark is right, and Canada is wrong. Not because you carefully and objectively considered all the information in both cases, and thoughtfully weighed their differing concerns, differing populations, and differing criteria and soberly concluded that Denmark, in balance, got it right, and Canada was wrong.

No...I think we are all completely confident that the extent of your analysis of the *data* was completely driven by the conclusions. Denmark does not have the restriction, so they are right. Canada does, so they are wrong.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 29, 2021, 04:28:09 PM
Although there is a really important about how decisions are made - because by definition there's normally not an easy answer.

We should be listening to epidemiologists and public health specialists (who, in the UK, disagreed about the initial response) - but they will look at the issue through their expertise. That's why they have a really valuable contribution but it is limited. So it won't include impact on people's jobs and livelihoods, or the ability of police to enforce measures, or even basic stuff like how to do it legally and in a way that interferes with people's rights in a proportionate way. I don't think it's necessarily about knowledge - I think it's about how you balance those risks, the different advice and the interest of different groups of people through society.

I don't think experts or the smartest guys in the room will necessarily speak with one voice. That's why I think the appropriate decision maker should be political and, in a democracy, accountable.

Now, ironically, the country that does give tremendous authority to the expert is Sweden which is probably closest to AR's preferred response - while it's countries where politicians made decisions who have gone through various lockdowns or restricitons.

Quote
His answer above is that he wasn't claiming superior knowledge but attempting to present Jacob with the paradox of the apparently conflicting authority of the Canadian and Danish health authorities.

Which raises the question of why he wouldn't anticipate the move of pointing out the contextual differences between Canada and Denmark but that is another, different question.
Part of it is also that I think we'll probably end up with an international standard on this of mutual recognition of each other's vaccine certificates. I believe that's in place between the EU and US - not sure about Canada.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 04:33:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 29, 2021, 04:12:59 PM
AR, you are STILL missing the point that everyone here has repeatedly made, and you have repeatedly ignored:  what gives you superior knowledge to those making the decisions about border opening in Canada?  You claim that you know better than they do, but you haven't explained the source of this information (which must be a source they don't have, or else they'd agree with you)?

Or is this just another manifestation of your bizarre "smartest guy in the room" delusion?

Border policy is not a scientific policy. Like the bulk of measures regarding covid, they are political decisions that weigh a multitude of competing interests.

My default assumption is that borders are open between countries like the US and Canada. In the absence of evidence of vaccinated travelers spreading covid in international travel between other countries, it seems like the political decision of Canada is counterproductive.

I would guess that in the early days of covid there were lots of opinions shared here on travel bans or non bans. I don't think it is a crazy topic to have an opinion regarding.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 04:35:29 PM
It's actually very similar to his proud "Gotcha!" of pointing out what a hypocrite I was because I got Covid at a game I was officiating (we can ignore for the moment his inability to actually recall what sport it was, that I was an official and not a player).

Again, he imagines that this is some kind of astounding get, the realization that I am some kind of terrible person for officiating basketball, after I had argued that college sports was not wrong to cancel games the year earlier.

In this incredible moment of internet pwning, he seemed to be hanging his entire moment of intense self congratulations on the idea that I somehow put myself at risk based on MY judgement of whether or not sports should be happening, but at some other entirely different moment in time. Like if one ever argued that the decision to cancel sports was the right decision, they would then have to conclude that there never ought to be sports ever again.

But of course, that was never my evaluation. I didn't support the cancelling of his school sports based on my own vast knowledge of epidemiology and transmission risks. I just felt that the decisions of others, who presumably have much better access to information then I have, was  reasonably sound, and it was my part as a functioning member of society in a crisis to accept those restrictions because in the aggregate, they are almost certain to help.

They decided to have a limited basketball season once they felt they had a good handle on things, and they could reasonably manage the risk. They asked if people would be willing to help student athletes and officiate games, knowing that the risk was not zero, but hopefully much lower. I agreed to do so. I knew that this did not mean there was no chance of it being a vector for infection, but was ok accepting the reduced risk that still existed.

I got sick, and while it was likely from that basketball game, it is by no means certain. Even if it was though....that doesn't change my evaluation. To use Minsky's example, I looked at the odds, and thought "Well, there is a low chance of this having a bad outcome, and I accept that risk" and then proceeded to roll double sixes on the dice. Just like winning at low odds doesn't make the decision smart, losing at low odds doesn't make the decision wrong. Shit happens.

I was really kind of non-plussed that he saw that as some kind of vindication, especially since his entire argument all along was that such games should never have been cancelled to begin with!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 29, 2021, 04:41:16 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 29, 2021, 04:12:59 PM
AR, you are STILL missing the point that everyone here has repeatedly made, and you have repeatedly ignored:  what gives you superior knowledge to those making the decisions about border opening in Canada?  You claim that you know better than they do, but you haven't explained the source of this information (which must be a source they don't have, or else they'd agree with you)?

Or is this just another manifestation of your bizarre "smartest guy in the room" delusion?
To be fair, we aren't discussing a mathematical formula, where there is just one right answer, and whoever doesn't have the right answer probably wasn't as smart as the one with the right answer.  This is a problem with many value judgments and risk aversion preferences; two equally smart persons can come up with different decisions if they start with different but equally justifiable sets of values and attitudes toward risk, and both of those decisions would be correct within the context of their assumptions.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 29, 2021, 04:16:49 PM

Which raises the question of why he wouldn't anticipate the move of pointing out the contextual differences between Canada and Denmark but that is another, different question.

Because it is obfuscating that the authorities in Denmark and Canada are just handling the situation differently, and I'm comfortable that is self evident. Lots of countries are open to nonessential travel with some version of covid assurance from passengers (negative test results or vaccine records for example) while lots aren't. Denmark is in one category and Canada another. We can come up with reasons why they are implementing different policies, but ultimately they haven't been aligned on all sorts of covid stuff because these are political decisions that weigh an almost infinite array of factors and have a ton of uncertainty. People come up with different answers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 04:51:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 29, 2021, 04:16:49 PM

Which raises the question of why he wouldn't anticipate the move of pointing out the contextual differences between Canada and Denmark but that is another, different question.

Because it is obfuscating that the authorities in Denmark and Canada are just handling the situation differently, and I'm comfortable that is self evident. Lots of countries are open to nonessential travel with some version of covid assurance from passengers (negative test results or vaccine records for example) while lots aren't. Denmark is in one category and Canada another. We can come up with reasons why they are implementing different policies, but ultimately they haven't been aligned on all sorts of covid stuff because these are political decisions that weigh an almost infinite array of factors and have a ton of uncertainty. People come up with different answers.

The difference with you, however, is that you evaluate whether an answer is right or not based solely on whether it agrees with your absolute certainty that you know best under all circumstances, and that the only right answer is no restrictions.

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.

What is curious is that you assume everyone else just operates the same way, but with different conclusions already arrived at, so you think bringing up two different results somehow puts people in an untenable position. It does not, because most people here are not starting with their conclusion and then evaluating the data based on whether it agrees with their faith.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 29, 2021, 04:52:21 PM
There were.

I was very opposed to border closures. The WHO came out against them. The most prominent advocate was Trump and I think it was perceived as a Trumpian policy - the way he implemented it was wrong, but in retrospect it's clear that border closures work and are actually quite important especially as variants have emerged.

But it was easier to do (and again not with Trump's discourse) if your country wasn't a huge transport hub - so New Zealand or Australia or Taiwan. I don't think any country with big hub airports has ever really got on top of how to respond to covid in relation to the border.

Personally I'm fairly cautious on this because I just don't think most countries are vaccinated enough to risk an outbreak - but for the richer bit of the Atlantic world we are getting there and I think good domestic vaccination programs, plus mutually recognised vaccine certificates. I suspect that last bit is going to be a challenge. We've already had confusion from India about why covidshield (their name for AZ) vaccines aren't recognised in Europe's vaccine certificate system while AZ is, but it's going to get more challenging with the ones that aren't widely authorised in the West like Sputnik or Sinopharm. I think the US still hasn't authorised AZ and I don't know if they accept someone (like me) with a vaccine certificate for double dose of an unauthorised vaccine.

It's something where I think countries should probably work together.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 04:53:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 04:35:29 PM
It's actually very similar to his proud "Gotcha!" of pointing out what a hypocrite I was because I got Covid at a game I was officiating (we can ignore for the moment his inability to actually recall what sport it was, that I was an official and not a player).


I did not recall what sport it was, I did recall you were an official.

I believe it is a very effective "gotcha" moment. I always argued that team sports would be a significant vector for infection. I argued it was worth the risk. Nothing magically changed from the fall to the winter that made team sports safer. What changed is that the political will to keep things shut down eroded. Effectively New York state came around to my way of thinking. I don't understand in what universe team sports, which involve lots of people from different households not being socially distanced (and in the case of basketball indoors), would not be a significant source of infection.

On the other hand it was obvious from the start that outdoor rock climbing would not be a signficant vector for infection.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 29, 2021, 04:54:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 03:00:04 PM
I don't know of a single case of transmission globally from someone who presented a negative covid result and vaccine certificate on arrival.

Well, the Canadians coach got covid-19 after being fully vaccinated.  Than one of the players got it (again).  All following the Vegas gm who was positive when he came to Montreal.

Was it direct transmission?  Maybe not.  Or maybe it was.  We don't know.  That's why there is this thing we call communal transmission: we do not know the exact origins.

So far, scientists have determined there is still a risk until x% of the pop on our side of the border isfully vaccinated.  Then, we can start reopening.  I understand our stores wants tourists.  I don't, since hotel prices are insane atm and I want them to lower their prices ;)

But, anyway. ;)  We all want the border to reopen and all activities to resume normally.  We can't just yet.  Or we risk having another variant who may this time evade vaccination and antibodies and lead to a 4th wave in the fall.  It's better to make short terme sacrifices than adjust later on.  Less costly for everyone, even if the govt ends up footing the bill for many touristic traps attractions.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 29, 2021, 04:59:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 29, 2021, 04:52:21 PM
There were.

I was very opposed to border closures. The WHO came out against them. The most prominent advocate was Trump and I think it was perceived as a Trumpian policy - the way he implemented it was wrong, but in retrospect it's clear that border closures work and are actually quite important especially as variants have emerged.

'cause they don't talk of the same things.

Scientists usually advocates for closing borders, but that only means "civilian traffic", ie, people with no epidemic/pandemic business being there so supplies and scientists can still travel.  Whenever there is an ebola outbreak somewhere in Africa, the borders are always closed to travellers over there, only scientists, researchers and essential travelers are allowed.  that includes the people who want to return to their country.  In the case of the US, that meant keeping the dirty foreigners out. 

So, predictably, once the European border was announced to be shut, all Americans abroad rushed to get back to the US and brought the virus with them.  While his China "ban" was never really implemented, it appears the covid-19 didn't come from there after all.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:00:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 04:51:37 PM

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.


I certainly didn't do an extensive evaluation. What I did is recognize that Canada won't let in vaccinated travelers without an essential reason, and I think that is stupid. If you want to point to the vaccinated travelers that presented a negative covid test and that have spread covid, I'll reevaluate that opinion.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 05:02:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:00:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 04:51:37 PM

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.


I certainly didn't do an extensive evaluation. What I did is recognize that Canada won't let in vaccinated travelers without an essential reason, and I think that is stupid. If you want to point to the vaccinated travelers that presented a negative covid test and that have spread covid, I'll reevaluate that opinion.

Viper just did.  Another example is the Uganda Olympic team.

See the problem is every time you rely on your own personal knowledge as a justification for questioning judgments of those who actually know what they are doing, you get into a bit of trouble.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 29, 2021, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 04:53:55 PM
On the other hand it was obvious from the start that outdoor rock climbing would not be a signficant vector for infection.

allright, I'll bite.  Give me the scientific studies from february-april that said outdoor contagion was extremely minimal.  And I'm talking date of publication, of course, not the date the data was collected like you did last time. :)

Should be easy since it was so obvious. ;)
I think what was obvious back then:- the disease wasn't airborne (false)- the disease couldn't be transmitted beyond 2m (false)- the disease was as contagious outside than inside (false)- ventilation was a minor issue (partly true, partly false, it's just there is no fixed criteria for what is "good" ventilation to prevent covid spreading- the disease was easily transmitted by contact (false).- the disease was easily transmitted by close contact over a very short period of time - Planet of the Apes style (and that was false, the risks below 15min of exposures were infinitesimal).

China had the virus and confined everyone in Wuhan inside their home, no outside circulation except by soldiers in hazmat.  Italy confined people inside their home too.  Than France did the same.  Than England.
It seems what was obvious to you wasn't to a lot of people.

In hindsight, it was certainly a mistake to prevent outdoor activities.  But we didn't know and got a lot of things wrong.  And since the different models we had were either total laissez-faire or strict lockdown, there was a difficulty in really comparing good, solid data to make the proper decisions.
I'm guessing that had you been a huge fan of basketball instead of outdoor climbing, you'd have been arguing since day one that there were basically no risks of spreading covid.  It really strikes me as if you find "obvious" that there should have been zero restrictions on the activities you enjoy.  That's why not many guys complain about not seeing their stepmom, I guess :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 29, 2021, 05:13:32 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 29, 2021, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 04:53:55 PM
On the other hand it was obvious from the start that outdoor rock climbing would not be a signficant vector for infection.

allright, I'll bite.  Give me the scientific studies from february-april that said outdoor contagion was extremely minimal.  And I'm talking date of publication, of course, not the date the data was collected like you did last time. :)
Should be easy since it was so obvious. ;)
There were studies in April that were indicating that - I also think there were studies at that point indicating that aerosol transmission was the main way this was spreading.

There are also lots of other studies in relation to other viruses that show that sun and open spaces reduce transmission significantly. I don't think there was ever a reason to think that this virus would behave differently. And the Japanese and other East Asian countries based their policies with the assumption that it was probably aerosol transmission - so Japan's three c's (close spaces, crowded places, close contact settings) with far better results.

I think the failure in the West to react quickly to the emerging data that the key risk was aerosol transmission is a huge policy failure - it's only this year that it seems to be a key message when it has been obvious since, at the very latest, summer 2020.

I think the Western response often went with the plan they had and only moved once there was a strong level of evidence about something. I think in the future it needs to be far more nimble and also work on assumptions based on what we know about other similar diseases rather than waiting for a definitive answer.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:15:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 05:02:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:00:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 04:51:37 PM

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.


I certainly didn't do an extensive evaluation. What I did is recognize that Canada won't let in vaccinated travelers without an essential reason, and I think that is stupid. If you want to point to the vaccinated travelers that presented a negative covid test and that have spread covid, I'll reevaluate that opinion.

Viper just did.  Another example is the Uganda Olympic team.

See the problem is every time you rely on your own personal knowledge as a justification for questioning judgments of those who actually know what they are doing, you get into a bit of trouble.

Was he vaccinated and did he present a negative covid test on arrival to Canada? I've been googling and can't find anything on that.

Google says the Uganda Olympic team is not an example because the coach was caught through a positive test with border controls and the team sent to isolation. It is an indication that the policy is working, not of it failing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:17:42 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 29, 2021, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 04:53:55 PM
On the other hand it was obvious from the start that outdoor rock climbing would not be a signficant vector for infection.

allright, I'll bite.  Give me the scientific studies from february-april that said outdoor contagion was extremely minimal.  And I'm talking date of publication, of course, not the date the data was collected like you did last time. :)

Should be easy since it was so obvious. ;)
I think what was obvious back then:- the disease wasn't airborne (false)- the disease couldn't be transmitted beyond 2m (false)- the disease was as contagious outside than inside (false)- ventilation was a minor issue (partly true, partly false, it's just there is no fixed criteria for what is "good" ventilation to prevent covid spreading- the disease was easily transmitted by contact (false).- the disease was easily transmitted by close contact over a very short period of time - Planet of the Apes style (and that was false, the risks below 15min of exposures were infinitesimal).

China had the virus and confined everyone in Wuhan inside their home, no outside circulation except by soldiers in hazmat.  Italy confined people inside their home too.  Than France did the same.  Than England.
It seems what was obvious to you wasn't to a lot of people.

In hindsight, it was certainly a mistake to prevent outdoor activities.  But we didn't know and got a lot of things wrong.  And since the different models we had were either total laissez-faire or strict lockdown, there was a difficulty in really comparing good, solid data to make the proper decisions.
I'm guessing that had you been a huge fan of basketball instead of outdoor climbing, you'd have been arguing since day one that there were basically no risks of spreading covid.  It really strikes me as if you find "obvious" that there should have been zero restrictions on the activities you enjoy.  That's why not many guys complain about not seeing their stepmom, I guess :P

That study I posted last time I think had an initial publication date of April 7.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:21:32 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 29, 2021, 05:03:12 PM

I'm guessing that had you been a huge fan of basketball instead of outdoor climbing, you'd have been arguing since day one that there were basically no risks of spreading covid.  It really strikes me as if you find "obvious" that there should have been zero restrictions on the activities you enjoy.  That's why not many guys complain about not seeing their stepmom, I guess :P

Bullshit. I spend way way way more time indoor rock climbing than I do outdoor. I wasn't complaining about closing indoor gyms because they obviously have more risk.

As it happened, I was back in indoor gyms by the start of may but outside climbing areas (mostly on federal land, while our state governor went full leroy jenkins on opening everything he could much earlier) stayed closed for a while longer--and if you recall I was posting how incredibly stupid that was.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 05:26:24 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:15:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 05:02:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:00:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 04:51:37 PM

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.


I certainly didn't do an extensive evaluation. What I did is recognize that Canada won't let in vaccinated travelers without an essential reason, and I think that is stupid. If you want to point to the vaccinated travelers that presented a negative covid test and that have spread covid, I'll reevaluate that opinion.

Viper just did.  Another example is the Uganda Olympic team.

See the problem is every time you rely on your own personal knowledge as a justification for questioning judgments of those who actually know what they are doing, you get into a bit of trouble.

Was he vaccinated and did he present a negative covid test on arrival to Canada? I've been googling and can't find anything on that.

Google says the Uganda Olympic team is not an example because the coach was caught through a positive test with border controls and the team sent to isolation. It is an indication that the policy is working, not of it failing.

The NHL example is of a fully vaccinated person who tested negative before travelling but became positive.

The exact same thing happened with the Uganda Team member - fully vaccinated and tested negative before travelling.

The only reason these cases were caught is because of the other measures put in place because of the special nature of the events they were participating in.  There will be no such special measures once we start letting foreigners into our country - and these two examples show that even with people who are trying to be careful, infections can occur.

I don't imagine such an attitude for people who are willing to take the risk to travel at the earliest opportunity.  You do not present a very compelling case that our public health officials have made an incorrect judgement.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 05:29:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 29, 2021, 05:13:32 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 29, 2021, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 04:53:55 PM
On the other hand it was obvious from the start that outdoor rock climbing would not be a signficant vector for infection.

allright, I'll bite.  Give me the scientific studies from february-april that said outdoor contagion was extremely minimal.  And I'm talking date of publication, of course, not the date the data was collected like you did last time. :)
Should be easy since it was so obvious. ;)
There were studies in April that were indicating that - I also think there were studies at that point indicating that aerosol transmission was the main way this was spreading.

There are also lots of other studies in relation to other viruses that show that sun and open spaces reduce transmission significantly. I don't think there was ever a reason to think that this virus would behave differently. And the Japanese and other East Asian countries based their policies with the assumption that it was probably aerosol transmission - so Japan's three c's (close spaces, crowded places, close contact settings) with far better results.

I think the failure in the West to react quickly to the emerging data that the key risk was aerosol transmission is a huge policy failure - it's only this year that it seems to be a key message when it has been obvious since, at the very latest, summer 2020.

I think the Western response often went with the plan they had and only moved once there was a strong level of evidence about something. I think in the future it needs to be far more nimble and also work on assumptions based on what we know about other similar diseases rather than waiting for a definitive answer.

yes, and based on those studies our PHO was telling everyone to go outside, but she also stressed the importance of social distancing when outside and the need for small groups, even outside.  There was also a requirement that we not travel to other regions to enjoy the out of doors there.  The reason being that when travelling people need to do things like get gas, buy groceries or go to restaurants etc - ie the movement of people increased the risk of spreading the virus.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 29, 2021, 05:32:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:15:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 05:02:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:00:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2021, 04:51:37 PM

I mean, it's not like you carefully evaluated Denmark's policy, carefully compared all the data that went into it, cross referenced it with that same data from Canada, and soberly concluded that Denmark is right to allow some travel and Canada wrong.

Nope...Canada doesn't allow travel, so they are wrong. Denmark does allow travel, so they are right. 100% outcome driven evaluation.


I certainly didn't do an extensive evaluation. What I did is recognize that Canada won't let in vaccinated travelers without an essential reason, and I think that is stupid. If you want to point to the vaccinated travelers that presented a negative covid test and that have spread covid, I'll reevaluate that opinion.

Viper just did.  Another example is the Uganda Olympic team.

See the problem is every time you rely on your own personal knowledge as a justification for questioning judgments of those who actually know what they are doing, you get into a bit of trouble.

Was he vaccinated and did he present a negative covid test on arrival to Canada? I've been googling and can't find anything on that.

all NHL players&staff were fully vaccinated before the start of the playoffs.
I do not know if he had to present a negative test, I have not seen this information anywhere.  The enforcement of the rules by the Feds have been spotty, but generally speaking, if you land at an airport, you have to show your negative covid tests.  Was there special rules for NHLers?  I am uncertain.  Someone who has watched hockey more closely this season could answere.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 05:38:50 PM
The NHL put in special travel requirements to get the exemption from the Canadian government.  Covid tests before travelling were mandatory.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:49:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 05:26:24 PM
The NHL example is of a fully vaccinated person who tested negative before travelling but became positive.

The exact same thing happened with the Uganda Team member - fully vaccinated and tested negative before travelling.

The only reason these cases were caught is because of the other measures put in place because of the special nature of the events they were participating in.  There will be no such special measures once we start letting foreigners into our country - and these two examples show that even with people who are trying to be careful, infections can occur.

I don't imagine such an attitude for people who are willing to take the risk to travel at the earliest opportunity.  You do not present a very compelling case that our public health officials have made an incorrect judgement.

Well the risk isn't going to be absolute zero, but I think Denmark requires a test upon arrival (maybe they don't) which is what caught the Uganda guy. When I visited Uganda they actually did have a testing regime upon arrival for US citizens (but I didn't have to have one because I was vaccinated).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 06:06:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 05:49:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 05:26:24 PM
The NHL example is of a fully vaccinated person who tested negative before travelling but became positive.

The exact same thing happened with the Uganda Team member - fully vaccinated and tested negative before travelling.

The only reason these cases were caught is because of the other measures put in place because of the special nature of the events they were participating in.  There will be no such special measures once we start letting foreigners into our country - and these two examples show that even with people who are trying to be careful, infections can occur.

I don't imagine such an attitude for people who are willing to take the risk to travel at the earliest opportunity.  You do not present a very compelling case that our public health officials have made an incorrect judgement.

Well the risk isn't going to be absolute zero, but I think Denmark requires a test upon arrival (maybe they don't) which is what caught the Uganda guy. When I visited Uganda they actually did have a testing regime upon arrival for US citizens (but I didn't have to have one because I was vaccinated).

And so I will remind you again about the practicalities of the US Canada border that you snipped from my earlier response that make that sort of testing regime for all the US tourists who come to Canada somewhat impractical.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 06:09:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2021, 06:06:52 PM

And so I will remind you again about the practicalities of the US Canada border that you snipped from my earlier response that make that sort of testing regime for all the US tourists who come to Canada somewhat impractical.

The amount I care about Canadian travel policies is extremely limited. If Canada wants to close down, it really isn't any skin off my back.

But I don't think it is impractical, and I think we will see that in the next few months when Canada in fact implements such a policy. Some countries have closed their land borders and opened the airports to limit travel, that is always an option, and you can limit flights.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 29, 2021, 11:14:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2021, 06:09:43 PM
But I don't think it is impractical, and I think we will see that in the next few months when Canada in fact implements such a policy.
as vaccination rates increases, the risks of facing an eventual 4th wave that will strain our health care network will diminish accordingly.  By then, even if we haven't reached 95% vaccinated people, Canada will face much less risks from travelers and will adjust accordingly.

Right now, Ontario is still facing a couple of hundreds new cases a day and I don't think Ford wants lots of unvaccinated Americans to come visit and spread covid in his lands.

At the rate vaccination is going all accross the country, I expect the border to gradually reopen by the end of July at the latest.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on June 30, 2021, 03:08:19 AM
Guys, this is not a covid thread. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on June 30, 2021, 09:52:39 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 30, 2021, 03:08:19 AM
Guys, this is not a covid thread. :rolleyes:

Well, it wasn't...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 30, 2021, 12:16:38 PM
Well folks keep feeding the troll so it was bound to happen.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 30, 2021, 10:39:25 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 30, 2021, 03:08:19 AM
Guys, this is not a covid thread. :rolleyes:
allright, allright.  Sorry.

So, about that US Civil War thing...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 03, 2021, 01:49:04 AM
https://twitter.com/JoshMandelOhio/status/1411023629186482180?s=20

Quote
Josh Mandel
@JoshMandelOhio

The Bible and the Constitution are not supposed to be separate.
8:07 PM · Jul 2, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 04, 2021, 04:20:10 PM
Really? Because they both are pretty clear that they are.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 04, 2021, 07:27:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 04, 2021, 04:20:10 PM
Really? Because they both are pretty clear that they are.
Separation of religion and State is a loose concept in the US. ;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 05, 2021, 09:35:44 AM
National Guard missions, funded by your taxes rich guys' donations!

https://time.com/6076921/billionaire-gop-donor-bankrolls-national-guard-border-deployment/

QuoteBillionaire GOP Donor Bankrolls National Guard Border Deployment

As many as 50 National Guard members are heading to the U.S.-Mexico border to help law enforcement deal with the ongoing migrant crisis. But the cost of the deployment isn't being paid by local, state or federal government. Instead, a deep-pocketed Republican donor who made billions from auctioning off wrecked cars is footing the bill.

The peculiar arrangement was revealed Tuesday when South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem formally announced that she was sending National Guard troops from her state down to the southern border in Texas. A news release stated the deployment, which is expected to last for between 30 and 60 days, "will be paid for by a private donation."

The National Guard is usually called upon by state governors when there is a massive hurricane, earthquake or other natural disaster. On rare occasions, Guard members are sent across state lines to help a neighbor. The costs incurred are typically paid by state or federal funding following an emergency declaration.

Ian Fury, Noem's spokesman, tells TIME that this particular South Dakota deployment will be paid by Willis and Reba Johnson's Foundation, a charitable group from Franklin, Tenn. "Governor Noem welcomes any such donations to help alleviate the cost to South Dakota taxpayers," he said.

Willis Johnson is the founder of Copart Inc., a publicly traded auto salvage and auction company. Forbes estimates Johnson is worth $2.2 billion. According to Federal Election Commission filings, he has donated to a variety of GOP candidates in recent years, including $200,000 to the Trump Victory Committee in 2020 and a donation for the same amount four years earlier.

Wayne Hall, a National Guard Bureau spokesman, said the national bureau doesn't have visibility into how individual states choose to pay their Guard deployments, but noted each state has their own laws regarding funding. He referred all other questions to Noem's office.

Noem's announcement came just a day before former President Donald Trump is scheduled on a "tour of the unfinished border wall" in Texas. Noem, seen as a potential presidential contender for the 2024 GOP nomination, was lambasted by critics who say the decision to deploy state forces more than 1,000 miles away had more to do with politics than national security.

"We're flabbergasted," said Mandy Smithberger, a national security accountability expert with the non-profit watchdog Project on Government Oversight. "Our military and Guard should be used for advancing our national security and safety, and it's extremely troubling to see the Guard's actions being dictated and supported by a private donor. It sets a troubling precedent and risks further politicizing our forces."

South Dakota State Sen. Reynold Nesiba, a Democrat, was similarly concerned that an individual donor is paying for the deployment. "SD National Guard members signed up to serve our state and country, not to generate airtime for our Governor on Fox News or to be mercenaries for some wealthy donor," he tweeted. "Our National Guardsmen and women are not professional soldiers for hire."

In announcing the decision, Noem criticized the Biden Administration for weak policies that left an "unsecured border." She joined a growing list of Republican governors rushing to aid Texas amid Governor Greg Abbott's recent requests for help to halt illegal crossings from Mexico.

Earlier this month, Abbott and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a fellow Republican, invoked the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, a mutual aid agreement between all 50 states. "With your help, we can apprehend more of these perpetrators of state and federal crimes, before they can cause problems in your state," the pair wrote in a June 10 letter to fellow governors.

Critics say Abbott and Ducey's plea for help is a political ploy to deride President Joe Biden over border security. Republican governors from Florida, Iowa and Nebraska have already promised to send their state police forces, helicopters, and drones to help Texas and Arizona law enforcement on the ground.

Rather than send state police, though, Noem opted to send service members— a stark departure from other governors' action. "The border is a national security crisis that requires the kind of sustained response only the National Guard can provide," Noem said. "We should not be making our own communities less safe by sending our police or Highway Patrol to fix a long-term problem President Biden's administration seems unable or unwilling to solve."

There are now about 3,600 service members, many of them members of the National Guard, already deployed along the 2,000 mile-long southwest border. Noem could've opted to send troops to help in that mission, instead of under the command of Texas officials.

The military mission at the border began in late 2018 when Trump directed the Pentagon to support of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protect the U.S. against what he called "an invasion" by a caravan of impoverished Central American migrants traveling north through Mexico.

The soldiers didn't meet the caravan with force. Since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the U.S. military has been forbidden to take part in domestic law enforcement. Instead, the troops carried out support missions, such as hanging coils of razor wire atop border fences and points of entry with Mexico in California, Arizona and Texas.

Trump subsequently declared a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border in February 2019—a move that was widely decried by Democrats as a last-ditch effort to divert billions of dollars in government funding for a border wall without receiving Congressional approval.

The troops along the southern border have been handed a wide range of other tasks during their mission, including aerial reconnaissance, ground surveillance, search-and-rescue support, medical support, engineering support, helicopter transportation, personnel protection and painting the border wall with "anti-climb" paint. A little over two years on, the mission has cost taxpayers more than $900 million, according to the Pentagon.

Biden ended Trump's emergency proclamation shortly after entering office and issued an executive order to halt all construction of the border wall.


While sending 50 troops is obviously just a token political gesture, I feel having this paid by a partisan donor might be a bad precedent? :unsure:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 05, 2021, 09:38:20 AM
National Guardsman are just private citizens in another state, unless they have been federalized.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on July 05, 2021, 10:54:50 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 05, 2021, 09:35:44 AM
While sending 50 troops is obviously just a token political gesture, I feel having this paid by a partisan donor might be a bad precedent? :unsure:

Don't fret. There's absolutely nothing to be worried about. Apparently.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 05, 2021, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2021, 09:38:20 AM
National Guardsman are just private citizens in another state, unless they have been federalized.

Can't the governor of the state they're sent to deputize them?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 05, 2021, 12:20:19 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 05, 2021, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2021, 09:38:20 AM
National Guardsman are just private citizens in another state, unless they have been federalized.

Can't the governor of the state they're sent to deputize them?

Yes, but then they aren't National Guardsmen any more, they are deputies in the state that they are in, no different than if they were just fifty random out-of-state dudes the governor deputized.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on July 05, 2021, 10:38:51 PM
Thank god South Dakota was able to come to the rescue of poor little old Texas!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 06, 2021, 02:46:13 PM
GOP adjacent. Hobby Lobby had these ads in the papers for 4th of July.

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/classifieds/7/60/7607e13b-ed18-528d-ba9d-c2dc6dce0249/60d24f5ecd178.preview.jpg)

Full size: https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/classifieds/7/60/7607e13b-ed18-528d-ba9d-c2dc6dce0249/60d24f5ecd178.preview.jpg
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 06, 2021, 02:59:03 PM
I read the section on Congress but was very disappointed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 06, 2021, 04:56:36 PM
The nation referred to in Psalm 33 was the Kingdom of Judah.  The fate of that state is not one I would wish on others, and one that I would hope my own nation would avoid.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Duque de Bragança on July 06, 2021, 05:00:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 06, 2021, 04:56:36 PM
The nation referred to in Psalm 33 was the Kingdom of Judah.  The fate of that state is not one I would wish on others, and one that I would hope my own nation would avoid.

Good one.
:lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on July 07, 2021, 01:04:02 PM
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/561847-trump-files-lawsuit-against-facebook-twitter-and-google

QuoteTrump files lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter and Google

Former President Trump is leading a class-action lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter and Google, as well as their CEOs, over allegations of censorship after the companies took action to ban and suspend his accounts.

"Our case will prove this censorship is unlawful, it's unconstitutional and it's completely un-American," Trump said Wednesday from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

The legal action comes after the former president was permanently banned from Twitter and suspended from Facebook for at least two years over posts made in response to the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

Spokespeople for Twitter and Facebook declined to comment. A spokesperson for Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida.

Trump said it will be the first of "numerous" other lawsuits aimed at holding "Big Tech" accountable.

The lawsuit is backed by the America First Policy Institute, a nonprofit focused on promoting the former president's policies.

The complaints argue the platforms have "increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230."

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a controversial provision that gives platforms a legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties. Trump also sought to repeal Section 230 during his time in office.

Trump said Wednesday the lawsuit will aim to "at a very minimum" change the protections platforms have under Section 230, and "at a maximum" take it away.

The complaint argues the platforms threaten "potentially every citizen's right to free speech."

Similar GOP-led efforts to prohibit social media companies from enforcing their policies against politicians have been blocked by courts, most recently by a judge blocking a Florida law. 

Tech industry groups have pushed back on such efforts.

Chamber of Progress, a tech group that lists Facebook and Twitter among its corporate partners, slammed Trump's suit against the CEOs on Wednesday.

"Right-wing extremists are turning to the courts because their own platforms have collapsed after becoming anything-goes dumping grounds for hate, hoaxes, and pornography," said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich. "Now they want to turn Facebook and Twitter into another cesspool for extremism."

Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, said Trump's lawsuit is "DOA" and that the former president "has the First Amendment argument exactly wrong."

"The First Amendment applies to government censorship or speech regulation. It does not stop private sector corporations from regulating content on their platforms. In fact, Facebook and Twitter themselves have a First Amendment free speech right to determine what speech their platforms project and amplify—and that right includes excluding speakers who incite violence, as Trump did in connection with the January 6 Capitol insurrection," Barrett said in a statement.

Barrett was co-author of a February report that determined there is a lack of evidence to support claims that social media companies are engaging in anti-conservative censorship.

The legal fight is playing out at the state level as well.

Two tech trade groups, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, recently sued Florida over a law that would have fined companies for kicking politicians off their platforms. The group argued the law was a violation of First Amendment rights.

The bill, which was signed into law by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, was recently blocked by a judge who ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Texas lawmakers tried passing a similar bill in the state legislature, but it has not passed in the state House.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 01:37:02 PM
And he's already fundraising based on the lawsuit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 07, 2021, 01:48:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 01:37:02 PM
And he's already fundraising based on the lawsuit.

That's probably the primary motive.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on July 07, 2021, 01:49:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 07, 2021, 01:48:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 01:37:02 PM
And he's already fundraising based on the lawsuit.

That's probably the primary motive.
There is no probably about it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2021, 01:59:22 PM
A basic concept in First Amendment law is that the First Amendment restricts state action not private parties.

The theory of Trump's complaint is that Facebook was "acting in concert" with the CDC to restrict information about COVID.  That's the state action "hook" it is trying to use to ground the First Amendment claim.

The factual basis for "acting in concert" theory is a couple of emails where Zuckerberg asks Fauci to post an informational video about COVID on Facebook and Fauci says "sure". The complaint also alleges the Facebook considered information and advice from "public health experts" in deciding whether to take down false or misleading claims about hydroxychloroquine.

There are many, many problems with these allegations but one striking aspect is that the "government actors" who were allegedly acting in concert with the Defendant were all agents for the then President, i.e. the Plaintiff.  Fauci was hired by Trump was in charge of Trump's task force when the alleged collusion occurred.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2021, 02:49:50 PM
I always find it interesting to see what lawyers Trump is hiring for his cases, especially given the reputational baggage that he brings.

The Florida firm that signed the complaint is a small (6 lawyer) firm specializing in insurance litigation.
There are 5 supporting lawyers from a 30 lawyer firm in Greenwich, CT that specializes in real estate and personal injury litigation.
Also on the complaint are: John Coale, a long-retired lawyer known for his work in toxic tort and product liability litigation, his marriage to Greta van Susteren, and his membership in the Church of Scientology.
And Frank Dudenhefer, a Louisiana-based personal injury and toxic tort attorney.

These appear to be legit attorneys with some competence in there area of practice, but it is notable that none of them have a background in constitutional or administrative litigation.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 07, 2021, 07:33:52 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 07, 2021, 01:49:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 07, 2021, 01:48:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 01:37:02 PM
And he's already fundraising based on the lawsuit.

That's probably the primary motive.
There is no probably about it.

Trump is one of the few people who can turn a profit without getting a judgment in his favour.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2021, 07:49:20 PM
What does "toxic tort" mean?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2021, 10:10:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2021, 07:49:20 PM
What does "toxic tort" mean?

Think Erin Brockovich or Travolta in A Civil Action.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 08, 2021, 02:02:45 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5yV2JkXoAIf5lW?format=jpg&name=medium)

Isn't Ben Garrison a right wing caricaturist? :unsure:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 08, 2021, 02:04:36 PM
If you're a right wing cartoonist you need to know your incredibly stupid audience.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 08, 2021, 02:08:12 PM
Don't forget - in the Garrison universe windmills are evil because they don't rely on burning oil or coal. So anyone crusading against them is obviously on the side of good.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 08, 2021, 02:16:24 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 08, 2021, 02:02:45 PM

Isn't Ben Garrison a right wing caricaturist? :unsure:


We thought he was, but he was big on celebrating the January 6th coup attempt so he must be a Deep State/Antifa agent.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Duque de Bragança on July 08, 2021, 02:27:25 PM
When I think of Ben Garrison, I think of the "plannedemic" cartoon" already shown in the FB thread in this forum:

(https://external-preview.redd.it/qAG-6FQS_ulYC01HPo72Gx0IIy9GWlarJhqHuMD_e80.jpg?auto=webp&s=188632bec2e75c5be6fc97b13bc6f924f33ec436)

US Alt-right would be precise, I guess.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on July 08, 2021, 05:19:44 PM
I suspect he is just simply is ignorant of DQ's plot.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 08, 2021, 06:05:56 PM
Or he's simultaneously commenting on the  :menace: evil :menace: tech companies and the futility of the lawsuit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 15, 2021, 08:56:21 AM
WAAAAAAGH!!!! (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/entertainment/tv/news/lindsey-graham-says-he-s-willing-to-go-to-war-for-chick-fil-a/ar-AAMa9FF?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531)

Lindsey Graham goes to war against Notre-Dame U as some students resists against Chick-fil-A encroachment on their territory ;)

Quote
Lindsey Graham Says He's Willing to 'Go to War' for Chick-Fil-A

Give me "chikin" or give me death. That's a cause Sen. Lindsey Graham is apparently willing to go to battle over. The South Carolina senator has pledged his allegiance to the Chick-fil-A flag in tweets condemning some University of Notre Dame students' resistance to the fast food chain opening a restaurant on campus.


Graham is fired up over an open letter from students and faculty at Notre Dame in which they voiced concern over campus dining's consideration to bring Chick-fil-A to their school. In a series of tweets Wednesday afternoon, Graham made it abundantly clear that he has "Chik-fil-A's back"

"I have always thought @NotreDame was one of the greatest universities in America, if not the world," Graham began, sharing a link to Fox News coverage on the controversy.

"It's disappointing to hear some ND students and faculty want to ban Chick-fil-A from doing business on campus because they disagree with the values held by the Chick-fil-A founders," the senator wrote in a follow-up tweet. "What a dangerous precedent to set."

"I want everyone in South Carolina and across America to know I have Chick fil-A's back," his final tweet read. "I hope we don't have to, but I will go to war for the principles Chick fil-A stands for. Great food. Great service. Great values. God bless Chick fil-A!"

This isn't even the first time Graham's defended the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of chicken this week. On Tuesday, he bashed New York Democrats over their attempt to block Chick-fil-A from operating in rest stops due to concerns over the company's religious-based opposition to gay marriage.

"If such a disastrous move ever came about – banning a commercial business due to them expressing their First Amendment rights – it would set a horrible precedent," the South Carolina Republican posted on Facebook. "It would also be ferociously opposed by many Members of Congress, including me."

Notre Dame students and faculty outlined their own grievances with the chain in an open letter boasting more than 180 signatures.

"There are a multitude of reasons to oppose Chick-fil-A: its anti-LGBTQ+ activism, reliance on animal agriculture, and lack of accommodations for students with special dietary needs, to name a few. Bringing Chick-fil-A to campus would run contrary to Notre Dame's commitment to inclusion and desire to create good in the world," the letter read.

Although the Georgia-based company narrowed its list of charity donations to exclude anti-LGBTQ organizations such as the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in 2019, owner Dan Cathy has not. According to The Daily Beast, he helped bankroll the National Christian Charitable Foundation fight against the Equality Act, which aims to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from discrimination at a federal level.

Well, even if Graham's Great Chik-fil-A war is waged, at least we know the soldiers will be very polite and they won't have to fight on Sundays.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 15, 2021, 08:59:18 AM
Well that is the nonsense of the culture war for you. We have Senators from South Carolina taking on Students in Indiana over a company from Georgia selling sandwiches on their campus.

Clearly something the people of South Carolina elected a Senator to deal with.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 16, 2021, 06:26:46 PM
Funny :D
https://twitter.com/colbertlateshow/status/1415853853875003398
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 16, 2021, 08:26:27 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 16, 2021, 06:26:46 PM
Funny :D
https://twitter.com/colbertlateshow/status/1415853853875003398

The first one (Independence Day) kinda missed, but the other two were great.

Of course, that ID speech was awful even without the dubbing.


They should have used Branagh's lines from Henry V

And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That dined with us upon Walker's Crisps today.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 16, 2021, 09:13:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2021, 08:59:18 AM
Well that is the nonsense of the culture war for you. We have Senators from South Carolina taking on Students in Indiana over a company from Georgia selling sandwiches on their campus.

Clearly something the people of South Carolina elected a Senator to deal with.

Why is Chick-fil-a a first amendment case but not Facebook?Lindsey Graham's word is meaningless these days anyway.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 17, 2021, 01:06:05 AM
Speak up.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 21, 2021, 03:15:55 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E616nHkWQAAxGjB?format=jpg&name=small)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E616nHiWEAMhFHP?format=jpg&name=small)

:hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 21, 2021, 03:43:52 PM
Washington can't tell people what to do.  That is the job of State governments.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 21, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
They were fine with the Supreme Court stepping in and saying a baker didn't have to sell to customers he didn't like.  Is there a principle here beyond "we have rights, people who disagree with us do not"?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 23, 2021, 06:08:35 AM
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1418222652767064064?s=20

QuoteRep. Madison Cawthorn vows that if the GOP gains control of the House in 2022, he will "make sure that consequences are doled out" to Dr. Anthony Fauci: "We want to prosecute this guy to the full ability of the law."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on July 23, 2021, 09:04:11 AM
So he won't be prosecuted at all?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on July 23, 2021, 09:11:35 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 06:08:35 AM
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1418222652767064064?s=20

QuoteRep. Madison Cawthorn vows that if the GOP gains control of the House in 2022, he will "make sure that consequences are doled out" to Dr. Anthony Fauci: "We want to prosecute this guy to the full ability of the law."

That is not so much alarming from the standpoint of actual legal consequences, because there obviously would not and could not be any.

It is terrifying though that this big lie (which is even larger then the stolen election lie) has become so accepted as fact that they think talking blithely about prosecuting Fauci is great politics....
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 09:30:23 AM
So this isn't GOP specific but I entirely endorse this article:
QuoteThis Will End With President Tucker Carlson
The British experience should be a warning: Don't let journalists go into politics.
By Helen Lewis
JULY 22, 2021

The United States is responsible for so many questionable transatlantic exports—The Apprentice, gray squirrels, dressing your dog up for Halloween—that we in Britain deserve to have our revenge. As if sending you James Corden wasn't enough, our latest gift is that quintessentially British figure, the journalist turned politician. The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is considering a run for governor of Oregon in 2022, a development unusual enough to make headlines in state and national media. "I have friends trying to convince me that here in Oregon, we need new leadership," he wrote in a statement.

A British journalist would not need to be so coy about moving into politics. Our prime minister, Boris Johnson, famously began his career as a journalist. He was soon fired from the Times newspaper for making up a quotation, which was good preparation for switching to politics and getting fired from the shadow cabinet for lying about having an affair. (He initially described the story as an "inverted pyramid of piffle.") Both of these events, in turn, were even better preparation for winning the leadership of the Conservative Party by promising to leave the European Union on October 31, 2019—"do or die"—and then failing to do so, because the process turned out to be exactly as complicated as his luckless opponent said it would be. (After repeated defeats in Parliament, Johnson suspended 21 rebellious members of his party, called a general election, won it, and eventually got his Brexit the next year.)

Johnson's biography shows the problem here: Journalists make dangerous politicians because they can talk their way out of trouble, have an eye for an arresting phrase and an appealing narrative, and know how to win over a crowd. Throughout the 20th century, British politics was full of ex-journalists. Winston Churchill spent a year during the Boer War as a correspondent for The Morning Post. Nigel Lawson, the father of the food writer Nigella, edited The Spectator magazine in the 1960s, before serving as chancellor of the exchequer under Margaret Thatcher. Ruth Davidson, the 42-year-old former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, began as a journalist, as did current cabinet minister Michael Gove. The British left has also had its share. The man who led the Labour Party to a crushing defeat in the 1980s, Michael Foot, once edited the London Evening Standard, while the woman who should have been Britain's first female prime minister, Barbara Castle, began her career at Tribune magazine.


Some well-known American journalists have also run for office, although many of these candidates—such as the 19th-century newspaper editor Horace Greeley—lost in a landslide; other bids, including those of William F. Buckley and Mickey Kaus, were doomed from the start. A handful of American politicians, including Al Gore and Sarah Palin, had brief stints as reporters, but Britain has a far grander tradition of putting former journalists in high public office. Even if they have never run anything more than a bath.

The Johnson comparison is unfair to Kristof, who has covered unfashionable subjects such as human trafficking and maternal mortality with tenacity and rigor. His recent investigation into rape videos on Pornhub forced the company to change its moderation policies; any politician would have been proud to achieve such a victory. He writes about women's issues without sounding like The Onion's "Man Finally Put in Charge of Struggling Feminist Movement." (Asked for comment on his potential run, Kristof referred me to his published statement.)

Notably, however, in a postwar American journalism tradition that prizes the separation of opinion from news, Kristof is an op-ed writer. Britain has no such qualms about the need to keep facts and feelings separate: Two of its most high-profile journalists are the former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage and the Labour activist Owen Jones, neither of whom makes a secret of his political leanings. British newspapers also have a tradition of straightforward partisanship that is alien to the U.S., where some of the largest publications are technically local newspapers, and once expected to attract readers from both sides of the aisle. The Mirror—where Barbara Castle worked—is an explicitly Labour-supporting paper, while Lawson's Telegraph was explicitly Conservative-supporting. In recent decades, Britain has been much more at ease than the U.S. with the idea of journalism as a continuation of politics by other means.

Values in the U.S. are beginning to change, however. Barely a month passes without an article dissecting the generational split in American journalism, and the accompanying rise of news organizations and individual writers who reject the old ideas about "objectivity" and the "view from nowhere." In this climate, surely more American journalists will feel comfortable with the move from writing about policy to making it. They will do so in an attention economy, which rewards a particular type of journalism and a particular type of politician: It is an advantage to be entertaining, and to have a personal fan base and a big platform.

Kristof is already on leave from the Times, in line with the paper's ethics policies, but you'd have to be a more trusting person than me to expect a Fox News star to bow out of the TV spotlight before formally declaring a run for political office. (Fox did not respond to a request for comment. After the Fox host Sean Hannity appeared onstage at a 2018 Donald Trump rally, the network said that "Fox News does not condone any talent participating in campaign events," but he went right on hosting his show.)

In the absence of strong norms keeping politics and journalism separate, the boundary between them is sure to be porous, as it is in Britain. Both jobs have no mandatory qualifications, no equivalent of an M.D. or a bar exam, and both reward the supremely confident bullshitter. Having attended the University of Oxford helps, as does showing a breezy assurance that everything will turn out okay in the end. Both professions have an almost religious belief in the power of deadlines: David Cameron was known as the "essay crisis" prime minister for his habit of performing best at the last minute; he revived his 2005 campaign for the Conservative Party leadership with one rousing speech. He maintained focus during long summits by refusing to visit the bathroom, which is exactly the kind of thing most journalists would do to force themselves to file a story on time.

Another bad habit journalists have is that many mistake provoking a reaction—whether effusive or angry—for genuine achievement. Getting a rise out of your opponents might be satisfying, but it's not a substitute for getting things done. Even during a pandemic, Boris Johnson needed the sugar rush of compliments about how funny he is, what a great master of rhetoric he is, what a lovable clown he is. And so he couldn't go cold turkey on the kind of weird phrases that pad out a light-hearted op-ed column. He claimed that the leader of the opposition, a former lawyer, had "more briefs than Calvin Klein" and that his coronavirus policies had "more flip-flops than Bournemouth beach." During the Brexit referendum, he kept doing the one about how he was "pro-secco but by no means anti-pasto." Journalism rewards this sort of talk. Politics shouldn't. Yet British politics does.


When Johnson decided to move into politics, he was the editor of the London-based Spectator magazine—a job that, by the way, he got on false pretenses, after assuring the proprietor that he had abandoned his parliamentary ambitions. (Spot a theme?) Although Britain's political and media capital is now a left-wing city, it is surrounded by Conservative areas within easy driving distance. The Conservative Party found Johnson a safe seat in Henley, a pretty riverside town about an hour outside London; later, when Johnson returned to Parliament again, after a stint as the capital's mayor, he was given another safe seat close to central London, in Uxbridge. Throughout this time, he was based at his family home in Islington, north London.

Contrast this with the United States, a far larger country where a politician's place of residence matters far more. You can't live in New York or Washington, the hubs of U.S. journalism, and hope to run for election in Maine or Arkansas. According to The Oregonian, Kristof, who grew up on a farm 25 miles outside Portland, moved back to Oregon in 2019 to "transition his family's cherry farm to a cider apple and wine grape farm"—which simultaneously sounds charming, folksy, and very much like something a New York Times columnist would do.


The Times report on Kristof's candidacy downplayed his chances of victory, because of a strong field of local leaders. Perhaps that's for the best, as the British tradition of journalist-politicians is not something to emulate. The foreign reporter Nicholas Tomalin once said that the "only qualities essential for real success in journalism are rat-like cunning, a plausible manner, and a little literary ability." If anything, he was being too polite. The journalist's motto might as well be: Well, I don't know about this, but give me 30 minutes and I'll sound like an expert. Remember all those commentators who sounded like world-class economists a decade ago, during the financial crisis. Aren't we lucky that they all retrained as epidemiologists?

So consider Boris Johnson to be a warning. Nick Kristof seems like a decent, thoughtful man who may someday have access to some extremely high-quality alcohol. But overall, the heights of modern journalism select for loud, polarizing attention-vampires with huge egos and short attention spans. And if American voters start rewarding journalists who switch to politics, don't come crying to me on Inauguration Day for President Tucker Carlson.

Helen Lewis is a London-based staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of Difficult Women: A History of Feminism in 11 Fights.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2021, 09:34:17 AM
The focus on Marjorie Taylor Greene's insane antics has taken attention away from the horribleness of Madison Cawthorn.  But even by wacky Trumper standards, Cawthorn is really, really awful.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 09:38:41 AM
"Don't trust journalists!"

Er. OK, journalist.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on July 23, 2021, 09:46:50 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2021, 09:34:17 AM
The focus on Marjorie Taylor Greene's insane antics has taken attention away from the horribleness of Madison Cawthorn.  But even by wacky Trumper standards, Cawthorn is really, really awful.

:yes:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 10:29:15 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 09:38:41 AM
"Don't trust journalists!"

Er. OK, journalist.
:lol:

Trust them as journalists knowing their game - don't let them anywhere near power without at least 5 years in another role/sector. From my perspective I feel the same about lawyers :ph34r:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 11:16:58 AM
Tucker Carlson is a journalist?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on July 23, 2021, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 11:16:58 AM
Tucker Carlson is a journalist?
I think it was established during the last lawsuit that he is an entertainer and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 23, 2021, 12:29:57 PM
He's an entertainer playing the role of a journalist.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 23, 2021, 12:38:15 PM
"I'm not a journalist, I just play one on TV!"
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 12:39:40 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 12:38:15 PM
"I'm not a journalist, I just play one on TV!"
:lol: Reminds me of the case here where a breakfast TV host, Lorraine Kelly, successfully argued that she actually just plays or performs a character - "Lorraine Kelly" - on TV.

Got her out of a massive tax bill.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 12:41:00 PM
The Colbert Report - now that is a parody.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2021, 01:04:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 12:39:40 PM
:lol: Reminds me of the case here where a breakfast TV host, Lorraine Kelly, successfully argued that she actually just plays or performs a character - "Lorraine Kelly" - on TV.

Got her out of a massive tax bill.

How in the world would that affect her taxes?

Do actresses pay lower taxes than reporters?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2021, 01:04:58 PM
How in the world would that affect her taxes?

Do actresses pay lower taxes than reporters?
Is Lorraine Kelly actually an employee of the TV company who should have been paying income tax and national insurance, or a freelancer providing services (in this case performing as "Lorraine Kelly")?

Edit: To avoid expanding the hijack - it wasn't a news channel just mainstream light entertainment breakfast TV. It's like the high end of the Uber cases - was she genuinely self-employed (Lorraine Kelly, of Lorraine Kelly Ltd performing as Lorraine Kelly) or was that just a sham contract to avoid taxes and she was actually a worker.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2021, 01:12:59 PM
Well, I don't see how being a reporter or actress impacts her freelance/employee status, but I don't want to hijack the lovely Quo Vadis thread.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 23, 2021, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2021, 09:34:17 AM
The focus on Marjorie Taylor Greene's insane antics has taken attention away from the horribleness of Madison Cawthorn.  But even by wacky Trumper standards, Cawthorn is really, really awful.


Well, at least if Cawthorn's preferred government come into power he won't get to enjoy it very long.  "Useless eater" and all that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 24, 2021, 09:25:42 PM
Generally I think it's worth ignoring Trump (though this thread is madness). But I thought this little clip was interesting:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1419077108933013507?s=20

"How about the vaccine? I came up with the vaccine. They said it would take 3-5 years - going to save the world. I recommend you take it, but I also believe in your freedoms 100%. But just so you understand, it was a great achievement."

It must be so galling for Trump that because his fans hate the vaccine, he can't fully and easily take credit for it :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2021, 09:48:43 PM
 :lol:

"I came up with the vaccine."

Actually Donald, you said it would take 6 months and the grown ups said it would take a year.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on July 26, 2021, 07:32:24 PM
I'm a Parkland Shooting Survivor. QAnon Convinced My Dad It Was All a Hoax.

QuoteBill's final semester at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, was already difficult enough.

He was part of the final graduating class of survivors of the 2018 shooting, and they all had just marked the third anniversary of the day 17 people were killed, nine of whom were Bill's classmates.

But Bill also had to deal with his father's daily accusations that the shooting was a hoax and that the shooter, Bill, and all his classmates were paid pawns in a grand conspiracy orchestrated by some shadowy force.

Bill had worked hard to get over his survivor's guilt after the shooting, but for the past five months, his own father has been triggering it all over again.

"He'll say stuff like this straight to my face whenever he's drinking: 'You're a real piece of work to be able to sit here and act like nothing ever happened if it wasn't a hoax. Shame on you for being part of it and putting your family through it too," Bill said in an anonymous post on Reddit last week.'

Bill first posted his story on QAnon Casualties, a Reddit thread dedicated to helping family members and friends of QAnon believers.

VICE News spoke to the poster and confirmed the author's claims about being a survivor of the school shooting. Bill is not the student's real name as they only spoke to VICE News on the condition of anonymity, citing concerns about attacks from members of QAnon forums if his identity was revealed.

As is true for many who fell down the QAnon rabbit hole in recent years, Bill's dad's descent coincided with the pandemic.

"It started a couple months into the pandemic with the whole anti-lockdown protests," Bill said. "His feelings were so strong it turned into facts for him. So if he didn't like having to wear masks it wouldn't matter what doctors or scientists said. Anything that contradicted his feelings was wrong. So he turned to the internet to find like-minded people which led him to QAnon."

But until January, that was as far as it went. Then Bill's father saw a video of Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene harassing Parkland survivor David Hogg in 2018, while he was visiting Washington to advocate for stricter gun control. Greene has repeatedly voiced support for QAnon and claimed the Parkland shooting was a hoax.

"He is a coward," Greene told her followers.

Ever since then, Bill's father has become convinced the shooting his son survived was a so-called "false flag" event and that the shooter was "​​a radical commie actor."

"From there it snowballed into what he is today, believing that if the government is able to overthrow an election, then everything else is probably a lie too," Bill added.

Bill is 18, and now that he's graduated high school he's looking to get out of the toxic situation he finds himself in.

"I do have options that can have me out before August, which as of now I'm planning to do," Bill said. "I've been delaying it because I've felt stuck trying to 'fix' my dad."

But Bill said that after he posted his story on Reddit, members of the QAnon Casualties community have been able to help him "push through that obligation I felt and leave before I completely lose my mind, because I'm already halfway there."

Over the course of the last four years, but in particular since the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdown, the QAnon conspiracy cult has been tearing families apart, and many family members say their loved ones have transformed into different people in front of their eyes.

"Burgundy-colored T-shirts [the color shirt worn by the shooter] make me uncomfortable and he used to be so understanding he stopped wearing it around me. That person is completely gone and I miss him so fucking much," Bill said in his Reddit post.

Bill says his relationship with his mother has also suffered.

"The relationship with my mom is dependent on whether my dad is there or not, 'cause then it's pretty much all about conspiracy theories," Bill told VICE News. "[The relationship] used to be fine but deteriorating quickly, [especially] after telling her that if she doesn't start putting her foot down, I'm leaving with no interest in seeing my dad again."

But despite the threats to leave home, Bill's mother has not stood up to his dad.

"It's not really going anywhere because she's too naive to think he'll magically get over wanting to constantly retraumatize me and I'm not waiting around for that," Bill told VICE News.

Bill also says he's been unable to talk to any of his fellow survivors about what he has been going through with this father.

"I never talked about it with them," Bill told VICE News. "As far as I know he's only held that belief—at least so strongly—since January. Our last semester was difficult enough with Feb. 14 marking 3 years since the shooting, along with emotions leading up to us being the last class of survivors to graduate."

"It wasn't—and still isn't—easy to bottle up, but telling them my dad thinks the absolute hell we went through, where nine of the victims were in our class, is a hoax is not a pain I want to put on them. It's difficult enough knowing that belief even exists at all."

At this point, Bill has little hope in ever seeing his father return to the person he was before he became obsessed with QAnon conspiracy theories, and even if he did, too much has happened to ever repair their relationship.

"He'll never stop on his own, because there are always new theories and goalposts being moved," Bill said. "I don't know how to help someone that far gone. My guess is restricted access to the internet and lots of therapy. But even if there was hope he'd eventually snap out of it, it wouldn't change my mind on never wanting to see him again. So it doesn't really matter anymore."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on July 27, 2021, 11:45:12 AM
Ugh...  :wacko: :cry:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 27, 2021, 02:43:17 PM
Always hard when your parents join a cult, I'd imagine.  :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on July 27, 2021, 03:39:49 PM
It is. Except that cult is now a leading party in the US, and controls many of its powerful government and institutions.

I am increasingly convinced that this is going the way of the school shootings: seen as an intractable problem, for which nothing can be done, only elicit shrugs. A part of life in the US.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 27, 2021, 03:47:25 PM
Yeah - I don't really know how a country recovers from this:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7VDT7uXoAcsHp0?format=jpg&name=small)

And, off the top of my head, I can't think of one that has. Not impossible, perhaps, but I don't know where you go.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 04:00:07 PM
It is striking that the Republican numbers did not budge even after it became clear the conspiracy theories were nonsense. 

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 27, 2021, 05:19:38 PM
Well as long as Republicans feel that way about election results at least they're not in power.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2021, 09:11:57 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 27, 2021, 03:39:49 PM
It is. Except that cult is now a leading party in the US, and controls many of its powerful government and institutions.

I am increasingly convinced that this is going the way of the school shootings: seen as an intractable problem, for which nothing can be done, only elicit shrugs. A part of life in the US.

No people are not shrugging about this.

The problem, however, will continue, as long as rich and powerful people in America keep deciding that their tax breaks are more important than their country.

This started under Reagan, when his people ran an insane rogue operation to sell guns to the Ayatollah to raise money so they could send other guns to a bunch of thugs in Latin America, all in violation of federal law.  And the rich and powerful said - yeah, but I got my tax break. Under GW Bush, Rumsfeld ran rampant and had his people busy torturing folks all over the world and writing memos about why torture was really a good thing.  And the rich and powerful said, - yeah but I got my tax break.

Then Trump became President. And a few rich and powerful people finally broke.  Unfortunately they were mostly limited to the people that served in Trump's cabinet and couldn't fool themselves anymore about what was going on.  But much of the rest put their hands over their ears, shouted la-la-la and grinned a big smile as the tax breaks came in.

But now that the GOP has become an insurrectionary party, surely the rich and powerful will jump ship, before these loons carry out their own QAnon Qristallnacht?  Nope.  Last week some of the big corporate PACs quietly resumed donations to people who rejected the election results.

This ends when corporate America rejects the  "better Hitler than Blum" mentality and cuts off the GOP entirely, forcing the leadership that allegedly knows better (eg McConnell) to choose the pain of facing angry primary voters over contesting general elections without a pot to piss in. If that means running some open primaries for a while then so be it.  But that isn't happening; corporate America is still under the delusion they can ride this giant crazed tiger indefinitely without consequence.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on July 27, 2021, 09:15:57 PM
I guess if the rich and powerful have decided...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2021, 09:57:11 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 27, 2021, 09:15:57 PM
I guess if the rich and powerful have decided...

The university professors fought back valiantly, and yet without effect, to no one's surprise.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on July 27, 2021, 10:20:36 PM
Flippant, cheap response, but okay. Waiting for the rich and powerful to do something sounds very much like shrugging to me. That being said, I get the feeling it's your crowd? But maybe you are out there organizing and mobilizing, what do I know?

I know I sound like a broken record, but the US is facing a monumental crisis, and the stakes are super high. The collective answer by Americans I know really doesn't seem up to the challenge. People seem to be waiting for things to sort themselves out. Maybe throw in an additional bit of cash to their favorite candidate. Wait for the vote, and hope.

And yeah, since you snickered, I include most university professors in this - unsurprisingly, since it's my crowd. Many confuse holding the right opinions for activism. To be perfectly candid, I felt my actions were indeed out of step with those of most of my colleagues, and I felt I was lacking the "keys" to do more. American universities are never truly part of the communities they exist in. Most profs are from elsewhere, and the university ethos - the Ivory Tower people so enjoy mocking - doesn't encourage one to venture far beyond campus, happy to leave such matters to the administration, whose stance is that of property owner, investor, and tax evader.

Part of the reason I decided to GTFO. I would be really happy to be proven wrong. There are some encouraging signs. But they are very timid.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on July 27, 2021, 10:39:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2021, 09:11:57 PM
  But that isn't happening; corporate America is still under the delusion they can ride this giant crazed tiger indefinitely without consequence.

And some is perfectly happy with the new GOP direction: the Mercers, Roger Stone, the Hobby Lobby owners, etc.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 27, 2021, 11:53:00 PM
The behemoth Hobby Lobby.  :lol:

I think there are always outliers, but the corporate response is generally guarded.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2021, 11:56:41 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 27, 2021, 11:53:00 PM
The behemoth Hobby Lobby.  :lol:

I think there are always outliers, but the corporate response is generally guarded.
They just got busted by the DOJ for having a stolen original copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 28, 2021, 07:44:50 AM
I'm going to see my doctor next week and I'll be asking if I can change my anti-psychotic medications.  The meds are just not cutting it anymore and as a result I'm seeing all kinds of weird shit.  You guys wouldn't believe what I thought Oex and Shelf posted.  Something about how a father came to believe his teenage son who survived a school shooting was a crisis actor.  So either I'm barking mad or everyone else is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2021, 07:51:15 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 27, 2021, 10:20:36 PM
Flippant, cheap response, but okay. Waiting for the rich and powerful to do something sounds very much like shrugging to me. That being said, I get the feeling it's your crowd? But maybe you are out there organizing and mobilizing, what do I know?

Organizing what?  Bergen County?  The tri-state area?  The problem doesn't lie there.  You might as well ask why the ordinary citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 failed to convince southern planters of the virtues of abolition. It wasn't for lack of organization,

You know America is federal.  Sure I and others in "my crowd" have volunteered for election protection efforts in Florida and other vulnerable states in the past.  But as you point out in the other thread, the threat now goes well beyond what such measures can remedy.

Because of the nature of my profession, I've spent a decent amount of time in red states.  Since I'd like to think of myself as a persuasive and friendly person, if I had a few days to spend and nowhere else to be, I'd guess I'd have a decent chance of convincing one person to reconsider their views.  But realistically even that would likely be fruitless because the opinions of some northeastern pointy-head stranger aren't going to overcome the entrenched groupthink reinforced by close-by friends, family, and neighbors, all reinforced by an exclusionary sense of cultural identity.  Just look at your earlier post about a father choosing his deranged cult over his own son.  This is a sickness that discourse cannot easily cure.

If I focus on the rich and powerful it is for two very good reasons.  First, that in America money is the fuel that powers all political and cultural phenomena. When the money flows, the movement grows.  Cut if off and it struggles.  Big surprise, it turns out the rich and powerful have just a teensy weensy effect over flows of money.

Second - yes it is true that in my line of work I am more likely to come into regular contact with educated, rich and/or powerful Trump supporters than others.  You work with the material you have to work with.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2021, 08:05:30 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2021, 03:47:25 PM
Yeah - I don't really know how a country recovers from this:

The two silver linings are that the minority of (1/3) of GOP voters that reject the madness haven't budged despite facing enormous pressure and propaganda, and the minority of self-identified independents that entertain such theories has materially decreased as well

So in theory if the GOP doubles down on insurrectionism, they should be losing lots of elections.  Of course, since pro-insurrectionists now control electoral mechanisms in many states, they may be able to maintain control no matter how many elections they lose.  But the consolation will be the sad and serene expression of resignation on Justice Roberts face as he reluctantly rubber stamps the next voting rights outrage, because losing democracy is a fair price to pay to make sure the rascally lefties won't go around doing radical things like enforcing the 14th and 15th amendments as written and intended.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 28, 2021, 12:22:32 PM
I endorse the recommendation of Know Your Enemy here - they're particularly good on the sort of two way pipeline on the right of young talent but also of the links between the intellectual bodies of the US right and "movement conservatism". It's that latter pipeline that makes this interesting and striking - it's part of a wider trend of the move from the US right of representing the "silent majority" and speaking up for a "moral majority" to acknowledging that given changes in society they will have to govern as a moral minority instead and starting to work through the implications of that:
QuoteThe intellectual right contemplates an 'American Caesar'
Jan. 6 was a badly planned rehearsal for the real deal
Damon Linker
July 28, 2021

How does ideological change happen? Why do certain political ideas and possibilities that appear outrageous and even unthinkable at one moment in history come to be considered options worth taking seriously? What causes the Overton window to shift dramatically in one direction or another?

The answer has something to do with the dynamics of partisan coalitions. To cite a fairly anodyne example, Ronald Reagan took over the Republican Party in 1980 by expanding the GOP's appeal to the right as well as to the center-left. Those who supported Gerald Ford in 1976 were joined by conservative activists who had passionately favored Barry Goldwater in 1964, right-wing populists in the South and Midwest who had cast ballots for George Wallace in 1968, and the more moderate voters across the country who came to be called "Reagan Democrats." The result was broad-based support for deep tax cuts, sharply increased defense spending, and amped up confrontation with the Soviet Union — a synthesis of positions that seemed to be a non-starter just a few years earlier but which, thanks to Reagan's political skills and their intersection with contingent changes in political culture, became a stable ideological and electoral configuration of the GOP for the next 36 years.

The GOP has shed a lot of voters (as a share of the electorate) since its high-water mark in 1984. But with the rise of Donald Trump, the shape of the party's coalition also began to change. Some of the shift has been class-based, with white and Latino voters lacking a college degree flocking to the Republican Party and highly educated urban and suburban voters fleeing it.

But Trump also actively courted the right-wing fringe — the militia movement, quasi-paramilitary groups like the Proud Boys, neo-Nazis, overt racists, and outright xenophobes. These voters are a tiny portion of the party, but they punch above their weight, as we learned on Jan. 6, when a small handful of these extremists took the lead in initiating the mayhem and violence on Capitol Hill that afternoon while most of the intruders simply followed along rather cluelessly. (This point, along with much else in this column, is elaborated with depth and insight in the "Aftermath of January 6th" episode of the consistently excellent Know Your Enemy podcast.) 


With most Republican officeholders and media personalities refusing to condemn the actions of the insurrectionary mob that invaded the Capitol to stop congressional certification of the 2020 election results — or Trump's decisive role in inciting that mob — and some of them instead endorsing an evidence-free conspiracy involving the "deep state" and the FBI, the GOP has verified that the Overton window has shifted sharply to the right. What would have until quite recently been considered unacceptable forms of political dissent have been legitimized. That's how the once unthinkable becomes a new normal.

A parallel process of line-shifting has been unfolding among conservative intellectuals, most of whom responded to the launch of Trump's presidential campaign six years ago with a mixture of disgust and incredulity. The dismissal didn't last. While many shifted to the center and refused to endorse Trump's hostile takeover of the party, plenty of others went along with it, adjusting their prior positions to bring them into alignment with the nominee on policy and attitude. No commentator did so with more enthusiasm or popular impact than Michael Anton.

A former director of communications for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (where he was briefly my boss) and former speechwriter for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Anton penned the most notorious and rhetorically scalding case for supporting Trump. Published in early September 2016 in the Claremont Review of Books online, "The Flight 93 Election" portrayed Trump as a final, last-ditch opportunity for conservatives to wrest control of the country back from those (like Hillary Clinton) who aimed at nothing less than its thoroughgoing destruction. Rush Limbaugh paid tribute to the power of the argument (and amplified it for a vastly larger audience) by reading the essay aloud, paragraph by paragraph, on his radio show. In doing so, Anton, with Limbaugh's help, gave legions of Trump-skeptical conservatives permission to vote, even to express outright enthusiasm, for the untested right-wing populist.

After Trump's victory, Anton went on to serve the new president on the National Security Council. That lasted a little more than a year. Once he had left the White House, Anton returned to writing and speaking publicly in defense of Trump and in favor of his re-election. Two months before the 2020 vote, he predicted an attempted "coup" from the left if Democrat Joe Biden didn't prevail. When events unfolded in precisely the opposite way — with Trump losing the vote, refusing to accept the result, and attempting a hapless coup of his own to stay in power — Anton said nothing to acknowledge either the irony or the error. Quite the opposite, in fact. In the months since Trump left office, Anton has been doing his best to throw open the doors of the conservative intellectual world to ideas once considered far too extreme for American politics.

How extreme? So extreme that in late May, Anton set aside nearly two hours on his Claremont Institute podcast ("The Stakes") for an erudite, wide-ranging discussion with self-described monarchist Curtis Yarvin about why the United States needs an "American Caesar" to seize control of the federal government, and precisely how such a would-be dictator could accomplish the task.

With this conversation, Anton seems eager to shift the Overton window far beyond anything resembling liberal democracy. In its place, he would substitute an elaborate, historically and philosophically sophisticated justification for tyranny.

It's important right at the outset to make a few things clear about the Anton-Yarvin conversation. First, Anton doesn't explicitly endorse Yarvin's most outlandish ideas, which blend a far-right love of unlimited executive power with the techno-utopianism of Silicon Valley. (Yarvin created the Urbit digital platform and co-founded the tech company Tion, while also gaining considerable notoriety with the alt-right blog "Unqualified Reservations," written under the pen name Mencius Moldbug.) In fact, at several points Anton goes out of his way to declare in a tone of mock seriousness that as someone affiliated with the Claremont Institute, which has long advocated for a return to the principles of the American founding (including the Declaration of Independence's denunciations of monarchical tyranny), he can't stand behind Yarvin's sympathy for dictatorship. Yet it's also true that at no point does Anton offer a substantive critique of Yarvin's arguments and assertions. He merely expresses pragmatic or tactical objections, as if the primary fault in Yarvin's ideas is that they are unrealistic.

Then there's the matter of terminology. I have described Anton's conversation with Yarvin as helping to shift the Overton window away from liberal democracy and toward a defense of tyranny. Yet this isn't how either man understands the American present. Rather, they agree early on in the podcast (around minute 24) that the current American "regime" is most accurately described as a "theocratic oligarchy" in which an elite class of progressive "priests" ensconced in the bureaucracies of the administrative state, and at Harvard, The New York Times, and other leading institutions of civil society, promulgate and enforce their own version of "reality." Anton and Yarvin treat this assertion as given and then proceed to talk through how this theocratic oligarchy might be overturned. (One of their substantive disagreements concerns how long this regime might last if it's not directly challenged. Anton is hopeful it will collapse of its own incompetence and corruption, while Yarvin thinks the current "clown world" could continue onward for decades or even a century, with the United States slowly decaying into something resembling a Third World country.)

Once the conversation really gets going (around minute 45), Yarvin makes clear that he has a highly idiosyncratic take on American history. In his view, roughly every 75 years, a "Caesar" seizes dictatorial powers and institutes "substantive regime changes." George Washington did this in 1789. Abraham Lincoln did it again in 1861. And FDR did it last in 1933, speaking in the closing passages of his First Inaugural Address about the national emergency of the Great Depression and the need to wield unprecedented government power to combat it, which he did with the New Deal. The U.S. today is overdue for its next political transformation — one that would settle the country's "cold civil war" from above.

Yarvin's top choice to become the next American Caesar is Elon Musk, though both men acknowledge that he's constitutionally ineligible for the role because he was born in South Africa. This provides an occasion for them both to joke about how great it would be for him to run, win, and demand to be made president anyway, in defiance of the Constitution. (Anton makes sure to clarify that their jovial chit-chat about flagrantly disregarding the letter of the Constitution is "not an endorsement" of actually doing so. Later on, they likewise joke about how great it would have been for Trump to declare himself the personal embodiment of the "living Constitution.")

But what exactly is Yarvin proposing and Anton entertaining here? Is it nothing more ominous than a New Deal from the right? As the conversation unfolds further, beginning around an hour and twenty minutes into the podcast, it becomes clear that Yarvin has something much more radical in mind (even if his peculiar constellation of assumptions prevent him from recognizing just how extreme it is).

The trick, for Yarvin, is for the would-be American Caesar to exercise emergency powers from day one. How? Caesar should run for president promising to do precisely this, and then announce the national emergency in his inaugural address, encouraging every state government to do the same. Taking advantages of "ambiguities" in the Constitution, he will immediately act to federalize the national guard around the country and welcome backup from sympathetic members of the police (who will wear armbands to signal their support for Caesar).

When federal agencies refuse to go along, Yarvin suggests, Caesar (whom he now begins referring to as "Trump") will use a "Trump app" to communicate directly with his 80 million supporters on their smart phones, using notifications to tell them that "this agency isn't following my instructions," which will prompt them to rally at the proper building, with the crowd "steered around by a joystick by Trump himself," forming a "human barricade around every federal building, supporting Trump's lawful authority." Where maybe 20,000 people stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, millions responding to the Trump app would be much more effective — a modern-day version of the paramilitary groups that ensured Lincoln's safety during the hard-fought, dangerous 1860 campaign for president that preceded the Civil War (and the president's subsequent suspension of habeas corpus and shuttering of hundreds of newspapers). 


When Anton asks how Trump-Caesar should respond to Harvard, The New York Times, and the rest of the theocratic oligarchy blaring air-raid sirens about the imposition of dictatorship, Yarvin indicates that it would be essential to "smash it" with one blow. To suggest that Caesar should be required to deal with "someone else's department of reality is manifestly absurd." Going on, Yarvin explains that "when Caesar crosses the Rubicon, he doesn't sit around getting his feet wet, fishing. He marches straight across the Rubicon" and uses "all force available." Once that happens, the whole world can be "remade."

The podcast concludes with Anton quoting another Claremont writer (Angelo Codevilla) on how Trump dropped "the leadership of the deplorables," which is waiting to be picked up by someone "who will make Trump seem moderate." Yarvin responds approvingly with a quote by Serbian dictator and indicted genocidal war criminal Slobodan Milošević, who said the goal should be that "no one will dare to beat you anymore."


Defenders of Anton, Yarvin, and the Claremont Institute will say that this thoroughly appalling discussion was just that — some casual talk, idle musings, a fantasy disconnected from reality. Yet fantasies are outgrowths of our imaginations and hopes, and they help set our expectations, including our conception of what is possible and desirable in politics.

The indisputable fact is that a leading and longstanding conservative institute in the United States hosts a podcast by someone who served as a senior official in the presidential administration of a man who may run again for the nation's highest office in a few years. And on an episode of that podcast, this former official and his invited guest genially rehearsed arguments about why a future president would be justified in turning himself into a tyrant, and how he could set about accomplishing this task.

Which means that on the starboard side of American politics, the Overton window has now shifted far beyond the boundaries of democratic self-government to a place broadly coterminous with fascism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 28, 2021, 12:41:50 PM
I think it's possible but unlikely that the US will go Fascist. I think a garden-variety right-wing dictatorship is more likely.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 28, 2021, 07:25:01 PM
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1419283662022090755
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 28, 2021, 07:29:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liuSbrghzmk
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 29, 2021, 05:45:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2021, 08:05:30 AMThe two silver linings are that the minority of (1/3) of GOP voters that reject the madness haven't budged despite facing enormous pressure and propaganda, and the minority of self-identified independents that entertain such theories has materially decreased as well

So in theory if the GOP doubles down on insurrectionism, they should be losing lots of elections.  Of course, since pro-insurrectionists now control electoral mechanisms in many states, they may be able to maintain control no matter how many elections they lose.  But the consolation will be the sad and serene expression of resignation on Justice Roberts face as he reluctantly rubber stamps the next voting rights outrage, because losing democracy is a fair price to pay to make sure the rascally lefties won't go around doing radical things like enforcing the 14th and 15th amendments as written and intended.
To play Devil's Advocate - aren't they that 1/3 one of the big problems. That despite the madness and being aware of the pressure or propaganda on their side to row in behind this project, they stay. They remain - because judges/tax cuts/enjoying liberal tears or whatever justification.

I agree on the risk around electoral mechanisms or consolation - but those voters are the difference between Republicans losing so catastrophically it forces a reset in their approach and winning about 45-47% of the vote (which is where the GOP have been since 2004 in Presidential elections) which is enough to sometimes win the White House and to do well in the Senate and, if they change the rules and gerrymander, may be enough to keep the House etc.

But I'm aware that my view that the only thing that changes or stops this process is huge electoral defeat is very shaped by British politics - where we have a very political constitution and elections are the ultimate check in our system rather than something that operates almost below the wider checks and balances. So, in particular, looking at the American right 1964 started the takeover of the Republican party by the ideological radical right - when, in my theory, it should have ended it and ushered in 30 years of glorious Romneyite rule :lol:

I've said before but I think Congress as a check is meaningless now (not just because of GOP behaviour but also the wider media discourse around Congress); the courts are under immense pressure - I'd argue they are still holding, just; and the most effective bit is America's decentralisation and the role of the states but now the GOP is focused on winning control of state electoral mechanisms I don't know how long that holds. If those don't work and are all made susceptible to minority control - then I don't know that a British style electoral humiliation is possible, produce the response you'd want to see or has the consequences of losers losing power.

As I say I don't really know how a country pulls back from one party believing (wrongly) that the system is rigged against them and they have been cheated out of power.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2021, 10:03:21 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2021, 05:45:58 AM
To play Devil's Advocate - aren't they that 1/3 one of the big problems. That despite the madness and being aware of the pressure or propaganda on their side to row in behind this project, they stay. They remain - because judges/tax cuts/enjoying liberal tears or whatever justification.

Maybe.  No way to really now without deeper polling to identify this group more specifically and what they are doing and what they going to do.  I agree that if they continue to vote GOP in general elections even when Qanon Qandidates take the primary, then its a huge problem.  If they stay at home OTOH, it could have a significant impact.

QuoteSo, in particular, looking at the American right 1964 started the takeover of the Republican party by the ideological radical right - when, in my theory, it should have ended it and ushered in 30 years of glorious Romneyite rule :lol:

But the immediate effect of 1964 was the rise of Nixon, who despite his toxic personality, governed very much as a moderate post New Deal Republican - high social spending and environmental protection in domestic policy; detente and engagement in foreign policy.  Putting aside Reagan for a moment, the subsequent GOP presidents were Gerald Ford and the two Bushes, all of whom took moderate domestic policy positions. 

So the case for the radical Goldwater takeover rests on Reagan.  Admittedly Reagan was a very significant figure and admittedly he adopted rhetoric from the hard right of his party.  But Reagan's unique genius was convincing the right of his party that he was one of them while governing far more conventionally.  Reagan certainly talked the part of the unyielding cold warrior, but his actual foreign policy legacy was a series of arms control accords and engagement with Gorbachev, culminating in his extraordinary proposal for complete mutual nuclear disarm.  On domestic policy the early experiment with Lafferite economics was soon reversed and eventually replaced with bipartisan tax reform.  Reagan thrilled the right with his de-regulatory rhetoric (9 most terrifying words) and his Trumpian comments about trees causing pollution. But after the turmoil of the scandal-ridden tenures of Gorsuch at EPA and Watt at Interior there was another big course correction, with Bill Ruckelshaus returning to EPA, to spearhead the ultimately successful program against ozone depleting chemicals and new initiatives on lead additives and asbestos. On social policy, the pattern was similar - after initial budget cuts in the earlier years, Reagan pivoted to cooperating with bipartisan reform efforts.

The more significant point is that although Trump and Trumpism has precursors in the Republican party, he really is sui generis as a GOP President.  Trump's political ancestor is not Goldwater, it is Pat Buchanan, with some style points from Newt Gingrich.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 29, 2021, 10:35:32 AM
The GOP became increasingly anti-immigrant in the years after the Civil War culminating with the Immigration act of 1924 which basically banned nonwhites from coming into the country, but that changed after WW2.  Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and George W. Bush tried to create a path to citizenship.  The GOP came to believe that immigration was a good thing.  What I don't understand is why that changed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2021, 10:35:32 AM
The GOP became increasingly anti-immigrant in the years after the Civil War culminating with the Immigration act of 1924 which basically banned nonwhites from coming into the country, but that changed after WW2.  Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and George W. Bush tried to create a path to citizenship.  The GOP came to believe that immigration was a good thing.  What I don't understand is why that changed.

The tension between racism and what's good for business and the nation resolved in favour of racism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 29, 2021, 12:13:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2021, 10:03:21 AM
But the immediate effect of 1964 was the rise of Nixon, who despite his toxic personality, governed very much as a moderate post New Deal Republican - high social spending and environmental protection in domestic policy; detente and engagement in foreign policy.  Putting aside Reagan for a moment, the subsequent GOP presidents were Gerald Ford and the two Bushes, all of whom took moderate domestic policy positions. 
Yes - although the context of that is relevant as well. So in 1968 the choices for GOP nominee in the run up to the convention were Nixon, Rockefeller, Romney and possibly Reagan (who was still very new politically). So Nixon may have been a moderate, but he was also the least moderate plausible option.

I agree on the rest of your points about Reagan and Trump as the inheritor of Pat Buchanan.

The slight complicating factor I suppose is that the "movement conservative" right took over the other power centres of the GOP first - though it's absolutely true that their elected politicians (especially as President) were not as right wing as they wanted. I think in part this is linked to the "movement conservative" narrative that they are the latest in a line of dissenters from the New Deal. So they have transformed the GOP into an ideological party rather than a coalition like the Democrats, but also they did it by setting up and funding alternative institutions.

For the radical right, they may not have been taking over in the 70s, but they were creating think tanks or campaigning institutions like the Cato Institute, the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation and (in 1982) the Federalist Society. All through this period but especially in the 80s and the 90s they were creating a set of alternative media institutions.

While the radical right might have felt let down by most of their politicians they had created the infrastructure for developing and propagating their ideas, developing talent and, in the media, a mechanism for disciplining their politicians. I think that's the takeover - and because they collect the donations, the bright young right-wing talent and the viewers in the long run it forced the more establishment institutions into line as well. So Gingrich didn't arrive like lightning out of a clear blue sky but with people in the background doing ideological thinking and a pipeline for talent (most visible in the Federalist Society) but also for new politicians and I think that continues to this day.

I don't think there's necessarily a clear line from Goldwater to Trump but I think there is a clear line from the post-Goldwater radical right takeover of the GOP and what's happening now, which is built around Trump - and I don't think Trump necessarily any of these views, he's a mood/emotion-based candidate but there are people clearly building an intellectual framework around him.

I also don't think there's any equivalent to that on the left or even just the centrist/liberal part of politics.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on July 29, 2021, 12:22:04 PM

GOP Could Retake the House in 2022 Just by Gerrymandering Four Southern States

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/07/gop-could-retake-the-house-in-2022-just-by-gerrymandering-four-southern-states/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on July 29, 2021, 12:37:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2021, 07:51:15 AMOrganizing what?  Bergen County?  The tri-state area?  The problem doesn't lie there.  You might as well ask why the ordinary citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 failed to convince southern planters of the virtues of abolition. It wasn't for lack of organization,

No, it wasn't. But the citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 probably lacked the sort of means of communication, resources, and political pressures that are those of ordinary citizens of many parts of America today.

My point isn't that focusing on the rich and powerful can't produce meaningful change. It's great if you are in a position to influence these people. It's that this sort of analysis can be utterly paralyzing, thereby leading to what really seems like a deadly combination of resignation and wishful thinking. If the matter is entirely in the hands of rich Republicans, it's too late, and it's out of reach for most people. Might as well bail out and hope wealth and health insurance shields you from the consequences. Might as well get rid of the pretense of democracy at this point. The Republicans seem to be very close to taking that step. 

But I am willing to bet there are many rich Democrats as well. And there are many, many establishment Democrats, currently in power, and holding a lot of that power in their hands, yet doing astonishingly little. Or, to put it otherwise, wishing to be the embodiment of prudence - if not resignation and wishful thinking. The populist right could always count on the support of a few rich kooks. But they took over thanks to a relentless grassroots movement. Angry trash radio doesn't exist on the left. It is up to y'all to figure out how to fund efforts, pressure elected officials, amplify messages - if not in your safe New York district, elsewhere. As I said, I think the danger warrants a lot more effort than what people seem willing to put in. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 29, 2021, 01:33:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2021, 10:35:32 AM
The GOP became increasingly anti-immigrant in the years after the Civil War culminating with the Immigration act of 1924 which basically banned nonwhites from coming into the country, but that changed after WW2.  Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and George W. Bush tried to create a path to citizenship.  The GOP came to believe that immigration was a good thing.  What I don't understand is why that changed.

The tension between racism and what's good for business and the nation resolved in favour of racism.


I honestly don't think most of the GOP is racist.  Sure, some are, but most aren't.  It's more subtle than that.  I've heard the term "racial resent" used a lot when referring to Trump supporters and it is probably a more accurate term.  They support systems that result in racist outcomes.  They say racist things without actually realizing they are doing so (micro aggression), they believe that society is treating everyone the same and believe that changes with racial justice will cause them to be disadvantaged.  Some already believe they are disadvantaged.  For most of these people racism is subconscious.  I remember reading a news story a while back where a reporter was asking Trump supporters about racism.  One woman became indignant saying she's not racist, her grandchildren are black.  I think that carry's more weight than "I have black friends".

I don't think these people are unreachable.  I believe that if a bunch of Missouri rednecks sat down and really talked to people associated with BLM, they could find common ground.  Not debate, or a shouting match but just a talk.  Blacks living in St.Louis and hillbillies in the Ozarks don't understand each other.  If they made an effort to understand where other side is coming from then you can have productive dialog over a host of political issues.

Unfortunately, both racial resentment a out-and-out racism is becoming more common.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 01:52:39 PM
I have no real disagreement about your analysis, I think it's more of a terminology thing. When I said "racism" I included both what you term "racial resentment" but also "political causes where it's possible to have a non-racist reasons for supporting them, but a significant amount of the rhetoric surrounding them are infused with actual racism".

While individual GOP politicians and supporters may very well be not racist in the "I hate people of different races and am motivated by animus against them" sense, the causes that their party champions inevitably aligns with the objectives of such racists pretty much any time where it's an option.

And as such, I think it's fair to say that within the GOP the tension that existed between racism and what's good for business and the nation has resolved in favour of racism, whatever exists in the hearts and souls of individual Republicans.

The nice thing about that statement is that it's also predictive. We can put it to the test. In any forthcoming issue, if there's an unresolved question and the options are "do whatever real unambiguous racists would be happy with (wrapped up in whatever justifications to make it palatable to people who'd prefer to not think of themselves as racist) vs "good for industry and the nation" which option is taken?

It seems to me the racists have been obviously driving the car since Trump at the least.

It doesn't mean it can't change, of course, but right now I think it holds true - and it provides a pretty good explanation for the question you posed which was "why did the GOP become so anti-immigrant when previously it was not."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 29, 2021, 02:48:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2021, 10:35:32 AM
The GOP became increasingly anti-immigrant in the years after the Civil War culminating with the Immigration act of 1924 which basically banned nonwhites from coming into the country, but that changed after WW2.  Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and George W. Bush tried to create a path to citizenship.  The GOP came to believe that immigration was a good thing.  What I don't understand is why that changed.
The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 29, 2021, 02:50:27 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 29, 2021, 12:37:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2021, 07:51:15 AMOrganizing what?  Bergen County?  The tri-state area?  The problem doesn't lie there.  You might as well ask why the ordinary citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 failed to convince southern planters of the virtues of abolition. It wasn't for lack of organization,

No, it wasn't. But the citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 probably lacked the sort of means of communication, resources, and political pressures that are those of ordinary citizens of many parts of America today.

My point isn't that focusing on the rich and powerful can't produce meaningful change. It's great if you are in a position to influence these people. It's that this sort of analysis can be utterly paralyzing, thereby leading to what really seems like a deadly combination of resignation and wishful thinking. If the matter is entirely in the hands of rich Republicans, it's too late, and it's out of reach for most people. Might as well bail out and hope wealth and health insurance shields you from the consequences. Might as well get rid of the pretense of democracy at this point. The Republicans seem to be very close to taking that step. 

But I am willing to bet there are many rich Democrats as well. And there are many, many establishment Democrats, currently in power, and holding a lot of that power in their hands, yet doing astonishingly little. Or, to put it otherwise, wishing to be the embodiment of prudence - if not resignation and wishful thinking. The populist right could always count on the support of a few rich kooks. But they took over thanks to a relentless grassroots movement. Angry trash radio doesn't exist on the left. It is up to y'all to figure out how to fund efforts, pressure elected officials, amplify messages - if not in your safe New York district, elsewhere. As I said, I think the danger warrants a lot more effort than what people seem willing to put in. 
Rich Democrats donors tend to give money to both parties.  They do not feel welcome at the Dems conventions, unlike Republicans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2021, 03:58:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2021, 01:33:17 PM
I honestly don't think most of the GOP is racist. 

Sure they are a party that does things like arrange for the ratio of polling places to population in white areas to be  multiples higher than in blacks areas but they aren't racist; nothing to see there.

The irony is that while turning "critical race theory" into a rhetorical bete noire (see what I did there), the GOP is methodically going about proving the cogency of theory and its relevance to today's American society.  You are right that the main problem is probably not individual racist attitudes, but the GOP's willingness to entrench structural barriers to political participation by non-whites as means to entrench their own power.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on July 29, 2021, 05:46:48 PM

St. Louis County health director says he faced racial slurs, was assaulted at council meeting

QuoteCouncilman Tim Fitch made it a point to emphasize "for the assembled crowd that I was not from this country," Khan wrote. Khan has been a United States citizen since 2012 and has worked in public health for 25 years.

After Fitch's comment - and a social media post Khan saw later that night by Mark McCloskey about mask mandates being "un-American" - Khan said he heard people mocking his accent while he was presenting. He said people in crowd were doing their impersonation of The Simpson's character, Apu.

"While I was presenting my analysis of COVID-19 to the Council, two politicians (Mr. McCloskey and Paul Berry) seated right behind me consistently berated me and tried to distract me from my presentation," Khan wrote in the letter. "When I asked you to intervene to prevent Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Berry from interfering with my presentation, you lectured me – not them."

https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-county-health-director-says-he-faced-racial-slurs-was-assaulted-at-council-meeting/article_0cf3e388-f010-11eb-876b-4b598d4bc352.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR2_N9ARmRAV8vw89FtjnuLljsYAwIH9c4ueK74CBK8l-3HuRBA1wyjCohU
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on July 29, 2021, 05:54:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 29, 2021, 02:48:46 PM
The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

That was more of a function that Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, with an extension until 1830 for Texas, and the Texans refused to give up their slaves, in favor of rebelling against their rightful government.  This would not be the last time.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 29, 2021, 06:07:32 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 29, 2021, 02:48:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2021, 10:35:32 AM
The GOP became increasingly anti-immigrant in the years after the Civil War culminating with the Immigration act of 1924 which basically banned nonwhites from coming into the country, but that changed after WW2.  Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and George W. Bush tried to create a path to citizenship.  The GOP came to believe that immigration was a good thing.  What I don't understand is why that changed.
The dominant anglo-saxon culture -

sorry I stopped reading at that point.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on July 29, 2021, 06:08:40 PM
Quote from: ulmont on July 29, 2021, 05:54:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 29, 2021, 02:48:46 PM
The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

That was more of a function that Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, with an extension until 1830 for Texas, and the Texans refused to give up their slaves, in favor of rebelling against their rightful government.  This would not be the last time.

That is a perspective...but what sparked the 1835 rebellion was that Santa Anna suspended the constitution and several other Mexican states rose in rebellion in addition to Texas. Calling Santa Anna's government "rightful" is going a bit far.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 29, 2021, 06:10:24 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 29, 2021, 05:46:48 PM

St. Louis County health director says he faced racial slurs, was assaulted at council meeting

QuoteCouncilman Tim Fitch made it a point to emphasize "for the assembled crowd that I was not from this country," Khan wrote. Khan has been a United States citizen since 2012 and has worked in public health for 25 years.

After Fitch's comment - and a social media post Khan saw later that night by Mark McCloskey about mask mandates being "un-American" - Khan said he heard people mocking his accent while he was presenting. He said people in crowd were doing their impersonation of The Simpson's character, Apu.

"While I was presenting my analysis of COVID-19 to the Council, two politicians (Mr. McCloskey and Paul Berry) seated right behind me consistently berated me and tried to distract me from my presentation," Khan wrote in the letter. "When I asked you to intervene to prevent Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Berry from interfering with my presentation, you lectured me – not them."

https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-county-health-director-says-he-faced-racial-slurs-was-assaulted-at-council-meeting/article_0cf3e388-f010-11eb-876b-4b598d4bc352.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR2_N9ARmRAV8vw89FtjnuLljsYAwIH9c4ueK74CBK8l-3HuRBA1wyjCohU (https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-county-health-director-says-he-faced-racial-slurs-was-assaulted-at-council-meeting/article_0cf3e388-f010-11eb-876b-4b598d4bc352.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR2_N9ARmRAV8vw89FtjnuLljsYAwIH9c4ueK74CBK8l-3HuRBA1wyjCohU)

It's getting worse...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 29, 2021, 06:44:38 PM
I must admit that I don't understand the MAGAts' endgame in actions like harassing their county health commissioner through racist behavior.  Do they think that being racist will make non-racists vote for them?  Why would they need to be so openly racist to get the racist voters to vote for them?  Dogwhistles get the racist votes and fool some non-racists.

(MAGAt is my newly-coined term for what I have been calling Trumpeters; a portmanteau of MAGA and idiot that just happens to be pronounced almost the same as "maggot." ).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 30, 2021, 12:51:03 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7j-gAnWEAQVtZl?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on July 30, 2021, 02:15:50 PM
Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on July 30, 2021, 07:01:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2021, 02:15:50 PM
Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

Either you use the generic statement of socialism as being any kind of social spending, in which case the tweet is moronic because those things are already socialist, OR you use the more strict definition of socialism as being not about social spending, but rather about the state having some kind of ownership or control of the means of production, in which case social spending has nothing to do with socialism, and the tweet is moronic.

There isn't a way to interpret that so it isn't stupid.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on July 30, 2021, 07:05:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 30, 2021, 07:01:22 PM
Either you use the generic statement of socialism as being any kind of social spending, in which case the tweet is moronic because those things are already socialist, OR you use the more strict definition of socialism as being not about social spending, but rather about the state having some kind of ownership or control of the means of production, in which case social spending has nothing to do with socialism, and the tweet is moronic.

There isn't a way to interpret that so it isn't stupid.

Wrong. If you use the more strict definition, then you have a reason to not want socialism if you love the health care you are receiving through medicare or medicaid, because nationalizing the healthcare system would upend those systems.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 30, 2021, 07:17:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2021, 02:15:50 PM
Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.
Yeah - of course if you use that definition then the NHS isn't socialist because the NHS basically only runs hospitals (with consultants who have their own private practices) as all GPs are little small businesses paid for and operating in the NHS system.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on July 30, 2021, 07:19:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2021, 07:51:15 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 27, 2021, 10:20:36 PM
Flippant, cheap response, but okay. Waiting for the rich and powerful to do something sounds very much like shrugging to me. That being said, I get the feeling it's your crowd? But maybe you are out there organizing and mobilizing, what do I know?

Organizing what?  Bergen County?  The tri-state area?  The problem doesn't lie there.  You might as well ask why the ordinary citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 failed to convince southern planters of the virtues of abolition. It wasn't for lack of organization,

You know America is federal.  Sure I and others in "my crowd" have volunteered for election protection efforts in Florida and other vulnerable states in the past.  But as you point out in the other thread, the threat now goes well beyond what such measures can remedy.

Because of the nature of my profession, I've spent a decent amount of time in red states.  Since I'd like to think of myself as a persuasive and friendly person, if I had a few days to spend and nowhere else to be, I'd guess I'd have a decent chance of convincing one person to reconsider their views.  But realistically even that would likely be fruitless because the opinions of some northeastern pointy-head stranger aren't going to overcome the entrenched groupthink reinforced by close-by friends, family, and neighbors, all reinforced by an exclusionary sense of cultural identity.  Just look at your earlier post about a father choosing his deranged cult over his own son.  This is a sickness that discourse cannot easily cure.

If I focus on the rich and powerful it is for two very good reasons.  First, that in America money is the fuel that powers all political and cultural phenomena. When the money flows, the movement grows.  Cut if off and it struggles.  Big surprise, it turns out the rich and powerful have just a teensy weensy effect over flows of money.

Second - yes it is true that in my line of work I am more likely to come into regular contact with educated, rich and/or powerful Trump supporters than others.  You work with the material you have to work with.

I think a core issue is there's nothing for us sane people to fight against. People with crazy, irrational beliefs are all but impossible to persuade at scale. We can attempt to out organize them and out fundraise them. Going after corporate donors hard in the paint is probably one of the most time effective ways of directly undermining their funding, but it's only going to have so much impact, and as noted corporate donors often retreat to their old behaviors the moment the spotlight is off of them.

For those opposed to the GOP's current turn frankly our best option is to get our house in order, make sure we don't have shittily run campaigns--take a look at how Bill Nelson ran his reelection campaign or how the Biden campaign in Florida ceded almost the entire playing field in Miami to right wing Spanish language talk radio. These are bad examples of how to run campaigns. Biden's operations in Pennsylvania on the other hand are something we need to see more of, Democratic efforts in the Detroit suburbs, the WOW counties near Milwaukee etc. We basically need to not be own goaling, we need good candidates, and we need to hold on. That's the only real strategy. The hope is we hold onto enough power long enough that enough of this current crop of Republicans has died that this moment passes.

There's actually at least some positives among young Republicans, they often are less likely to hold some of the stupider views out there right now. There's even some positive to the uptick in minority support for the GOP, as that is likely to dampen some of the party's internal white nationalism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on July 30, 2021, 07:20:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2021, 07:17:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2021, 02:15:50 PM
Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.
Yeah - of course if you use that definition then the NHS isn't socialist because the NHS basically only runs hospitals (with consultants who have their own private practices) as all GPs are little small businesses paid for and operating in the NHS system.

No one really uses that definition at all in politics, that's like gibberish academic quibbling. And Elise Stefanik is a well known complete idiot, AR has no real point here.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 30, 2021, 07:45:06 PM
Quote from: ulmont on July 29, 2021, 05:54:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 29, 2021, 02:48:46 PM
The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

That was more of a function that Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, with an extension until 1830 for Texas, and the Texans refused to give up their slaves, in favor of rebelling against their rightful government.  This would not be the last time.
there were tensions between the two communities and many Tejanos, who fought with the Americans for the independance of Texas were forced to flee after the independance, due to increased political pressure against those who stayed, or outright violence. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 30, 2021, 07:48:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 29, 2021, 06:08:40 PM
Quote from: ulmont on July 29, 2021, 05:54:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 29, 2021, 02:48:46 PM
The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

That was more of a function that Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, with an extension until 1830 for Texas, and the Texans refused to give up their slaves, in favor of rebelling against their rightful government.  This would not be the last time.

That is a perspective...but what sparked the 1835 rebellion was that Santa Anna suspended the constitution and several other Mexican states rose in rebellion in addition to Texas. Calling Santa Anna's government "rightful" is going a bit far.
I was referring to the events post 1835.
I agree that the revolution must be examined in a broader context.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 30, 2021, 10:33:05 PM
Quote from: ulmont on July 29, 2021, 05:54:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 29, 2021, 02:48:46 PM
The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

That was more of a function that Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, with an extension until 1830 for Texas, and the Texans refused to give up their slaves, in favor of rebelling against their rightful government.  This would not be the last time.

Texas obviously seceded in 1861 to protect slavery and because of their hatred and fear of abolitionists. How do we know this? Well because they said so. Repeatedly.

I am not sure how you can look at all he events in the 1830s and think it was that simple though, that Mexico said they had to give up their slaves and then they revolted five years later. I mean first of all the immigrants were not permitted to bring slaves into the territory to begin with, it was not like suddenly Mexico demanded they give up there slaves. And there were very few slaves in the territory in 1835 so sure it caused problems. There were stupid pro-slavery uprisings but that all happened prior to 1835. It took a little bit more than that to get the whole territory up in arms. And as you can read in the declaration of independence in 1835 slavery is not directly mentioned (though implied when it mentions "property"...but the reasons for not making a big deal about that are obvious as the slave owners had no legal leg to stand on everybody knew bringing slaves to Texas even before 1829 was illegal, the rest of the territory was not going to rise up to protect illegal slavery) Anyway because I am really really tired of refuting this I will just post this video every time this gets thrown around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWH-DC74Pk

So...it's complex. But to say everybody rose up to enthusiastically protect slavery is just not true...in 1835. I mean it was obviously true in 1861 how you felt about slavery and how you felt about secession was virtually identical.

I don't even really think people are serious. They just like talking shit about Texas because we suck and keep voting for shitty Republicans. But why do people keep moving here though?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on July 30, 2021, 11:46:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2021, 10:33:05 PM
I am not sure how you can look at all he events in the 1830s and think it was that simple though, that Mexico said they had to give up their slaves and then they revolted five years later.

Let's check in on the Texas constution of 1836 and see what they considered constitutionally important:

QuoteSEC. 9. All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.
http://wheretexasbecametexas.org/texas-history/constitution-of-the-republic-of-texas-1836/

...and this is of course independent Texas, so that's straight up the Texas Congress they are forbidding ever freeing the slaves, not some DC body.  And of course, even a will freeing slaves is illegal under this constitution.

...and hilariously I see that at 11:15 of your video the slavery issue does get addressed and they talk about multiple rebellions against a post commander in Galveston for upholding abolition before noting (paraphrased) "and yeah, after this point, Texas was gonna rebel, it was only a matter of time and an excuse."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on July 31, 2021, 04:41:46 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2021, 06:44:38 PM
I must admit that I don't understand the MAGAts' endgame in actions like harassing their county health commissioner through racist behavior.  Do they think that being racist will make non-racists vote for them?  Why would they need to be so openly racist to get the racist voters to vote for them?  Dogwhistles get the racist votes and fool some non-racists.

(MAGAt is my newly-coined term for what I have been calling Trumpeters; a portmanteau of MAGA and idiot that just happens to be pronounced almost the same as "maggot." ).

They don't care about increasing their vote count. They came very close on January 6th without the votes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 31, 2021, 06:11:35 AM
You have a curious definition of "very close".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 31, 2021, 06:22:49 AM
I don't even know what they want anymore.  Their methods aren't unsound, there is no method at all.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: mongers on July 31, 2021, 07:52:10 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 30, 2021, 07:19:20 PM

I think a core issue is there's nothing for us sane people to fight against. People with crazy, irrational beliefs are all but impossible to persuade at scale. We can attempt to out organize them and out fundraise them. Going after corporate donors hard in the paint is probably one of the most time effective ways of directly undermining their funding, but it's only going to have so much impact, and as noted corporate donors often retreat to their old behaviors the moment the spotlight is off of them.

For those opposed to the GOP's current turn frankly our best option is to get our house in order, make sure we don't have shittily run campaigns--take a look at how Bill Nelson ran his reelection campaign or how the Biden campaign in Florida ceded almost the entire playing field in Miami to right wing Spanish language talk radio. These are bad examples of how to run campaigns. Biden's operations in Pennsylvania on the other hand are something we need to see more of, Democratic efforts in the Detroit suburbs, the WOW counties near Milwaukee etc. We basically need to not be own goaling, we need good candidates, and we need to hold on. That's the only real strategy. The hope is we hold onto enough power long enough that enough of this current crop of Republicans has died that this moment passes.

There's actually at least some positives among young Republicans, they often are less likely to hold some of the stupider views out there right now. There's even some positive to the uptick in minority support for the GOP, as that is likely to dampen some of the party's internal white nationalism.

This seems like a practical strategy to counter a Republican party now led by its crazy wing.   
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 31, 2021, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on July 31, 2021, 04:41:46 AM
They don't care about increasing their vote count. They came very close on January 6th without the votes.

:lol:  No, they didn't come anywhere close to anything political on January 6th, no matter how emo some people on either side get about it.  There were a lot of B&Es and a casual murder, but QAnon Shaman was unable to pass a single law.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 31, 2021, 09:11:05 PM
Quote from: ulmont on July 30, 2021, 11:46:24 PM

Let's check in on the Texas constution of 1836 and see what they considered constitutionally important:

QuoteSEC. 9. All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.
http://wheretexasbecametexas.org/texas-history/constitution-of-the-republic-of-texas-1836/

...and this is of course independent Texas, so that's straight up the Texas Congress they are forbidding ever freeing the slaves, not some DC body.  And of course, even a will freeing slaves is illegal under this constitution.

...and hilariously I see that at 11:15 of your video the slavery issue does get addressed and they talk about multiple rebellions against a post commander in Galveston for upholding abolition before noting (paraphrased) "and yeah, after this point, Texas was gonna rebel, it was only a matter of time and an excuse."

I directly mentioned that part in my response so I am not sure why that is "hilarious" to you. But it had nothing to do with what happened at Gonzales, those were other separate issues. It was not even one of the main reasons for revolt as stated in the video. I am not trying to distort or hide anything it is you who refuse to look at the whole picture in order to keep your little narrative going.

As for bringing up the Constitution, why go to stuff after the revolt to get your evidence? If it was so clear cut that should not be necessary. Obviously I never made the point that the Texians were somehow pro-abolition or not pro-slavery. And it was a main goal of the Republic to attract more immigrants as they were very few in number and attracting southerners to bring their slaves was a key objective: hence the part in the Constitution. It only had limited success until after Texas joined the US though, human trafficking of slaves only really got going once annexation occurred to the point that by the 1850 census there were 150,000 free people and 50,000 enslaved people in the state. That is crazy out of balance to what it was back in 1835 or even 1846.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 31, 2021, 10:02:38 PM
Also bringing stuff in from after any war as evidence for what started it is problematic but especially in the case of Texas. Things after both the Revolution and the Civil War were dramatically different from what led up to it. The defeated white Texans after the Civil War were quick to swear up and down once they had lost that slavery was not what caused secession but that holds little water once you see what they were saying in 1860-1861. But their panicked claims that emancipating enslaved people would immediately lead to mass slaughter of white women and children seem kind of silly once that did happen and yet no slaughters occurred. Likewise the reasons that finally brought on the Texas Revolution are not the same as the priorities and focuses of the Republic once the war was won...kind of won anyway. The sudden need to get lots of American Southerners to quickly move into the state to help the Republic achieve its land goals and secure its independence was not something anybody in 1835 was thinking about.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on August 01, 2021, 02:21:51 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2021, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on July 31, 2021, 04:41:46 AM
They don't care about increasing their vote count. They came very close on January 6th without the votes.

:lol:  No, they didn't come anywhere close to anything political on January 6th, no matter how emo some people on either side get about it.  There were a lot of B&Es and a casual murder, but QAnon Shaman was unable to pass a single law.

Your confidence in the rule of law is cute. Nobody gives a shit about your order of succession etc if congressmen start dying. At that point your country is pretty much done for.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on August 01, 2021, 05:36:11 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 01, 2021, 02:21:51 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2021, 08:35:34 PM
:lol:  No, they didn't come anywhere close to anything political on January 6th, no matter how emo some people on either side get about it.  There were a lot of B&Es and a casual murder, but QAnon Shaman was unable to pass a single law.

Your confidence in the rule of law is cute. Nobody gives a shit about your order of succession etc if congressmen start dying. At that point your country is pretty much done for.

Your determination to reach the most emo possible conclusions about US politics is tiresome and overdone.  US Congressmen have died.  Presidents have been assassinated.  And yet, the country was not "pretty much done for" for the previous times that happened, but now you want to emo-argue that this time the US would have been "pretty much done for." 

January 6th was significant because it was organized and directed by the sitting US president, not because those wackos invaded Congress.  It is the violent rejection of the election outcome by the Republican Party that is significant, not that a bunch of violent cosplayers carried out the will of the Republican leaders.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2021, 09:53:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 31, 2021, 09:11:05 PM
I directly mentioned that part in my response so I am not sure why that is "hilarious" to you. But it had nothing to do with what happened at Gonzales, those were other separate issues. It was not even one of the main reasons for revolt as stated in the video. I am not trying to distort or hide anything it is you who refuse to look at the whole picture in order to keep your little narrative going.

As for bringing up the Constitution, why go to stuff after the revolt to get your evidence? If it was so clear cut that should not be necessary. Obviously I never made the point that the Texians were somehow pro-abolition or not pro-slavery. And it was a main goal of the Republic to attract more immigrants as they were very few in number and attracting southerners to bring their slaves was a key objective: hence the part in the Constitution. It only had limited success until after Texas joined the US though, human trafficking of slaves only really got going once annexation occurred to the point that by the 1850 census there were 150,000 free people and 50,000 enslaved people in the state. That is crazy out of balance to what it was back in 1835 or even 1846.

Not to turn it into the Texas thread, but I think the simplest way to put it is slavery was not widely practiced in Mexican Texas because it was illegal to import slaves, and eventually it was illegal to even own slaves. Most Anglos who moved into the territory were not bringing slaves with them, and the Tejanos already living there did not have slaves. The rebellion against Santa Anna's government that ultimately culminated in independence was mostly based on a broad dissatisfaction with the quality of governance of the central Mexican government, and was an alliance of both Anglos and Tejanos.

Like much of politics in the 19th century, the actual politics of independent Texas came to be dominated by the wealthiest landowners. Those people happened to have slaves at a much higher rate than the state as a whole. It is thus not super surprising that the post-Independence constitution reflected their interests. That does not necessarily mean it reflected the interests of the people who were passionate enough about resisting the Mexican government to take up arms. In fact when it came to the Tejanos, many of them were basically dispossessed and driven out of Texas by Anglos after the fact, so they got fucked over in any number of ways.

Calling the Texas war of independence a "slaverowner's revolt" fits a certain narrative but just isn't particularly strong history.

As another aside to your earlier question about why people move to Texas, I actually have always thought the "small government / pro-business policies" screed is fairly non-factual. I think stuff like that can put a bit of a finger on the scale, but it rarely explains broader migration patterns. For most of the 20th century for example California was seen as a land of opportunity, people were moving to the state in droves and massively juiced up its population. California wasn't running some sort of 21st century Texas Republican version of business policies at the time. But California had lots of land, lots of jobs, it was fairly affordable to establish yourself in the suburbs, the weather is damn near perfect, it had a lot of advantages over some of the more established cities in the East.

I think the sunbelt's growth has been driven largely by similar factors, and also we shouldn't underestimate the importance of central air conditioning. All these housing developments that have fueled the population growth in the sunbelt would not be possible without central AC, something that wasn't widely available until the late 1960s/early 1970s. I think the major factors driving Texas's growth, and a lot of this also applies to Florida, are actually things Republicans would be hesitant to mention because it would undermine their absolute belief that government is bad:

1. Relatively good university systems. This produces a lot of graduates to fuel 21st century jobs.
2. Local control of education. The overall school systems K-12 in Texas and Florida aren't very impressive, but because of how local control is structured, the places where people are moving to frequently have near absolute control over their school district, and can insure they are higher quality.
3. Good transportation infrastructure. Not the road systems, which are below average in both Texas and Florida. But more specifically both states have a number of major international airports that are pretty well invested in and maintained, and significant seaport access as well, both of which offer major appeals to businesses.
4. Cheap land. This is actually possibly more important than the other three things combined. Part of the success of these two states is simply that places like California and the New York Metro area are so heavily developed with so much of the best land already occupied, due to generations of build out, that Texas and Florida can offer much cheaper land. This is basically because by more or less every metric Texas and Florida are both poorer and less developed than California or New York, so there is simply more opportunity for easy growth. I should note that in California's case they could actually still have a lot of cheap housing because of how big California is, but they have specific policies in place that massively benefit current single family land owners to the detriment of the entire state. New York (particularly NYC) doesn't have that problem, but the NYC region has been basically the center of economic activity since the 18th century in the United States and is hyper-developed, there's only a finite amount of space in the greater NYC metro and virtually all of it is heavily developed to some degree. Houston and Dallas were are built on mostly void flat plains with easy growth vectors in every direction, and despite having grown rapidly for 30+ years, still have tons of room to grow.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2021, 03:36:09 PM
The most dangerous thing that Trump did was not send an angry violent mob to sack the Capitol, as bad as it was.  Trump himself was too much of a feckless idiot to exploit that situation, although a more clever version of Trump out there might have been taking notes.

The most dangerous thing he did was try and strongarm state election officials into overthrowing election results and backing his coup. It was fortunate that enough of the GOP partisans that occupied those positions still had enough sense of propriety to resist that step.  That can't be counted on to work a second time, as the insurrectionists have spent the last months replacing anyone in those positions who still stands by the Constitution with traitorous lemmings who take orders from the Dear Leader of Mar-a-Lago.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on August 02, 2021, 08:02:35 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 30, 2021, 07:20:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2021, 07:17:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2021, 02:15:50 PM
Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.
Yeah - of course if you use that definition then the NHS isn't socialist because the NHS basically only runs hospitals (with consultants who have their own private practices) as all GPs are little small businesses paid for and operating in the NHS system.

No one really uses that definition at all in politics, that's like gibberish academic quibbling. And Elise Stefanik is a well known complete idiot, AR has no real point here.

I don't really know anything about Elise Stefanik and readily accept she is a complete idiot (or plays one on TV/twitter). But - as far as I can tell the GOP working definition of "socialism" is a "government program they don't like". I don't think I've seen too many republicans complain that public schools, the military, or the fire department is socialism, though they seem more socialist than a $15 dollar minimum wage (which is just a labor regulation).

One of the changes of our post Trump era is the GOP seems to have dropped its hostility to medicare and social security.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 09:11:05 AM
If Medicare is not socialism then Medicare for All is not socialism either.   And Obamacare sure as hell isn't.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on August 02, 2021, 09:19:04 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 09:11:05 AM
If Medicare is not socialism then Medicare for All is not socialism either.   And Obamacare sure as hell isn't.

Exactly.

That is why the tweet was so stupid, not matter how you torture yourself to interpret it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on August 02, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 09:11:05 AM
If Medicare is not socialism then Medicare for All is not socialism either.   And Obamacare sure as hell isn't.

Fine with me. As I said in my first post, Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on August 02, 2021, 12:21:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 09:11:05 AM
If Medicare is not socialism then Medicare for All is not socialism either.   And Obamacare sure as hell isn't.

Fine with me. As I said in my first post, Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

Nope, you are conceding the one side of the coin, while insisting the other is fine.

If medicare and medicaid are not socialist, then neither is medicare for all, and hence the tweet talking about "socialist medical care" make no sense, and is moronic.

Either they are all socialist, or none of them are - either way, the tweet is idiotic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 12:32:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Fine with me. As I said in my first post, Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

But it is self-evident from the tweet that is NOT the definition she is using for socialism, since there are no "health care schemes" Democrats have proposed would involve the "control of the means of health care production" by states.

The schemes that Democrats have proposed or enacted and she has gone on record opposing are Obamacare (Stefanik voted to repeal) and Medicare for All (she opposes).

There is no way these plans can be characterized as socialist and yet Medicare and Medicaid not.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on August 02, 2021, 02:02:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2021, 12:21:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 09:11:05 AM
If Medicare is not socialism then Medicare for All is not socialism either.   And Obamacare sure as hell isn't.

Fine with me. As I said in my first post, Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

Nope, you are conceding the one side of the coin, while insisting the other is fine.

If medicare and medicaid are not socialist, then neither is medicare for all, and hence the tweet talking about "socialist medical care" make no sense, and is moronic.

Either they are all socialist, or none of them are - either way, the tweet is idiotic.

The tweet made no reference to medicare for all. It only said we must reject socialist healthcare schemes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on August 02, 2021, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 12:32:25 PM
But it is self-evident from the tweet that is NOT the definition she is using for socialism, since there are no "health care schemes" Democrats have proposed would involve the "control of the means of health care production" by states.

The schemes that Democrats have proposed or enacted and she has gone on record opposing are Obamacare (Stefanik voted to repeal) and Medicare for All (she opposes).

There is no way these plans can be characterized as socialist and yet Medicare and Medicaid not.

She didn't reference democrats. She only said we must reject socialist healthcare schemes, which whether or not proposed by democrats, do exist.

To my knowledge I've never heard Stefanik speak and I think that tweet is the first thing I've read that she has written. She may be a terrible and vile person, and I readily accept she has said many hypocritical and evil things if you want to assert she has done so. I was only commenting on the logical consistency of her tweet being held up for ridicule.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on August 02, 2021, 02:30:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

It's either that, or concede that he's wrong.  Guess which one he will choose.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on August 02, 2021, 02:57:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2021, 02:30:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

It's either that, or concede that he's wrong.  Guess which one he will choose.

Judging by history, it's not a tough guess.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2021, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

He didn't propose a theory of her true meaning.  He pointed out an interpretation under which the tweet was not inconsistent.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on August 02, 2021, 03:24:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

I have no such theory, and never spoke to her intentions. I simply pointed out that it wasn't necessarily internally inconsistent.

Berkut started off a thread he titled "what the Right gets wrong about economics that annoys the shit out of me...."

Quote
Socialism != social spending.

They are not even remotely the same thing.

What a society chooses to spend on social programs has nothing to do with whether or not they are "socialist". You could spend zero on social spending with a free market driven economy, or you could spend 75% of your GDP on social spending, and neither would be "socialism".

Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2021, 01:30:16 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2021, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2021, 02:22:16 PM
So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

He didn't propose a theory of her true meaning.  He pointed out an interpretation under which the tweet was not inconsistent.

I see that
What I don't see is the point of applying an interpretation that the speaker was not using.

It's possible to interpret the opening of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as a reference to a soccer game from 7 years earlier that ended 4-0 but it would a pretty silly thing to do
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on August 03, 2021, 01:55:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2021, 01:30:16 AM
What I don't see is the point of applying an interpretation that the speaker was not using.

To demonstrate mental agility.  To demonstrate powers of recall.  To take a swipe at Berkut.  To provoke an argument. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 08:35:22 AM
I do appreciate his willingness to own her moronic tweet as his own, and actually try to craft and defend an interpretation that at the end of the day....still doesn't make any damn sense.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on August 03, 2021, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 08:35:22 AM
I do appreciate his willingness to own her moronic tweet as his own, and actually try to craft and defend an interpretation that at the end of the day....still doesn't make any damn sense.

I never "owned" her tweet as my own. I only pointed out that it wasn't contradictory using a definition for socialism that you were using a few weeks ago (quoted above). 

That is as far as I went and it is kind of weird it set off a bunch of people criticizing my original statement on various grounds that weren't there. I think my post was rather self evident and noncontroversial.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 10:14:12 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2021, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 08:35:22 AM
I do appreciate his willingness to own her moronic tweet as his own, and actually try to craft and defend an interpretation that at the end of the day....still doesn't make any damn sense.

I never "owned" her tweet as my own. I only pointed out that it wasn't contradictory using a definition for socialism that you were using a few weeks ago (quoted above). 

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.

Either government funded healthcare is socialism, in which case the healthcare she appears to love is socialism, or it is not, in which case the healthcare boogeyman you are defending is not socialism either.

Funny how dedicated you are to completely and consistently defending right wing talking points, without actually, you know, believing them yourself. It's just an intellectual exercise, of course.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on August 03, 2021, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 10:14:12 AM

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.


So the soviet union or cuba or north korea don't have socialist healthcare under that definition? I'm not an expert in how they were/are organized, but it seems unlikely that no healthcare system has met such a definition.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on August 03, 2021, 10:24:17 AM
The NHS is socialist. I think we can all agree on that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on August 03, 2021, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2021, 10:24:17 AM
The NHS is socialist. I think we can all agree on that.
Except - as I say - GPs are private businesses and consultants consult with the NHS and they work with the NHS, but they also run their own (extremely rewarding) private practices.

The NHS runs hospitals and some out-patient care but that's about it. Because doctors had a huge incentive to not help some new government funded health system that would impact their ability to charge what they want. Nye Bevan who founded the NHS famously said he managed it because he "stuffed their mouths with gold".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 10:31:23 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2021, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 10:14:12 AM

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.


So the soviet union or cuba or north korea don't have socialist healthcare under that definition? I'm not an expert in how they were/are organized, but it seems unlikely that no healthcare system has met such a definition.

They are socialist systems that provide healthcare. Their "healthcare" itself is no more socialist then their road system or the fact that the sun rises in the east in North Korea, so it is a socialist sunrise.

OR you can say they DO have socialist healthcare because social spending IS socialism, in which case medicare and medicaid is socialist healthcare as well.

Pick either definition you want, and the tweet and your rabid defense of it is idiotic.

The organizational structure of the political body does not per se define every activity that happens under it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on August 03, 2021, 10:49:29 AM
Does anyone in this thread have any idea how the healthcare systems in Cuba, North Korea and/ or the Soviet Union works/ worked?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on August 03, 2021, 10:52:03 AM
And since we have confusion concerning "socialism" and elements here do not want to use collective or societal ownership of the means of production as the definition - just what IS socialism?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on August 03, 2021, 10:52:42 AM
In Soviet Union, ER rushed to you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on August 03, 2021, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 10:31:23 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2021, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 10:14:12 AM

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.


So the soviet union or cuba or north korea don't have socialist healthcare under that definition? I'm not an expert in how they were/are organized, but it seems unlikely that no healthcare system has met such a definition.

They are socialist systems that provide healthcare. Their "healthcare" itself is no more socialist then their road system or the fact that the sun rises in the east in North Korea, so it is a socialist sunrise.

OR you can say they DO have socialist healthcare because social spending IS socialism, in which case medicare and medicaid is socialist healthcare as well.

Pick either definition you want, and the tweet and your rabid defense of it is idiotic.

The organizational structure of the political body does not per se define every activity that happens under it.

I think you are an idiot. The tweet referenced "socialist healthcare schemes" that we must reject. You wrote: "Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that."

I suspect that there have been states where the means of production of healthcare were collectively owned--the medical equipment, the hospital building, etc. It is certainly possible to design such a scheme. Such a scheme would be accurately described as socialist based on how the means of production are organized, without regard to social spending.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on August 03, 2021, 11:12:05 AM
Quote from: PDH on August 03, 2021, 10:52:03 AM
And since we have confusion concerning "socialism" and elements here do not want to use collective or societal ownership of the means of production as the definition - just what IS socialism?

If we go Marx it is public ownership of the means of production.

If we go by Louis Blanc it is public spending to try to cure social ills.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on August 03, 2021, 11:16:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2021, 11:12:05 AM
If we go Marx it is public ownership of the means of production.

If we go by Louis Blanc it is public spending to try to cure social ills.
But that also goes to the question of whether socialism is necessarily revolutionary or can be obtained through legal and constitutional means (in certain circumstances). As that point inevitably leads to either fundamental restructure/revolutionary change or amelioration - it's the Erfurt Program issue.

Just for Yi - this is another example of not very useful words :lol: :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on August 03, 2021, 11:27:25 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 03, 2021, 10:49:29 AM
Does anyone in this thread have any idea how the healthcare systems in Cuba, North Korea and/ or the Soviet Union works/ worked?


I know that the Soviet Union had a very robust and well funded mental health system.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on August 03, 2021, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 03, 2021, 11:16:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2021, 11:12:05 AM
If we go Marx it is public ownership of the means of production.

If we go by Louis Blanc it is public spending to try to cure social ills.
But that also goes to the question of whether socialism is necessarily revolutionary or can be obtained through legal and constitutional means (in certain circumstances). As that point inevitably leads to either fundamental restructure/revolutionary change or amelioration - it's the Erfurt Program issue.

Just for Yi - this is another example of not very useful words :lol: :P

Since we are talking about "socialism" not just marxism/communism, we need a broader definition.  Some socialism keeps a market based ideology, others shun it.  Some advocate small scale communal ownership of production, others seek state (or post state once the nirvana is reached) ownership.  As mentioned, some see socialism only coming about due to revolution, others through small incremental steps within a governing system.

The one thing that seems common to all the definitions seems to be that there is some communal/social ownership of production, and even that is suspect a bit as how far down does "production" go?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 12:57:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2021, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 10:31:23 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2021, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 10:14:12 AM

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.


So the soviet union or cuba or north korea don't have socialist healthcare under that definition? I'm not an expert in how they were/are organized, but it seems unlikely that no healthcare system has met such a definition.

They are socialist systems that provide healthcare. Their "healthcare" itself is no more socialist then their road system or the fact that the sun rises in the east in North Korea, so it is a socialist sunrise.

OR you can say they DO have socialist healthcare because social spending IS socialism, in which case medicare and medicaid is socialist healthcare as well.

Pick either definition you want, and the tweet and your rabid defense of it is idiotic.

The organizational structure of the political body does not per se define every activity that happens under it.

I think you are an idiot. The tweet referenced "socialist healthcare schemes" that we must reject. You wrote: "Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that."

I suspect that there have been states where the means of production of healthcare were collectively owned--the medical equipment, the hospital building, etc. It is certainly possible to design such a scheme. Such a scheme would be accurately described as socialist based on how the means of production are organized, without regard to social spending.

Then the US heathcare is already socialist, since plenty of hospitals are publicly owned- Universities, for example, run plenty of hospitals and grounds and medical equipment.

So yeah...try again and tell us how there is some clear distinction between medicare and medicaid as it exists in the US today and these "socialist healthcare systems" you are so terrified about that you feel the need to take up the cause of the idiot wing of the GOP in order to protect us from them.

It is apparently NOT government ownership of hospitals, grounds, and medical equipment, since we already have those things.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on August 03, 2021, 01:08:00 PM
For most of us, our systems are Single Payer and the government is that payer.

It is what I hear when Americans say "socialist healthcare systems" and why they are afraid of it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 01:10:39 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 03, 2021, 01:08:00 PM
For most of us, our systems are Single Payer and the government is that payer.

It is what I hear when Americans say "socialist healthcare systems" and why they are afraid of it.

Yeah, but that doesn't make sense either, at least not in this case, since AR is *contrasting* this "socialist healthcare system" with medicare and medicaid, which today is in fact exactly that single payer system you described.

There is no proposal, real or imagined, in American politics that is different in kind (rather then scale) from the current (apparently) non-socialist socialist healthcare systems.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on August 03, 2021, 03:32:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2021, 12:57:50 PM

Then the US heathcare is already socialist, since plenty of hospitals are publicly owned- Universities, for example, run plenty of hospitals and grounds and medical equipment.

So yeah...try again and tell us how there is some clear distinction between medicare and medicaid as it exists in the US today and these "socialist healthcare systems" you are so terrified about that you feel the need to take up the cause of the idiot wing of the GOP in order to protect us from them.

It is apparently NOT government ownership of hospitals, grounds, and medical equipment, since we already have those things.

I'm not taking up anyone's cause.

Using your previously mentioned framework regarding socialism and the means of production, medicare and medicaid are not socialist. It is conceivable for them to be threatened by "socialist schemes" even if some portion of the healthcare system is socialized.

It isn't only conceivable but while I don't know much about the congresswoman (including how to spell her name, so I won't try) I bet she would say that taking public ownership of private hospitals, grounds, and medical equipment would indeed be a socialist scheme that would undermine US healthcare.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on August 03, 2021, 04:26:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 03, 2021, 10:52:42 AM
In Soviet Union, ER rushed to you.
That's more true than intended.  In Soviet Union ambulances often delivered medical treatment rather than just stabilization and transportation to a hospital.  They could arrive, treat you, and then leave without you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on August 03, 2021, 06:10:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 03, 2021, 10:49:29 AM
Does anyone in this thread have any idea how the healthcare systems in Cuba, North Korea and/ or the Soviet Union works/ worked?
Yes.  Like Quebec did before an infamous Supreme Court ruling.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on August 03, 2021, 09:26:59 PM
What the fuck.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/03/politics/mark-mccloskey-patricia-mccloskey-pardon/index.html
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on August 03, 2021, 10:12:19 PM
Entirely unsurprising. These two quickly realized their own brand of litigiousness, celebration of violence against black people and general assholitude is just what the Republicans value these days. They leveraged it into a spot at the Republican convention (remember that?) and will in all probability replace the Roy « Invisible Man » Blunt.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on August 04, 2021, 06:39:48 AM
These 2 are very shrewd. They turned a mid-week morning mistake into a permanent revenue stream.

It's the american dream at work.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on August 04, 2021, 10:57:09 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 04, 2021, 06:39:48 AM
These 2 are very shrewd. They turned a mid-week morning mistake into a permanent revenue stream.

It's the american dream at work.

At this point it's pretty clear there's a massive industry devoted to generating revenue from "triggering the libs" and virtue signalling the values of white supremacy. I think it's a bit of a low bar to call plugging into an industry fine-tuned to monetize any shred of notoriety shrewd. More like it'd be foolish to leave money on the table, if you don't have any moral compunctions against the right-wing grift circuit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Iormlund on August 05, 2021, 04:10:12 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 04, 2021, 06:39:48 AM
These 2 are very shrewd. They turned a mid-week morning mistake into a permanent revenue stream.

How is pointing a firearm at a crowd - finger on the trigger - a mistake?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on August 05, 2021, 05:51:42 AM
Well, for starter, it shows poor trigger discipline.


(I don't know what you are asking.)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Iormlund on August 05, 2021, 07:38:41 AM
Might be a misunderstanding, but I read your comment as if you thought what they did was a small fuck up.

To me it looks premeditated. They bought the weapons (and clearly not for hunting or practicing at the range) then decided to point them at people. It goes way beyond mistake at that point. A bit like a someone who kills a person while driving drunk.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on August 05, 2021, 07:58:21 AM
No, just driving drunk. If the gun misfired and killed someone it'd be like killing someone driving drunk.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on August 05, 2021, 09:57:58 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 05, 2021, 07:58:21 AM
No, just driving drunk. If the gun misfired and killed someone it'd be like killing someone driving drunk.


You are going to have a hard time arguing that the gun you are pointing at someone, with a finger on the trigger, simply misfired.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on August 05, 2021, 10:03:20 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 05, 2021, 07:38:41 AM
Might be a misunderstanding, but I read your comment as if you thought what they did was a small fuck up.

To me it looks premeditated. They bought the weapons (and clearly not for hunting or practicing at the range) then decided to point them at people. It goes way beyond mistake at that point. A bit like a someone who kills a person while driving drunk.

It was an example of very poor judgement, not a mistake.  If they'd have been black, they'd have been shot dead by the police.  Even as white people, they risked the cops misunderstanding their efforts to "trigger the libs" as an incipient murder, and been taken down in a righteous shoot.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on August 05, 2021, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2021, 09:57:58 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 05, 2021, 07:58:21 AM
No, just driving drunk. If the gun misfired and killed someone it'd be like killing someone driving drunk.


You are going to have a hard time arguing that the gun you are pointing at someone, with a finger on the trigger, simply misfired.

You could drop it and a bullet go off. Obviously, shooting someone would be murder.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on August 05, 2021, 02:52:20 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 05, 2021, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2021, 09:57:58 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 05, 2021, 07:58:21 AM
No, just driving drunk. If the gun misfired and killed someone it'd be like killing someone driving drunk.


You are going to have a hard time arguing that the gun you are pointing at someone, with a finger on the trigger, simply misfired.

You could drop it and a bullet go off. Obviously, shooting someone would be murder.

If you drop it and it goes off, then it's still murder.  It's just not premeditated murder, as pulling the trigger would be.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on August 05, 2021, 04:19:43 PM
If you dropped it you would not longer be holding it with your finger on the trigger.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on August 05, 2021, 04:56:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2021, 04:19:43 PM
If you dropped it you would not longer be holding it with your finger on the trigger.

The leper community frowns on your shenanigans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on August 09, 2021, 12:46:17 AM
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1424553962116718595

QuoteRand Paul today: "It's time for us to resist. They can't arrest all of us .. No one should follow the CDC." He then says he will introduce amendments to defund any govt agency that seeks to enforce CDC guidelines, including schools.

It's a bizarre two minute video.  :wacko:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on August 09, 2021, 12:52:23 AM
In Kentucky you can actually read "might oughta" off a teleprompter.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on August 09, 2021, 03:13:23 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 09, 2021, 12:46:17 AM
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1424553962116718595

QuoteRand Paul today: "It's time for us to resist. They can't arrest all of us .. No one should follow the CDC." He then says he will introduce amendments to defund any govt agency that seeks to enforce CDC guidelines, including schools.

It's a bizarre two minute video.  :wacko:

And that guy is supposed to be a doctor?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on August 09, 2021, 03:20:35 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 09, 2021, 03:13:23 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 09, 2021, 12:46:17 AM
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1424553962116718595

QuoteRand Paul today: "It's time for us to resist. They can't arrest all of us .. No one should follow the CDC." He then says he will introduce amendments to defund any govt agency that seeks to enforce CDC guidelines, including schools.

It's a bizarre two minute video.  :wacko:

And that guy is supposed to be a doctor?

It's America. You can be a doctor and not remember that you weren't admitted to West Point.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on August 09, 2021, 03:22:35 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 09, 2021, 03:13:23 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 09, 2021, 12:46:17 AM
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1424553962116718595

QuoteRand Paul today: "It's time for us to resist. They can't arrest all of us .. No one should follow the CDC." He then says he will introduce amendments to defund any govt agency that seeks to enforce CDC guidelines, including schools.

It's a bizarre two minute video.  :wacko:

And that guy is supposed to be a doctor?

It's complicated, I guess? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rand-paul-ophthalmologist/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on August 09, 2021, 08:57:44 AM
I am curious which CDC guidelines and which ones would actually get me arrested. And do you have to intentionally go against everything the CDC proposes to get your funding? Like if the CDC says the people with the flu should stay home should you intentionally pick up people with the flu and cram them into your offices in order to please Rand Paul?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on August 09, 2021, 10:05:33 AM
The GOP hates America :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on August 09, 2021, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 09, 2021, 10:05:33 AM
The GOP hates America :(

They really like viruses though.  All the Democrats need to do is put up a deadly pathogen for office; the Republicans will do whatever they can to help it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on August 09, 2021, 11:28:48 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 09, 2021, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 09, 2021, 10:05:33 AM
The GOP hates America :(

They really like viruses though.  All the Democrats need to do is put up a deadly pathogen for office; the Republicans will do whatever they can to help it.

The Biden Administration should rename the CDC to the Centers for Disease Contagion, and force the Republicans to vote to double the infrastructure spending in order to double the contagion funding.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on August 09, 2021, 12:26:35 PM
Stop and Frisk is okay but a mass mandate is not?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on August 09, 2021, 12:43:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 09, 2021, 12:26:35 PM
Stop and Frisk is okay but a mass mandate is not?

Because that only affects people who are young, homeless or black.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on August 12, 2021, 11:19:38 AM
I'm not a big fan of Dan Crenshaw and I'm not generally comparing him to McCain. But this reminds me of when McCain had to contradict a birther during the campaign - and we know what happened next:
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1425834466682015746?s=20
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on August 12, 2021, 11:22:59 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 09, 2021, 03:13:23 AM
And that guy is supposed to be a doctor?
Rand Paul's not dumb, he's just crazy.  Lots of smart people are crazy.  Remember that dude in A Beautiful Mind?  Smart, yet crazy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on August 12, 2021, 11:45:41 AM
No, he's just cynical.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on August 12, 2021, 12:00:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2021, 11:45:41 AM
No, he's just cynical.
I thought about saying "he's crazy or just pandering to fools", yeah.  But I really am convinced there is something wrong with him mentally.  Same with Tom Massie, one of our Reps who constantly says and does crazy shit as well.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on August 12, 2021, 12:47:32 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if both Pauls are more than just incidental useful idiots for Russians.  Paulites has been spreading RT propaganda as if it were a gospel long before Russian involvement in US politics became an open secret.  At the very least the Russians may be advising Pauls on how to be more useful and more idiotic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on August 21, 2021, 11:10:22 AM
Mike Lindell admits to hiding GOP official facing FBI probe in a "safe house"[/quote]
(https://www.salon.com/2021/08/20/mike-lindell-admits-to-hiding-gop-official-facing-fbi-probe-in-a-safe-house/)
Quote
Is the GOP Mesa County official hiding in a pillow fort as the FBI revs up their investigation into her actions?

The infamous pillow salesman-turned-2020 election conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell claimed to be harboring a Colorado election official, who is on the FBI's radar for allegedly leaking confidential election information, in a "safe house."

The MyPillow CEO made the admission during a broadcast on his FrankSpeech website Thursday night, claiming that Mesa County clerk Tina Peters was being secretly held somewhere in Texas — that is, until a member of his own cyber team leaked her apparent whereabouts.

The news of Lindell hiding Mesa County clerk Tina Peters comes on the heels of his "cyber symposium" in South Dakota, where Peters gave a speech claiming that her office had been raided.

Vice News reported Thursday that Peters is "accused of helping facilitate a leak of highly sensitive election data," including passwords to confidential systems, stemming from her belief that the 2020 election had been stolen from Donald Trump. Peters didn't return Salon's numerous requests for comment on Friday.

[...]
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on August 21, 2021, 10:42:44 PM
Colorado? Biden won that state by a blowout.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on August 22, 2021, 07:59:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2021, 10:42:44 PM
Colorado? Biden won that state by a blowout.

But, if Colorado's election data can be proven to have been leaked, then it raises doubt abut other states.  And Tina Peters can prove it was leaked, because she leaked it.  That was after the election, but that's beside the point; DATA WAS LEAKED.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on August 26, 2021, 12:28:33 AM
https://wskg.org/news/hearings-in-pas-election-investigation-begin-this-week-senate-president-says/

QuoteHearings In PA's Election 'Investigation' Begin This Week, Senate President Says

HARRISBURG, PA (WSKG) — The top Republican in Pennsylvania's Senate said Monday that hearings will begin this week as he committed to carrying out a "full forensic investigation" of the state's 2020 presidential election.

Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman (R-Centre) said he has communicated with former President Donald Trump, whose baseless claims about election fraud have propelled loyalists to pursue audits, reviews or other examinations of ballots and voting machines in battleground states where Democrat Joe Biden defeated him.

"I think he's comfortable with where we're heading and so we're going to continue that work," Corman said on the conservative Wendy Bell Radio program streamed online Monday.

Amid clashes over how to conduct it and how to pay for it, Corman on Friday removed the rank-and-file state senator, Doug Mastriano (R-Franklin), who had been the figurehead in the push for an Arizona-style audit of Pennsylvania's 2020 presidential election. He then tapped Sen. Cris Dush (R-Cameron) to not only replace Mastriano, but to take his place as chair of the obscure Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee.

Sen. Cris Dush, tapped to replace Sen. Doug Mastriano, will begin holding hearings this week, Corman said. Dush and Mastriano both traveled to Phoenix in June to see the audit there up close.

Corman maintains the Senate's aim is not to turn Trump's defeat into victory, but to "getting to the bottom of everything that went on" and to "find any flaws in the system that could have been exploited."

"We as the oversight body of elections have to ensure that people feel confident that elections were done fairly," Corman said on the radio program. "I don't think, I know they don't feel confident in that now, and we need to provide that stability moving forward and if our work leads to someone else taking that work into a court of law, and changing those results, then so be it."

A special Senate committee already investigated the 2020 election. That effort focused on future contests and did not attempt to prove baseless allegations of voter fraud. After months of work, that body released a report suggesting a litany of election code changes that ultimately were vetoed by Governor Tom Wolf.

Penn State Harrisburg Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Administration Dan Mallinson said the GOP is using support for new election investigations as a tool to attract Trump supporters.

"I think Republicans are trying to figure out how to keep these voters engaged and keep them coming back," Mallinson said. "And so in the short term, the anger about losing the 2020 Election seems like something that may motivate those folks to come out."

That strategy, he said, is worrying not only because it might be unsustainable for Republicans in the long term, but because of how it can undermine the country's democratic underpinnings.

"If that's what you're going to continue to leverage, then you have to continue to leverage grievance and I feel like that just leads to a very dark place," Mallinson continued. "You're no longer debating real policy, but you're trying to fire people up with grievance."

In recent days and months, Trump allies have held up Corman as an obstacle, even drawing Trump's wrath on Twitter in June, saying Corman "is fighting as though he were a Radical Left Democrat." Democrats, meanwhile, say Corman is too cowardly to stand up to right-wing conspiracy theories about the election.

One question Corman's office has been unable to answer is how to pay for an Arizona-style audit without private donations.

Senate GOP officials are concerned about the legality of funding the undertaking with private money, Corman's office said.

But in Arizona, Trump backers reported raising more than $5.7 million for the widely discredited and partisan election audit sponsored by Senate Republicans there.

If Pennsylvania's Senate Republicans need money, they may already have it sitting around: the Republican-controlled Legislature has long sat on reserves of more than $100 million, and the Senate alone last year reported $66 million in its reserve account.

Another question is how an Arizona-style audit will stand up to legal challenges like the one hinted at by Attorney General Josh Shapiro and places like Philadelphia County. Corman seemed to acknowledge them in explaining how the Senate GOP might approach the effort.

"We have to make sure legally we're on the right spot to make sure we can absorb a challenge, which we will get," Corman said.

While Corman and some other Republican senators might avoid repeating Trump's baseless election claims, they continue to perpetuate the idea that Democrats cheated and blame Democrats — not Trump — for sowing doubt in the election.

They routinely distorted the actions of state judges and officials as "unconstitutional" or "illegal" in settling legal disputes and questions over Pennsylvania's fledgling mail-in voting law in the weeks before November's election.

On Monday, Corman repeatedly singled out Gov. Tom Wolf's former top elections official, at one point saying she "didn't allow" observers to see the counting of absentee ballots in Philadelphia.

However, the Trump campaign's own court complaint, witnesses and lawyers acknowledged that its watchers were able to see the processing of mail-in ballots in Philadelphia, which was also livestreamed on video.

The Trump campaign's complaint was that Philadelphia election officials did not allow their watchers close enough to election workers to see writing on the ballot envelopes. There is, however, no such requirement in state law, courts found.

Still, Corman seemed to acknowledge some criticism of how Arizona Senate Republicans had selected contractors.

They selected a cybersecurity firm that had no prior experience in elections, never submitted a formal bid for the work and had an owner who had tweeted support for conspiracy theories claiming Biden's victory was illegitimate.

"We want credibility to what we are doing, and I think it's important that we get people involved that don't have ties to anybody, right? That are professional, that will do the job so that we can stand behind the results," Corman said.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on August 26, 2021, 04:26:01 AM
Struck by that, I think, Alabama rally, where Trump was (lightly) booed for recommending people get the vaccine.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2021, 09:32:52 AM
The irony is that the quick release of effective COVID vaccines is one of the few genuine achievements for which his administration can take some credit
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on August 26, 2021, 11:01:43 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2021, 09:32:52 AM
The irony is that the quick release of effective COVID vaccines is one of the few genuine achievements for which his administration can take some credit

His followers don't want results, they want outrageous promises that are never fulfilled.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on August 30, 2021, 06:39:05 AM
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1432166542683279362

QuoteRon Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski

PA GOP Gov candidate Steve Lynch today: "Forget going into these school boards with freaking data. You go in to these school boards to remove them. I'm going in with 20 strong men and I'm gonna give them an option - they can leave or they can be removed."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on August 30, 2021, 09:55:21 AM
Who are the "they" who can leave or be removed?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on August 30, 2021, 09:58:13 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2021, 09:55:21 AM
Who are the "they" who can leave or be removed?

I mean they are elected officials. I thought he was going to tell likeminded people to mobilize politically but instead I guess illegally disbanding them is this gentleman's strategy.

I mean why not just do that now? You don't have to be governor to do illegal things.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on August 30, 2021, 10:17:46 AM
Oh, so it's "we are going to kick out those non-crazy school board members who don't leave because of harassment from crazy anti-vax and Trumpist types." Got it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on August 30, 2021, 04:55:33 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 30, 2021, 06:39:05 AM
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1432166542683279362

QuoteRon Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski

PA GOP Gov candidate Steve Lynch today: "Forget going into these school boards with freaking data. You go in to these school boards to remove them. I'm going in with 20 strong men and I'm gonna give them an option - they can leave or they can be removed."
The actual video is so much worse - and we talked about fascism in Jake's thread. That is what fascism looks like as far as I can see.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on August 30, 2021, 08:45:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 30, 2021, 04:55:33 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 30, 2021, 06:39:05 AM
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1432166542683279362

QuoteRon Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski

PA GOP Gov candidate Steve Lynch today: "Forget going into these school boards with freaking data. You go in to these school boards to remove them. I'm going in with 20 strong men and I'm gonna give them an option - they can leave or they can be removed."
The actual video is so much worse - and we talked about fascism in Jake's thread. That is what fascism looks like as far as I can see.

Listen to the video without visuals, and imagine he's speaking in Italian, and you'll think that's Mussolini.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on August 30, 2021, 09:23:06 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 30, 2021, 08:45:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 30, 2021, 04:55:33 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 30, 2021, 06:39:05 AM
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1432166542683279362

QuoteRon Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski

PA GOP Gov candidate Steve Lynch today: "Forget going into these school boards with freaking data. You go in to these school boards to remove them. I'm going in with 20 strong men and I'm gonna give them an option - they can leave or they can be removed."
The actual video is so much worse - and we talked about fascism in Jake's thread. That is what fascism looks like as far as I can see.

Listen to the video without visuals, and imagine he's speaking in Italian, and you'll think that's Mussolini.


This should come as no surprise to anyone.

I said this on January 7th. The import of what happened on the 6th is NOT about what happened on the 6th, but where the next step will be once that is tolerated.

This isn't any kind of mystery. It has happened before, and there is no reason at all it cannot happen again, and it is happening right now.

If this yahoo marched into a school board and tried to physically remove board members, the import of THAT won't be nearly as interesting (or terrifying) as the *next* think someone will do once they see that THAT is tolerated.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on August 30, 2021, 09:26:56 PM
I'm beginning to rethink my position on guns...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Neil on August 30, 2021, 10:52:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2021, 09:23:06 PM
I said this on January 7th. The import of what happened on the 6th is NOT about what happened on the 6th, but where the next step will be once that is tolerated.
Is the Capitol Riot being tolerated though?  While there are many fools who try and justify their behaviour, it seems to me that there was a lot of condemnation, and the wheels of law enforcement are grinding them into paste. 

I suppose there's always the risk of escalation, just as there's always the risk of political beliefs becoming more extreme and violent.  But it's hard to see what more could be done. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on August 30, 2021, 11:25:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2021, 10:52:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2021, 09:23:06 PM
I said this on January 7th. The import of what happened on the 6th is NOT about what happened on the 6th, but where the next step will be once that is tolerated.
Is the Capitol Riot being tolerated though?  While there are many fools who try and justify their behaviour, it seems to me that there was a lot of condemnation, and the wheels of law enforcement are grinding them into paste. 

I suppose there's always the risk of escalation, just as there's always the risk of political beliefs becoming more extreme and violent.  But it's hard to see what more could be done. 

It is absolutely being tolerated from the standpoint of the GOP rank and file and the GOP political figures. Indeed, the narrative is now that the 1/6 rioters were heroes.

So we are now seeing the aspiring up and comers taking the rhetoric to the next level.

It's not like 1/6 was the start of this chain - just a step in it. It was triggered by rhetoric from Trump and Guiliani, and that rhetoric built on the last 4 years of the GOP bending itself into pretzels to find anything Trump did as a commendable, no matter how heinous.

And Trump himself was just following the footsteps of hate and bigotry laid down by right wing media for the previous decades.

And what political cost has ANY GOP political figure paid during this entire process for taking that next step? None - not only has there been no cost, it is exactly the opposite. The political cost comes from them *refusing* to take that next step.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on August 31, 2021, 12:05:58 AM
Murdoch and his ilk have a lot to answer for.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Neil on August 31, 2021, 08:09:07 AM
Alright, so I found one of their websites, and it definitely reeks of apologism.  Articles about how the rioters are being treated poorly in prison, which is not something that One America News typically cares about.  Attempts to blame the whole thing on Antifa.  Now, those things aren't unusual, as extremist news will often seek to blame the excesses of their people on provocateurs and decry the consequences of their actions as being too harsh.  But there seems to be significant elements of the congressional delegation (James Comer was named, amoungst others) who think that the entire thing is somehow the fault of Democrats and their handling of Capitol Police. 

That said, traditional Republican bastions like the Wall Street Journal seem to be holding the line and heavily condemning the riot and are calling out the foolishness inherent in the Trump line that Nancy Pelosi is to blame. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on August 31, 2021, 11:26:12 AM
If the WSJ is a bastion...it is akin to the bastion that was Constantinople in 1452.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on August 31, 2021, 11:27:03 AM
Yeah, "traditional Republican" is not very relevant to today's GOP.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on August 31, 2021, 03:52:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2021, 09:26:56 PM
I'm beginning to rethink my position on guns...
there's nothing better than an AR-15 locked in your basement to defend yourself against intruders in your bedroom. :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 01, 2021, 01:19:59 PM
Via Adam Tooze - this is from someone on the left (I think he writes for Jacobin) but I thought this Twitter thread was an interesting theory of what's happened to the GOP:
QuotePaul Heideman
@pmheideman
My article on the GOP's recent evolution is out in the new Catalyst. Short thread:
The GOP has, increasingly, become a party in conflict with American business. January 6 revealed this quite sharply, but it has been evident 2011 or so. How has this happened?
One answer is that it's becoming a working class party. In an updated version of Seymour Martin Lipset's working class authoritarianism thesis, the GOP is becoming a kind of populist mass party of the right, rather than the creature of Capital it has traditionally been.

In this article, I show that there just isn't much basis to this. The GOP is not becoming increasingly working class. Even among working class whites, the GOP doesn't have a clear plurality.
So what has driven the GOP's derangement? I point to two longstanding features of American society that have intensified since the 1970s: weak parties and disorganized capitalists.
It's a dirty secret of American politics that the strength of the two party system coexists with the weakness of the two major parties. The parties themselves can't choose their candidates, most fundraising doesn't go through them, and they have no real platforms.
As a result of this weakness, political money determines what happens in the parties more than any autonomous institutional decision-making by the parties themselves.
This might lead us to expect the parties to be even more subservient to American capital, given that it is obviously the major source of political money. But instead, the opposite has happened.
This is because American capital has become increasingly disorganized since the 1970s. In the 70s, capital organized on a titanic scale to smash the New Deal and make sure the crisis of that decade was resolved on employers' terms.
But once that was accomplished, unified action by capital became less common, and instead, capital's political interventions became far more sectoral and self-interested, rather than classwide.
The article traces this process through the history of the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce, both of which have undergone striking changes since the 70s.

Together party enfeeblement and corporate disorganization opened the way for right wing political entrepreneurs to pull the GOP ever farther to the right. The short-termism of capital was compatible with this. The GOP was happy to throw plenty of slop to the piggies along the way
But at the same time, the cultivation of deeply ideological conservatism in the party meant the emergence of currents who were fairly autonomous from the main bodies of capital.
They didn't listen to the Chamber of Commerce when it told them to knock it off with the government shutdowns. And they're not listening now as the Chamber and others try to get them to ditch the insurrectionism.

If this is the case, we shouldn't expect the GOP to act normal any time soon. The forces responsible for its move to the right are too deeply rooted in American society. Recognizing that fact is going to be necessary for left politics going forwards.

Obviously part of the reason it interested me was I think that does also work (to an extent) in the UK where employers/business is similarly disorganised so ended up in an election with Jeremy Corbyn as one option and Boris Johnson who was pushing for a very bad for business Brexit (and famously said "fuck business") on the other. I don't think either are quite like the January 6th insurrection or moving away from democracy because, being Britain, the scale is always smaller, grubbier and seedier, but the principle's similar.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on September 01, 2021, 06:12:32 PM
Weak parties and confused capitalists are not what is driving this.  They may have failed to control or stop it but that isn't what is motivating Republican rank and file.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Maximus on September 01, 2021, 06:43:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2021, 10:52:04 PM
Is the Capitol Riot being tolerated though?  While there are many fools who try and justify their behaviour, it seems to me that there was a lot of condemnation, and the wheels of law enforcement are grinding them into paste. 

I suppose there's always the risk of escalation, just as there's always the risk of political beliefs becoming more extreme and violent.  But it's hard to see what more could be done.
The mooks on the ground are being prosecuted, but the instigators have seen zero consequences and it's looking unlikely they will at the ballot box either.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on September 01, 2021, 08:11:48 PM
Keven McCarthy is threating any company that complies with congressional subpoena for phone records.  McCarthy seems very, very scared of what might come out of this.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on September 01, 2021, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2021, 06:12:32 PM
Weak parties and confused capitalists are not what is driving this.  They may have failed to control or stop it but that isn't what is motivating Republican rank and file.

It's culture war.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on September 01, 2021, 08:19:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2021, 06:12:32 PM
Weak parties and confused capitalists are not what is driving this.  They may have failed to control or stop it but that isn't what is motivating Republican rank and file.

The argument is, I believe, that because the parties were weak and the capitalists undisciplined, they aided and abetted the culture warriors' take-over of the party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2021, 10:25:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2021, 08:11:48 PM
Keven McCarthy is threating any company that complies with congressional subpoena for phone records.  McCarthy seems very, very scared of what might come out of this.

All the committee has done is sent notices telling companies to preserve (not destroy) records.  Subpoenas, if they are issued, are mandatory.  McCarthy should be censured for obstructing Congressional business, at a minimum - possibly investigated for witness tampering. Given the context was a notice to preserve records, McCarthy's threats against "cooperating" companies could be reasonably inferred as a direction to destroy evidence under threat.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 02, 2021, 04:09:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 01, 2021, 08:19:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2021, 06:12:32 PM
Weak parties and confused capitalists are not what is driving this.  They may have failed to control or stop it but that isn't what is motivating Republican rank and file.

The argument is, I believe, that because the parties were weak and the capitalists undisciplined, they aided and abetted the culture warriors' take-over of the party.
Yeah - I think it's more that the firewalls don't exist. It's not what's driving it - as he says those are deep forces in American society and political entrepreneurs (or grifters). Rather it's

The reason there are regular fights in the UK over control of the Labour Party is that the party is quite strong - so if you want to run or represent the left in this country that runs through the Labour Party. So the central party can more or less dictate candidates, decide who gets funding/support and - if they think a local party branch has problems like getting taken over by extremists to place it in "special measures" where the centre takes over for a while. The weakness of the party structure in the US - and in particular the importance of fundraising means they're pretty vulnerable.

On the capitalist bit - I just think it's striking that the GOP (which was the party of business for decades), despite the importance of fundraising and money is primarily, from what I can see, the party of MyPillow, The Trump Organization and Hobby Lobby. It opens space for people to, as he says, cultivate a deeply ideological conservatism (which is what's driving that) which, given the party weakness, overrides the interests of business etc.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on September 02, 2021, 04:13:52 AM
Marjorie Taylor Greene is not keen either on telecom companies giving their records for the Jan 6th investigation.

QuoteMarjorie Taylor Greene threatened to 'shut down' telecoms companies if they hand over Republicans' phone records to the January 6 commission

The House's January 6 commission asked telecoms companies to preserve Republicans' messages.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed they'd be "shut down" if they handed over data to the commission.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed on Tuesday that any telecommunications company that complies with a request to hand over Republicans' messages to the January 6 commission would be "shut down."

The House committee is investigating the circumstances surrounding the Capitol riot.

On Friday, the group asked social-media companies to turn over records related to the riot. On Monday, it asked 35 social-media and telecommunications companies to "preserve" records from a list of Republicans in Congress, former President Donald Trump, and Trump's family.

Several Republicans described those requests as a form of authoritarian overreach, a theme that dominated Greene's appearance on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Tuesday.

The discussion appeared to react to both requests. Though the committee has not named the members of Congress on the list, sources told CNN that several Republicans including Greene were on it.

Fox News reported that the committee was seeking Greene's phone records, though no telecommunications company has been asked to hand anything over.

"If these telecommunications companies, if they go along with this, they will be shut down. And that's a promise," Greene told Carlson, without elaborating on how that would be achieved.

The ultraconservative Georgia Republican has expressed support for the QAnon conspiracy-theory movement, which had a presence at the January 6 riot. She has also suggested that the pro-Trump rioters were not actually Trump supporters.

On Fox News, Greene said the House committee was on a politically motivated "witch hunt."

"If members of Congress can have their personal cellphone data exposed ... just to hurt us politically in the next election, then we are going into a dangerous place in this country," she said.

She predicted the GOP would retake the majority in the House in the 2022 midterm elections and said it "will take this very serious."

When Carlson suggested that companies that hand over records be shut down, Greene agreed. "We will," she said, without elaborating.

Earlier Tuesday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy issued a statement heavily criticizing the committee's demands as moves toward a "surveillance state" that violated federal law.

McCarthy did not immediately respond to Insider's request for information about which law the committee was breaking. He has resisted the committee's makeup, saying in July that the GOP would launch its own investigation into the riot.

The committee, whose members were selected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has long been a source of contention between the parties. In May, Republicans in the Senate filibustered a proposal for an equally weighted, bicameral commission that would have allowed each party to name its members.

Pelosi pushed ahead with a select committee, which Republicans have criticized as overly political. She rejected two of McCarthy's picks — Reps. Jim Jordan and Jim Banks — on the grounds that they had voted against certifying the results of the 2020 election.

McCarthy then withdrew all five of his nominees, effectively withdrawing much of the GOP support for the effort.

Fox News and Greene did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on September 02, 2021, 08:34:51 AM
I am not sure I don't agree with her.

I mean, she is obviously a total POS, but I don't think Congress should be in the business of snooping on each other cell phone messages without there being a pretty overwhelming argument that there has been a clear crime committed within those records themselves.

We know for a fact that if those records are turned over, they will be leaked.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on September 02, 2021, 11:16:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2021, 08:34:51 AM
I am not sure I don't agree with her.

I mean, she is obviously a total POS, but I don't think Congress should be in the business of snooping on each other cell phone messages without there being a pretty overwhelming argument that there has been a clear crime committed within those records themselves.

We know for a fact that if those records are turned over, they will be leaked.

Presumably, as with all other such disclosures, there is a mechanism in place to identify only relevant communications.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on September 02, 2021, 11:59:41 AM
Is there precedent here?

Are there other cases where Congress has subpoenaed the private messages of other congress members?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on September 02, 2021, 12:31:13 PM
Are there any precedents of Congress members conspiring with insurrectionists?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on September 02, 2021, 12:41:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2021, 12:31:13 PM
Are there any precedents of Congress members conspiring with insurrectionists?
Well, yeah, but that was before cell phones.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 02, 2021, 12:47:50 PM
I agree with Berk.

Plus it feels like you should consider what will happen with a power/precedent if it was in your opponents' hands. We know that the GOP would use this immediately and repeatedly once they're back in control and just end up focusing on the most inconsequential but awkward messages.

It's a bit like the confusion on the right with Texas. We're very concerned with cancel culture. Unrelatedly, great news - you can get around constitutional protections if you ban things you don't like but leave enforcement to vigilante litigation by activists.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on September 02, 2021, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2021, 12:31:13 PM
Are there any precedents of Congress members conspiring with insurrectionists?

Probably, but you are putting the cart before the horse. The subpoena of cell records would be to determine if such a conspiracy happened, so assuming that it has happened is not how warrants and subpoenas work.

And like I said, I have zero doubt that the moment you do this, those messages are going to be leaked, whether they are legally material or not.

And once you get to look at one group of politicians private messages as long as you can get the votes to do so, then that means that ALL such messages are going to be subpoenaed.

Politicians have to be able to actually do their jobs. That means they ahve to be able to have private discussions they can reasonabley assume are not going to be public domain.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 01:38:04 PM
The instruction was to preserve the records, right? Not to bring them all to Congress?

I see the issue, for sure. But on the other hand, we're also dealing with a situation where one party has members calling for open insurrection, is massively undermining the ability to vote, is pushing through unconstitutional law with the help of a compliant supreme court, and is actively undermining trust in the democratic system.

Like... I agree that it's potentially a big issue... but is there anything that can be done to push back effectively? I know it's not a compelling argument to say "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it".

What's the best strategy? Hope that Covid kills propotionally more GOP voters than Dems in key states to overcome the gerrymandering and voter supression laws being put in place to disenfranchise non GOP voters? Hope that next time the GOP win they'll be less likely to attempt a coup?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on September 02, 2021, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2021, 11:59:41 AM
Is there precedent here?

Are there other cases where Congress has subpoenaed the private messages of other congress members?

Obtaining disclosure of email is a routine piece of litigation since about when emails started being used.  So yes, lots of precedent and lots of procedural protections built into the process.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 02, 2021, 02:37:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 01:38:04 PM
Like... I agree that it's potentially a big issue... but is there anything that can be done to push back effectively? I know it's not a compelling argument to say "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it".

What's the best strategy? Hope that Covid kills propotionally more GOP voters than Dems in key states to overcome the gerrymandering and voter supression laws being put in place to disenfranchise non GOP voters? Hope that next time the GOP win they'll be less likely to attempt a coup?
Expand democratic rights/entrench the VRA even if that means getting rid of the filibuster and organise politically to beat the GOP especially at the local level. And on a national level don't just strengthen the VRA - pass loads of legislation (that people want). Prove that the state can act and that you can get things done - because voters don't give a shit if you did nothing in a bipartisan way because you couldn't get Mitt Romney onside (I really hope Democrats have learned that from 2008-2010).

And, I'd say, know the opponent you're facing. This isn't just Trump or some thing that's happening on the fringes - this is what the GOP is now (and will be until they lose utterly). I actually quite like a bunch of stuff that Biden's done but I think temperamentally he's probably about the worst person to try that approach though and I doubt it will happen :lol:

I think the only way to stop this happening again is political. I don't know if it's possible and I don't know if it's enough to arrest the GOP shift to anti-democratic and minoritarian politics, but I think that's the only way.

I don't think there's going to be some piece of knowledge or fact or evidence that is going to change things and I think that was a big thing on the liberal-left/"resistance" in the US during the Trump years - "this will finally catch him/turn voters off him" etc.

I sort of feel like this is in a similar mindset and it's the same as the, in my view, nonsense argument that you should hold off on impeachment until you can gather evidence etc. None of that would have made any difference whatsoever.

Edit: But the honest full answer is - I don't know. I've no idea how you turn GOP from the path it's on or stop this from happening again.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on September 02, 2021, 03:39:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2021, 11:59:41 AM
Is there precedent here?

Are there other cases where Congress has subpoenaed the private messages of other congress members?


I don't know.  Congress can investigate individual members of Congress for ethics violations.  It would make sense that they would be able to subpoena documents in the course of such investigation.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 03:50:16 PM
The thing that's unprecedented is attempting to hold individual members of the GOP accountable for their actions.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on September 02, 2021, 03:56:46 PM
Maybe it's good/bad/unusual, maybe it isn't. Finer points of law and governance appear to be fading from the stage at this point, seeing how the US is in a state of crisis. The question now is: is US nationbuilding in America more successful than in Afghanistan?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on September 02, 2021, 04:44:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 03:50:16 PM
The thing that's unprecedented is attempting to hold individual members of the GOP accountable for their actions.

There are many things unprecedented in this thing, but holding individual members accountable is not one of them.  Congress has expelled members of Congress before.  Several were expelled during the Civil War.  Of course, we haven't had a civil war recently...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2021, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 01:38:04 PM
The instruction was to preserve the records, right? Not to bring them all to Congress?

Correct.  They've only been asked to preserve records. Which puts the threats in a rather sinister light.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2021, 05:14:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2021, 11:59:41 AM
Is there precedent here?

Are there other cases where Congress has subpoenaed the private messages of other congress members?

Legally it comes down to the scope of the Speech and Debate Clause, and whether the members' conversations with Trump were "legislative acts"

Closest precedent is Gravel v. United States - Senator Gravel's aide was forced to testify about the circumstances under which the Senator's office acquired copies of the Pentagon Papers.  In US v. Helstoski, a sitting US Congressman was indicated for bribery; the Court ruled that evidence of legislative acts - bill introductions, votes, etc. - could not be be introduced into evidence, but that declarations of intentions about future legislative actions could be.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2021, 05:25:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2021, 01:31:49 PM
Politicians have to be able to actually do their jobs. That means they ahve to be able to have private discussions they can reasonabley assume are not going to be public domain.

That's a good point and I also agree with sheilbh's concerns over factions of Congress issuing harassing subpoenas to one another the moment they get 50.1% voting power. We can probably guess what the GOP would do with such precedent, although it's not like they need precedent to misbehave.

The other side of this coin is that executive oversight is a core Congressional function.  These communications are not of interest because they include members of Congress, they are of interest because they include Trump.  This problem has arose because certain members put themselves in questionable positions as to the President, going well beyond political support and carrying legislative water.  What Trump was hearing from people in Congress that day and what he was telling them is of  great relevance  to an inquiry of great significance.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on September 02, 2021, 05:50:36 PM
I'm sure the GOP is going to pull all kinds of bullshit with this the moment they control the House, whether or not the Democrats get access in this case. It's not like they've demonstrated any kind of respect for precedence or the rule of law recently.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on September 02, 2021, 05:53:35 PM
If the GOP wins the House in '22, I will be impressed if Biden is not impeached at least three times.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 02, 2021, 08:09:03 PM
Lots of reports that Trump is planning to announce his election campaign and do a trip to Iowa shortly - so we've got that to look forward to for the next three years :bleeding:

Incidentally on abortion I slightly wonder if the Texas law (which Florida Republicans have announced they plan to copy) and SCOTUS generally may now become liabilities for the GOP. I think polling has always shown quite strong 60%+ opposition to this type of law, running on being pro-life when it can't happen and it's mainly a tool to get out the base is great. Having to defend this actual law with real consequence might not be. Similarly I feel like Republicans ran on the Warren/Burger court being radical activists and pushing too far for decades - I feel Democrats may be able to do the same (of course the first thing that should happen is any liberal judge over 75 should retire now) if this court keeps going (and I think Roberts can see that). Of course the downside of that is that it has taken the GOP 40 years of erosion to achieve their goals - it may take 40 years for Democrats to undo them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on September 02, 2021, 08:36:07 PM
Undo what?  Which have been the country changing pro Republican court decisions?  Maybe Citizens United?  I don't see that much to undo.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2021, 09:26:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 02, 2021, 08:36:07 PM
Undo what?  Which have been the country changing pro Republican court decisions?  Maybe Citizens United?  I don't see that much to undo.

Shelby County v Holder (VRA case) is looking very significant now.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Neil on September 02, 2021, 09:42:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2021, 08:09:03 PM
Lots of reports that Trump is planning to announce his election campaign and do a trip to Iowa shortly - so we've got that to look forward to for the next three years :bleeding:

Incidentally on abortion I slightly wonder if the Texas law (which Florida Republicans have announced they plan to copy) and SCOTUS generally may now become liabilities for the GOP. I think polling has always shown quite strong 60%+ opposition to this type of law, running on being pro-life when it can't happen and it's mainly a tool to get out the base is great. Having to defend this actual law with real consequence might not be. Similarly I feel like Republicans ran on the Warren/Burger court being radical activists and pushing too far for decades - I feel Democrats may be able to do the same (of course the first thing that should happen is any liberal judge over 75 should retire now) if this court keeps going (and I think Roberts can see that). Of course the downside of that is that it has taken the GOP 40 years of erosion to achieve their goals - it may take 40 years for Democrats to undo them.
Can't the Democrats just pack the court?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 03, 2021, 04:12:47 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 02, 2021, 08:36:07 PM
Undo what?  Which have been the country changing pro Republican court decisions?  Maybe Citizens United?  I don't see that much to undo.
Well that's why I said if this court keeps going :P

Comey Barrett's only been on the court for for 11 months, but I think there are indicators they will probably substantially overturn Roe. I think the VRA case MM mentioned is important too. We'll see what else comes down the courts for them to rule on - but I think if you're a conservative donor, or campaign group now is the time to start funding those perhaps slightly speculative cases.

Of course if Breyer doesn't resign in the next few years then there is a not insignificant risk that the court could get even more conservative.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on September 03, 2021, 04:17:14 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2021, 08:09:03 PM
Lots of reports that Trump is planning to announce his election campaign and do a trip to Iowa shortly - so we've got that to look forward to for the next three years :bleeding:

This would be a good thing no?
We've seen the limits of the Trump vote. And that was before the attempted coup.
The Republicans becoming even more firmly smeared with the Trump label will really provide a bit of a push back to all those moderate conservatives who loaned their vote to Biden in November.

I guess though this is the problem with fighting the abortion nonsense, packing the court, etc... it'll provide a counter push to those people....but failure to do this could reduce turnout with the left. :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on September 03, 2021, 05:07:01 AM
If it is Trump vs. Harris in '24, I think Trump will win it.

Harris has been an almost non-entity so far (I know, most VPs are), and where she has, not very impressive.  And VPs don't have a good POTUS electoral track record as it is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on September 03, 2021, 05:31:37 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 03, 2021, 04:17:14 AM
This would be a good thing no?
We've seen the limits of the Trump vote. And that was before the attempted coup.
The Republicans becoming even more firmly smeared with the Trump label will really provide a bit of a push back to all those moderate conservatives who loaned their vote to Biden in November.

I guess though this is the problem with fighting the abortion nonsense, packing the court, etc... it'll provide a counter push to those people....but failure to do this could reduce turnout with the left. :hmm:
I could see GOP state legislators overturning the results of elections in swing states to throw the election to their candidate (skeptical that Trump will be alive in 24). This would either result in autocracy or civil war.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on September 03, 2021, 05:40:46 AM
I think autocracy is very unlikely in the US. It's certainly not impossible, but I don't see a credible candidate among the current Republicans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 03, 2021, 05:52:28 AM
Incidentally on the "weak parties" theory there was an article somewhere about the huge success Trumpists are having in getting elected to all sorts of low-level positions across the GOP all over the country. They're the sort of posts that don't attract many people but have a say over board appointments, GOP poll workers etc. Thousands of them have been elected across the country.

Their big thing is that the election was stolen and they need to stop it from happening again.

This has been promoted as an idea by Steve Bannon on all sorts of outlets for the right. Basically he says one of the problems Trump faced was that the party wasn't really with him so they needed to take it over from the bottom up.

Of course - on the left we know this as entryism and it can be a big problem and very difficult to get rid of these people once they're in.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on September 03, 2021, 06:48:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 03, 2021, 05:40:46 AM
I think autocracy is very unlikely in the US. It's certainly not impossible, but I don't see a credible candidate among the current Republicans.
I find it hard to imagine that a Democrat will receive certified electoral votes from any state with a republican controlled legislature in 2024.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on September 03, 2021, 06:52:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 03, 2021, 06:48:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 03, 2021, 05:40:46 AM
I think autocracy is very unlikely in the US. It's certainly not impossible, but I don't see a credible candidate among the current Republicans.
I find it hard to imagine that a Democrat will receive certified electoral votes from any state with a republican controlled legislature in 2024.

And I find it hard to imagine that anyone in the current crop of US politicians has it in him/her to achieve absolute power. IMHO a basic authoritarian regime is a lot more likely than autocracy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on September 03, 2021, 07:57:02 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 03, 2021, 06:48:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 03, 2021, 05:40:46 AM
I think autocracy is very unlikely in the US. It's certainly not impossible, but I don't see a credible candidate among the current Republicans.
I find it hard to imagine that a Democrat will receive certified electoral votes from any state with a republican controlled legislature in 2024.

If they only run people like that they'll lose a bunch of state legislatures.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Neil on September 03, 2021, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 03, 2021, 05:07:01 AM
If it is Trump vs. Harris in '24, I think Trump will win it.

Harris has been an almost non-entity so far (I know, most VPs are), and where she has, not very impressive.  And VPs don't have a good POTUS electoral track record as it is.
It can't be Harris though, can it?  She was an absolute disaster in the last election, despite enormous institutional and media support.  They really tried to make her happen, and she had less traction than a fringe guy like Yang.  The only way she gets to be the nominee is if Biden dies in office, and even then who knows? 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on September 03, 2021, 09:47:18 AM
Maybe it'll be Bernie. :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on September 03, 2021, 10:20:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 03, 2021, 09:47:18 AM
Maybe it'll be Bernie. :P

:lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on September 03, 2021, 11:21:02 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2021, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 03, 2021, 05:07:01 AM
If it is Trump vs. Harris in '24, I think Trump will win it.

Harris has been an almost non-entity so far (I know, most VPs are), and where she has, not very impressive.  And VPs don't have a good POTUS electoral track record as it is.
It can't be Harris though, can it?  She was an absolute disaster in the last election, despite enormous institutional and media support.  They really tried to make her happen, and she had less traction than a fringe guy like Yang.  The only way she gets to be the nominee is if Biden dies in office, and even then who knows?

I agree, but of course as VP, she'll have the institutional initiative (and my hypothesis was in the case that Biden simply chooses not to run for a second term), and I don't see any other clear, prospective opponent, other than the ever persistant Bernie.  And a Sanders/Trump race would be a geriatric disaster.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on September 04, 2021, 05:20:33 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 03, 2021, 10:20:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 03, 2021, 09:47:18 AM
Maybe it'll be Bernie. :P

:lol:

I mean, there has to be a Bernie vs. Trump bossfight at some point.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on September 15, 2021, 08:03:44 AM
Oooh, what a star studded event.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_U9GOrXEAc00aE?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on September 15, 2021, 11:11:22 AM
"National Symposium on Patriotic Education".

Nope, doesn't have a Riefenstahlian tinge at all.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on September 17, 2021, 11:36:02 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_gArcDXIAEEl1P?format=jpg&name=small)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_gArcCXMAQC1ML?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on September 17, 2021, 11:38:44 AM
Has Fort Sumter been put on alert?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2021, 11:43:56 AM
Well there was a silent revolution by which Joe Biden and the Democrats took over.  It's called an "election"
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on September 17, 2021, 11:47:57 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2021, 11:38:44 AM
Has Fort Sumter been put on alert?

The National Park Service will only permit attackers between 9am-5pm.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on September 17, 2021, 01:00:50 PM
We can joke about this, and it is absurdly funny, but this is the rhetoric that led to Jan 6th, and that was just the start.

They have created a narrative where if you accept the premise, it is actually quite reasonably to resort to violence when you lose an "election".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 17, 2021, 01:25:14 PM
Yeah - I think it goes way before 6 January and it is worth looking back at various bits of right-wing/conservative discourse around a number of issues and asking "what were they giving themselves permission to do?" (comes up a lot on the Know Your Enemies podcast) because I don't it all inevitably leads to this moment. But the sort of tools to get here have been dropped along the way.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on September 17, 2021, 01:32:46 PM
And these aren't random schlubs but highly placed officials. Not a good development.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on September 17, 2021, 02:08:53 PM
I'm long beyond mocking the gaslighting by the right-wingers.  It's not exactly hard to find flaws in their arguments; what no one seems to have figured out is making any of it matter.  They're whipping themselves into a frenzy that leads to a bloody coup, and giggling at it doesn't seem like an adequate response.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on September 17, 2021, 02:29:24 PM
Yeah, I saw a thing a few days ago about how Trumpists (i.e. coup enablers, people peddling Trump's big lie) are being pushed as candidates for state level positions where they can potentially overturn state level elections. Meanwhile, as shown, senior leaders continue building and pushing the narrative that it's the Democrats who are "cheating" and attempting a coup.

And Murdoch media is aiding, abetting, and amplyfying the message.

It is, IMO, a clear and present danger to the republic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on September 17, 2021, 02:39:03 PM
There was a time - centuries ago it seems! - when I thought that democracy was very resilient in America. Turned out that democracy in the US was hollow. Feet filled with clay. Alas!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on September 17, 2021, 03:17:28 PM
A bunch of Virginia Republicans came out in favor of Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia governor's race, almost immediately after Donald Trump slurped on Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin's cock.  Trump isn't popular in Virginia (he lost in the presidential election by double digits in 2020) and even the traditional Republican loyalists are treating him like poison.  The Youngkin campaign seems to be counting on getting a higher turnout of a smaller support base to win.  Turnout is typically around 45% for the off-year Virginia elections.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on September 17, 2021, 03:18:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2021, 02:39:03 PM
There was a time - centuries ago it seems! - when I thought that democracy was very resilient in America.

You and me, both.  I continue to be baffled by the extent to which people eagerly believe fairy tales that directly harm them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on September 17, 2021, 04:20:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 17, 2021, 01:00:50 PM
We can joke about this, and it is absurdly funny, but this is the rhetoric that led to Jan 6th, and that was just the start.

They have created a narrative where if you accept the premise, it is actually quite reasonably to resort to violence when you lose an "election".

The rhetoric got nasty back in the 1990's and the result was the Oklahoma city bombing.  After the bombing Republicans stepped back, and decided to cool things down a bit.  They passed an anti-terrorism bill and started shuffling some of the crazier people to the back.  The militia movement pretty much fell apart and we didn't have those standoffs with federal law enforcement. I'm not saying it all stopped, but there was a decrease in this sort of behavior. When Trump lost, I figured someone would do something stupid like Oklahoma city.  Jan 6th certainly fit the bill.  For about two weeks it looked like they were stepping back.  Now they are endorsing the people who attacked the Capitol.  After this I don't know what happens.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Neil on September 17, 2021, 06:37:55 PM
Unfortunately, there's no real way to rein them in when they can bypass the media and take their insanity directly to the people.  The difference between now and the revisionist movements of the Twentieth century is that the popular media was out of their reach were largely out of their reach and that factional difficulties kept them from coordinating.  I'm thinking of groups like the hippies or the militia movement.  They had a national ideological media source that they were able to grow strong on, and when they radicalized past the point where even Fox was willing to go, the existence of the Internet allowed for them to radicalize people directly.  And they most definitely have their Dear Leader. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 17, 2021, 06:41:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2021, 04:20:34 PM
The rhetoric got nasty back in the 1990's and the result was the Oklahoma city bombing.  After the bombing Republicans stepped back, and decided to cool things down a bit.  They passed an anti-terrorism bill and started shuffling some of the crazier people to the back.  The militia movement pretty much fell apart and we didn't have those standoffs with federal law enforcement. I'm not saying it all stopped, but there was a decrease in this sort of behavior. When Trump lost, I figured someone would do something stupid like Oklahoma city.  Jan 6th certainly fit the bill.  For about two weeks it looked like they were stepping back.  Now they are endorsing the people who attacked the Capitol.  After this I don't know what happens.
I think there are links around them.

But ultimately as long as Trump is involved he will never back down - he is psychologically incapable of appearing "weak" or "losing". Everything has to be a win or a victory - or he has been cheated and as long as his fans are behind him that's going to drive the GOP. I think expecting anything else at the moment is like the futile hope that the Presidency would change him which I never understood.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on September 17, 2021, 08:31:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 17, 2021, 06:41:53 PM

I think there are links around them.



I don't know what this means.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on September 18, 2021, 01:20:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2021, 03:17:28 PM
A bunch of Virginia Republicans came out in favor of Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia governor's race, almost immediately after Donald Trump slurped on Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin's cock.  Trump isn't popular in Virginia (he lost in the presidential election by double digits in 2020) and even the traditional Republican loyalists are treating him like poison.  The Youngkin campaign seems to be counting on getting a higher turnout of a smaller support base to win.  Turnout is typically around 45% for the off-year Virginia elections.

So I guess Virginia won't be joining the Confederacy this time around?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 18, 2021, 08:43:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2021, 08:31:38 PM
I don't know what this means.
I think all of the points you raised around Oklahoma and the present are sort of linked.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on September 18, 2021, 11:28:14 AM
This ad by Gov. Kemp (GA) is ... interesting.  :wacko:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1439254679880339463?s=20
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on September 18, 2021, 11:29:47 AM
And Marjorie Taylor Greene: https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1439225130811539457?s=20
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on September 18, 2021, 12:32:52 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 18, 2021, 11:28:14 AM
This ad by Gov. Kemp (GA) is ... interesting.  :wacko:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1439254679880339463?s=20

QuoteHmm...this page doesn't exist. Try searching for something else.

deleted, apparently.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on September 18, 2021, 02:03:57 PM
I can see why, it was the 2018 ad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/other/brian-kemp-so-conservative--campaign-2018/2018/07/25/46743c34-903c-11e8-ae59-01880eac5f1d_video.html
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on September 23, 2021, 06:46:59 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/5tzS5yYs/Screenshot-2021-09-23-134232.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qbZxx47/Screenshot-2021-09-23-134434.png)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on September 23, 2021, 06:54:40 AM
I pity the intern who had to get those memes printed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2021, 07:30:47 AM
At least now we know why she's off her lithium.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2021, 07:35:55 AM
Afghanistan's lithium production is zero BTW.  They have some deposits that have never been developed, probably never will be. 

The largest lithium producer in the world by a very wide margin is Australia - the country Biden just signed an accord with.  Of the remaining 4 of the top 5, 3 of them are located in South America and are friendly to the US. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on September 23, 2021, 02:42:27 PM
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/458805-diaz-review-vaccine-mandates/

QuoteManny Diaz wants to 'review' existing non-COVID-19 vaccine mandates

Diaz opposes vaccine mandates, but supports private business decisions on them.

Florida's ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to be a major focus during the 2022 Legislative Session for Sen. Manny Diaz, the top Republican shaping health care policy in the upper chamber.

His work could include revisiting existing vaccine requirements long in place in schools, a response to the debate about whether COVID-19 vaccines should also be required.

Diaz, who came down with COVID-19 last winter, said he wants to review the state's vaccination efforts as well as Gov. Ron DeSantis' work on getting monoclonal antibody treatments to those who test positive for COVID-19.

The Senator, who acknowledges he hasn't gotten a COVID-19 vaccine, says he's firmly against vaccine mandates. At the urging of the Governor, the Legislature earlier this year passed a bill that would prevent private businesses from requiring proof of vaccination from their customers. But the bill did not ban employers from requiring their employees to be vaccinated.

Unlike some of his Republican colleagues, Diaz said he does not endorse blocking private employers from requiring vaccines.

It  "gets more complicated," Diaz said of striking the balance between individuals' and employers' rights.

Republicans opposed to so-called "vaccine passports" have faced criticism, particularly as it relates to schools where current law already requires a bevy of vaccinations. Under current law, only parents who cite religious or health reasons can have their children exempted from the vaccination requirements.

Diaz said it may be time to "review" those mandates, in place for such illnesses as mumps and measles. But he said there was a difference between long-tested vaccines and the new COVID-19 vaccine.

"I think there's a distinction when you have something that is proven to work and doesn't have any side effects," Diaz said.

The Senate Health Policy Committee will do more than focus on COVID-19, however. Diaz, who works for Doral College, said the committee will take up a telehealth — also known as telemedicine — bill during the 2022 Session. Telehealth was relied on heavily during the pandemic as physicians tried to limit in-person visits to help curb the spread of COVID-19.

Physician lobbyists pushed lawmakers earlier this year to update the state's telehealth laws. Though there were several bills in play, none of them ultimately passed. The bills would have altered existing telehealth law to include more flexibility, such as allowing physicians to prescribe controlled substances to existing patients for treating chronic, non-malignant pain.

Diaz also said it's possible his panel could spend time on scope-of-practice items, but he was less certain about whether or not the committee would again address the so-called "eyeball wars," the name given to the long-standing battle between ophthalmologists and optometrists.

Diaz last year sponsored a bill that would have expanded health care procedures optometrists could perform, including allowing them to perform certain types of surgeries and expand the types of medications they could prescribe.

The bill, which ophthalmologists opposed, cleared Diaz's committee 6-3 before stalling.

Diaz said he did not want to take up something if its passage was far from certain. He said it could be considered if there was a "sweet spot" where "folks are comfortable" with the approach.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on September 25, 2021, 08:02:04 AM
https://boebert.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-lauren-boebert-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-joe-biden-and

QuoteSeptember 24, 2021
Press Release
Today, Rep. Lauren Boebert upheld her oath to defend the Constitution of the United States by solemnly introducing articles of impeachment against Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.


Rep. Lauren Boebert stated: "Joe Biden willfully abandoned his duty as President of the United States and violated his constitutional oath to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' by failing to ensure the national security of the United States and its citizens. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris handed over billions of dollars of American-made weapons to the very scum of the earth that we spent $2 trillion fighting.  The Biden regime is not being held accountable. There have been no resignations, no indictments, no investigations, no congressional oversight, no outcry from the mainstream media, and no apologies—so I'm stepping up to hold Biden and Harris accountable by filing articles of impeachment for giving aid and comfort to America's enemies and colluding with the Taliban.


"And let me be clear, Vice President Harris is complicit in all of this.  She can't hide as the incompetent Border czar, and she can't hide from her moral and legal duty to remove Joe Biden via the 25th Amendment due to his clear inability to 'discharge the powers and duties of his office.' Biden is supposed to be the commander-in-chief, but he forgot the name of the Pentagon, the Department of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense. His indecision, incompetence, and mental failings cost American lives, and Kamala had a duty to step up and remove Biden from office. She failed, and now 13 American servicemembers are dead.  One way or another, Kamala needs to be impeached for her failure to step up and stop this avoidable catastrophe."


Congressman Jody Hice said: "The President of the United States willingly abandoned American citizens behind enemy lines, and his incompetence and miscalculations contributed to the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers. As if that were not enough, he deserted thousands of Afghan allies to be slaughtered. Furthermore, as the Taliban strengthens their hold over Afghanistan, they'll be doing it with American military equipment thanks to Joe Biden. Afghanistan is well on its way to becoming a terrorist super state that will threaten the region, the world, and the American homeland for years to come, and the responsibility falls entirely on President Biden's shoulders. He has been woefully derelict in his most basic duties as President and he has proven himself incapable of leading our nation. He must be removed from office as quickly as possible."


Background:


Joe Biden's collusion with the Afghan President to lie to the American people is a betrayal of public trust. Biden conspired with the Afghan President to "whether it is true or not...project a different picture" to "change perception."


Joe Biden colluded with the Taliban, and he gave them a list of Americans being held in Afghanistan. Biden then failed to protect the people he exposed, and he failed to evacuate hundreds of Americans.


Finally, Biden hastily ordered a drone strike that tragically killed 10 civilians, including 7 children.


Throughout the Afghanistan withdrawal, Joe Biden demonstrated that he was not capable of executing his duties as president. Instead of leading the country, he took an extended vacation at Camp David. From the beginning of his administration, Biden has hidden the truth about his cognitive ability, and he refused to take a cognitive test like President Trump did.


Kamala Harris has a duty under the 25th Amendment to recognize Biden's cognitive decline and address whether he is capable of leading our country. She violated her oath of office by allowing Biden to remain in office even when he is clearly fumbling through basic functions, and his inability to execute the duties of his office fumbled America's withdrawal from Afghanistan.


Rep. Boebert has continually worked to hold the Biden administration accountable, and in June, she joined 23 of her colleagues in introducing a censure resolution against Joe Biden for his dereliction of duty in allowing the invasion on the southern border to go unchecked.


Reps. Andy Biggs, Jeff Duncan, Ralph Norman, Louie Gohmert, and Jody Hice co-sponsored Rep. Boebert's articles of impeachment against Joe Biden, and Rep. Ralph Norman also co-sponsored Rep. Boebert's articles of impeachment against Kamala Harris.


Rep. Boebert's articles of impeachment against Joe Biden are available here, and her articles of impeachment against Kamala Harris are available here.


Articles of impeachment against Biden: https://boebert.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/boebert.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/BOEBER_201_xml.pdf

Articles of impeachment against Harris: https://boebert.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/boebert.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/BOEBER_201_xml.pdf
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on September 29, 2021, 10:40:45 AM
Republican party voter base definitely getting healthier and healthier guys:

Quotehttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/25/tucker-carlson-fox-news-anti-defamation-league
After the Anti-Defamation League renewed its call for Tucker Carlson to be fired from Fox News for voicing the racist "great replacement" theory about immigration, the primetime host had a pithy response: "Fuck them."

Carlson was speaking to the former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly on Sirius XM. He made the comments in question on his show on Wednesday, which averages more than 3 million viewers a night.

Claiming the Biden administration was trying "to change the racial mix of the country", Carlson said: "In political terms, this policy is called 'the great replacement', the replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from far-away countries.

This theory and related conspiracies have been floating around far-right wing terrorist groups since the 1980s/90s. Entering mainstream republican voter consciousness and media is, uh, not good.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on September 29, 2021, 10:48:50 AM
I don't understand the more obedient part, that's new. I thougt the problem was that they are all criminals we should be afraid of.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on September 29, 2021, 10:52:47 AM
I got no problem with replacing ignorant, racist lunatics with immigrants.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on September 29, 2021, 11:45:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2021, 10:48:50 AM
I don't understand the more obedient part, that's new. I thougt the problem was that they are all criminals we should be afraid of.

It's both, sometimes alternativing sometimes at the same time, depending on the need of the narrative. The enemy is obedient to foreign masters when it's useful to cast doubt on their patriotism and bonafides as citizens. They're wild unruly criminals when it is important to justify harsh measures against them and when you want your base to feel personally threatened.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on September 29, 2021, 11:51:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2021, 10:48:50 AM
I don't understand the more obedient part, that's new. I thougt the problem was that they are all criminals we should be afraid of.
I have a theory that may explain some of it:  bigots sometimes suffer from cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on September 29, 2021, 12:09:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2021, 10:48:50 AM
I don't understand the more obedient part, that's new. I thougt the problem was that they are all criminals we should be afraid of.
they also steal your jobs while receiving welfare.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on September 29, 2021, 12:56:04 PM
Ah, Republicans and money! :P
Quote
On Monday, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell applauded Ford for giving an economic boost to Kentucky, saying it solidified his home state's position "as a world-class automotive state on the cutting edge of research and development." McConnell sounded a different theme two months earlier, when he took to the Senate floor to blast Democrats for wanting to "wage war on fossil fuels" and tried to turn their efforts to promote electric vehicles into a wedge issue.
Full text (https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3216221/green-energy-takes-hold-unlikely-places-ford-project)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on September 29, 2021, 01:31:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2021, 10:48:50 AM
I don't understand the more obedient part, that's new. I thougt the problem was that they are all criminals we should be afraid of.

He means "controlled by Jews".

Carson has been doing his "Just asking questions" routine for a while.  He put his toe in the water with "why is diversity good?  Nobody can answer that question", and now we are up to this.  Pretty soon he'll test the waters by "Why do we believe races are equal?".

The situation is bad...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on October 02, 2021, 04:41:16 PM
Rudy Guiliani says he got election fraud evidence from social media (https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-guiliani-says-he-got-election-fraud-evidence-from-facebook-2021-10?utm_source=reddit.com)

Quote
Rudy Giuliani admitted under oath that his "evidence" of voter fraud in the 2020 election came partly from social media and that he did not interview or fact-check his sources, reports say.

Donald Trump's former personal lawyer made the comments in a deposition on August 14 in relation to a defamation lawsuit brought by a former Dominion Voting Systems employee, Eric Coomer, first published by The Colorado Sun.

Coomer is suing the Trump campaign and others for promoting baseless conspiracy theories that he helped "rig" the election for Joe Biden.

In the deposition, Giuliani admitted that he got some of his information about Coomer's alleged role in the election fraud from his social media posts but couldn't be sure if it was Facebook or another platform.

"Those social media posts get all one to me," Giuliani said.

When questioned about whether he saw any other evidence linking Coomer with election fraud, he responded, "Right now, I can't recall anything else that I laid eyes on."

The conspiracy theories about Coomer were sparked by accusations made by right-wing podcast host Joe Oltmann.

Oltmann claimed to have infiltrated an Antifa conference call in which someone who identified themselves as "Eric from Dominion" boasted about preventing Trump from winning the election, The New York Times reported. Oltmann offered no proof of his claims.

The podcast host then found Eric Coomer's Facebook profile, on which he supposedly had written anti-Trump messages.

Giuliani and other Trump allies seized upon Oltmann's allegations, repeating them in a now-infamous November 19 press conference.

" One of the Smartmatic patent holders, Eric Coomer, I believe his name is, is on the web as being recorded in a conversation with ANTIFA members saying that he had the election rigged for Mr. Biden," Giuliani said.

But according to court papers filed by Coomer's lawyers, Giuliani spent "virtually no time" investigating the claims.

The filings said that Giuliani did not speak to Oltmann about the claims and did not reach out to Coomer or Dominion about them.

Giuliani said he was too busy when asked why he repeated Oltmann's accusations without verifying them.

"It's not my job in a fast-moving case to go out and investigate every piece of evidence that's given to me," Giuliani said in the deposition, reported by MSNBC.

"Why wouldn't I believe him? I would have to have been a terrible lawyer... gee, let's go find out it's untrue. I didn't have the time to do that."

After being named by Giuliani and lawyer Sidney Powell in the November press conference, Coomer briefly went into hiding.

Trump and his allies have continued to promote baseless conspiracy theories that the 2020 presidential election was rigged.

The Justice Department has said it found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the election, and dozens of lawsuits challenging the results of the 2020 election have failed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on October 02, 2021, 06:24:37 PM
Perry Mason wept.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on October 02, 2021, 09:04:50 PM
What a guy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on October 07, 2021, 08:51:33 AM
America can be so weird, sometimes...

Citing liberty, Idaho Lt. Gov. McGeachin bans vaccine mandates in power grab (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/idaho-lt-gov-mcgeachin-bans-vaccine-mandates-in-power-grab/)

Quote
Gov. Brad Little will reverse all McGeachin's actions when he gets back to state.

Idaho Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin grabbed the reins Tuesday by banning COVID-19 vaccination "passports" and mandatory COVID-19 testing in the state while Gov. Brad Little was away on travel. She also sought information on deploying the National Guard to the Texas border.

Gov. Little was, in fact, in Texas on Tuesday, meeting with nine other Republican governors regarding the Biden administration's handling of border issues.

"I am in Texas performing my duties as the duly elected Governor of Idaho, and I have not authorized the Lt. Governor to act on my behalf," Little said in a statement late Tuesday. "I will be rescinding and reversing any actions taken by the Lt. Governor when I return."

This isn't the first time Lt. Gov. McGeachin (also a Republican) has tried to seize power while the governor stepped away from the state. In May, she issued an executive order banning mask mandates while Little attended a conference in Nashville. Little rescinded the order the next day upon his return, saying local officials should have the power to make mask policy decisions.

That didn't stop McGeachin from trying to assert her authority again this Tuesday. "Today, as Acting Governor, I fixed Gov. Little's Executive Order on 'vaccine passports' to make sure that K-12 schools and universities cannot require vaccinations OR require mandatory testing," she declared in a tweet. "I will continue to fight for your individual Liberty!"

Reaching
Idaho is currently seeing one of the highest COVID-19 case rates in the country. Though the delta-fueled surge is beginning to subside in some Southern states, Idaho's case rate is still climbing. Hospitalizations and deaths are at record highs. The state's health department activated crisis standards of care statewide on September 16 as hospitals were buckling under the weight of COVID-19 cases.

James P. Souza, chief physician executive for Idaho's St. Luke's Health System, provided a grim report about the state of hospitals and patient care late last month. "For the people who say 'we all die sometime:' Yes we do," Souza said. "But these people didn't need to die now, and they didn't need to die like this."

Cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have only increased since then. Meanwhile, only 42 percent of the state is fully vaccinated.

Gov. Little is expected to return this evening and reverse McGeachin's bans soon after.

As for deploying the National Guard, Maj. Gen. Michael Garshak responded to McGeachin's information request, writing, according to the Associated Press: "I am unaware of any request for Idaho National Guard assistance under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) from Texas or Arizona... As you are aware, the Idaho National Guard is not a law enforcement agency."
Little took particular offense to the deployment inquiry by McGeachin, who is running for his position.

"Attempting to deploy our National Guard for political grandstanding is an affront to the Idaho constitution and insults the men and women who have dedicated their life to serving our state and the country," the governor said in his statement.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on October 07, 2021, 09:23:20 AM
I mean it is Idaho.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on October 07, 2021, 09:30:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2021, 09:23:20 AM
I mean it is Idaho.

Its the governor fighting with the lt. governor over the votes of the other 6 people in the state.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on October 07, 2021, 11:54:08 AM
We have similar bullshit in Missouri.  The Lt governor takes over when the governor is indisposed.  Unfortunately that includes leaving the state.  If the governor and the Lt. governor are from different parties then the governor can't leave the state.  It's a very stupid arrangement.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on October 07, 2021, 01:15:06 PM
Silly rule for an era with telephones.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on October 07, 2021, 07:35:03 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 07, 2021, 01:15:06 PM
Silly rule for an era with telephones.
yeah.  the US President remains President when he is abroad.  I don't see why it would be different for a Governor.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on October 25, 2021, 05:45:27 AM
If I could access the original Rolling Stone article I would post that, but it is paywalled.

EDIT: All of these representations should be expelled from congress and hanged.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jan-6-protest-organizers-met-065512586.html

Quote
Jan. 6 protest organizers say they met with GOP representatives such as Paul Gosar, Madison Cawthorn, and Lauren Boebert ahead of Capitol insurrection: report
Matthew Loh

Mon, October 25, 2021, 3:55 PM·

Two Jan. 6 protest organizers told Rolling Stone that they met with more than "a dozen" GOP representatives.

They say they met with several members of Congress including Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, and Madison Cawthorn.

It's unclear what exactly they discussed when meeting the representatives, but three of those named have previously been credited for helping plan a Jan. 6 rally.

Two pro-Trump rally organizers who planned election protests across the US, including demonstrations in Washington DC on January 6, said they regularly met with GOP representatives or their top staff in the weeks leading up to the event of the Capitol attack.

In an exclusive interview published by Rolling Stone on Sunday, the organizers said they allegedly spoke to "a dozen" representatives or their teams, naming Rep. Paul Gosar and Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, and Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama.

"We would talk to Boebert's team, Cawthorn's team, Gosar's team like back to back to back to back," said one of the organizers.

"I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically," the same organizer also said. The names of both sources have been kept secret because they are cooperating with the House select committee's probe into the Capitol insurrection, per Rolling Stone.

They said they were willing to share information on the protests because they were upset that their demonstrations had turned into a siege on the US Capitol.

It's unclear what was discussed with each representative, but the organizers gave Rolling Stone an example with Gosar, saying he offered them the possibility of receiving a "blanket pardon" to motivate them to plan the rallies.

Three of these representatives - Biggs, Brooks, and Gosar - were previously credited by "Stop the Steal" movement organizer Ali Alexander for helping plan a rally on that day, which Brooks and Biggs denied.

In response to the anonymous organizers' claims, a spokesperson for Greene told Rolling Stone that the representative "had nothing to do with planning of any protest." Instead, Greene was preparing to dispute current President Joe Biden's election victory on the House floor, wrote the spokesperson in an email.

"She objected just like Democrats who have objected to Republican presidential victories over the years," he wrote, per Rolling Stone.

The offices of Greene, Gosar, Biggs, Brooks, Boebert, Cawthorn, and Gohmert did not immediately respond to Insider's requests for comment.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on October 25, 2021, 09:30:09 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 07, 2021, 01:15:06 PM
Silly rule for an era with telephones.


The state constitution was written in 1949
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on October 25, 2021, 10:59:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2021, 09:30:09 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 07, 2021, 01:15:06 PM
Silly rule for an era with telephones.


The state constitution was written in 1949
I'm pretty sure the telephone was invented back in 1949. ;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on October 26, 2021, 05:19:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 25, 2021, 05:45:27 AM
If I could access the original Rolling Stone article I would post that, but it is paywalled.

EDIT: All of these representations should be expelled from congress and hanged.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jan-6-protest-organizers-met-065512586.html

Nothing will happen. GOP will take majorities in both houses in midterms because IMMIGRANTS FLOOD THE BORDER.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on October 28, 2021, 12:36:57 PM
I think this is a broadly fair piece on what's going on in the American right in the think-tank/academy/writer level - and I've said it before (like the thread on "common good constitutionalism") but there's some concerning stuff percolating:
QuoteHow the American Right Fell in Love With Hungary
Some U.S. conservatives are taking a cue from Prime Minister Viktor Orban — how to use the power of the state to win the culture wars.
By Elisabeth Zerofsky
    Oct. 19, 2021

For one week this summer, Fox News beamed the face of Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary into the homes of Tucker Carlson's 3.2 million viewers. In a two-tiered library adorned with dark wood and the Hungarian flag, Carlson sat across from the prime minister in Budapest with an expression of intense concentration, though he evinced little familiarity with the internal affairs of Hungary. The trip was hastily arranged after Orban agreed to the interview: Carlson dined at the prime minister's office the evening before the broadcast, and earlier in the week, he was taken in a military helicopter to a tightly controlled area along the country's southern border, generally off limits to journalists, in the presence of a Hungarian minister. There, Hungary became the idealized backdrop for Carlson's habitual preoccupations: Thanks to a barbed-wire fence, Hungary's border area was "perfectly clean and orderly," free of the "trash" and "chaos" that mark other borders of the world. Consequently, "There weren't scenes of human suffering." He did not bring up the fact that civic groups have repeatedly taken the Hungarian government to court for denying food to families held in immigration detention centers.

Carlson's trip to Hungary was prompted, in part, by a text message from Rod Dreher, a conservative writer. Dreher, who spent the spring and summer there on a fellowship and helped Carlson secure the interview with Orban, understands, as the activist Christopher F. Rufo recently observed, that Carlson doesn't report the news for American conservatives; he creates it. Bringing Carlson to Budapest was meant to persuade Americans to pay attention to Orban's Hungary. The effort appeared to be successful: The following week, several Republican senators told Insider, an online news publication, that Carlson's broadcasts from Budapest had given them a favorable opinion of Orban. In September, Jeff Sessions, the former U.S. attorney general, went to Budapest for a panel discussion on immigration, and Mike Pence traveled there to address a meeting on family and demographic decline, with Orban in the audience. Next year, the Conservative Political Action Conference, an influential annual gathering of conservatives in America, will be held in Budapest.

Dreher doesn't speak in Carlson's terms, and has sought to distance himself from Carlson's vigorous endorsement of the "great replacement" conspiracy theory, which holds that Democrats are replacing white Americans with nonwhite immigrants in order to increase their vote tallies. But Dreher believes, as do many in his circle of right-wing intellectuals, that high levels of immigration threaten the "stability and cultural continuity of the nation." He frequently points to the French, to the anger and isolation in their immigrant-populated banlieues, and argues that immigrants have a responsibility to adopt their new country's culture and often decline to do so. He has even suggested that Orban's restrictions on immigration have kept the number of anti-Semitic incidents in Hungary to a minimum. (While the number of reported incidents is indeed low, Dreher's analysis belies Orban's tendency to play to both sides; he has forged a close relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu while demonizing the Jewish liberal benefactor George Soros with anti-Semitic dog whistles at home.) Dreher believes Orban was right to refuse to take in Syrian refugees in 2015. "If you could wind back the clock 50 years, and show the French, the Belgian and the German people what mass immigration from the Muslim world would do to their countries by 2021, they never, ever would have accepted it," Dreher wrote in his influential blog for The American Conservative. "The Hungarians are learning from their example."

Dreher's motivations nonetheless differ somewhat from Carlson's. In his daily blog posts, Dreher writes mainly against what he refers to as "wokeness" — ideas about racial justice and gender identity that he believes lead Americans to hate America and children to reject their parents. After Carlson's visit, Dreher wrote that he admires Orban because he "is willing to take the hard stances necessary to keep his country from losing its collective mind under assault by woke loonies." When I asked him what he was hoping to learn during his sabbatical in Budapest, Dreher told me that he wanted to observe "to what extent politics can be a bulwark against cultural disintegration." Having seen how ineffectual the Republican Party has been, he told me, "I'm wondering, Can it be done somewhere else, and what is the cost, and is the cost worth it?" He didn't want to force his view on others, he said. But such passivity, he felt, was becoming self-defeating. The turn toward illiberal democracy — a state that rejects pluralism in favor of a narrow set of values — seemed imminent to him. "I realize that we're at a point now where we have such cultural disintegration in the U.S. that the choice might actually be between an illiberal democracy of the left or an illiberal democracy of the right," Dreher told me. "And if that's true, then I want to understand as fully as I possibly can what the implications are."

Dreher arrived in Budapest this spring as the city was emerging from a harrowing stretch of the pandemic. I found him across from the splendidly columned National Museum in a coffee shop where he had quickly become a regular, which offered, in addition to espresso, a bike-repair service and a carefully curated selection of Hungarian wines, the bottles affixed playfully to the walls.

Dreher, 54, is gregarious and personable, traits that he has translated into his posts, in which he intersperses commentary with long quotations from whatever he's reading at the moment. In a white-tipped beard, thick owlish glasses and a light blue flannel button-down over a black T-shirt imprinted with the Medal of Saint Benedict, he looked like an aging hipster. He addressed the barista in a booming Louisiana drawl. As foreigners, we didn't have documentation to sit inside; the Hungarian government responded to a steep rise in the Covid death toll the previous month with an aggressive vaccination campaign and vaccination registry that provided citizens with an immunity card granting permission to dine indoors. So we took our coffees to the garden apartment across the street that had been provided to Dreher. It had elegantly arched ceilings and white slipcovered chairs. Several Christian icons leaned against the fireplace mantle, and on a drying rack in one corner white dress shirts alternated with floral printed button-downs.

Dreher's host for four months was the Danube Institute, a think tank run by John O'Sullivan, a genteel British Thatcherite in his 70s who developed a fondness for Budapest during a long career as a journalist. The institute is financed, indirectly, by the Hungarian government. Nonetheless, Dreher told me that he was entirely free to do as he pleased. "I don't think Viktor Orban is any kind of saint," he told me. He did, at times, write critically of Orban's government. In July, press accounts revealed that the Hungarian government had infected the mobile phones of investigative journalists and political opponents with spyware to track their communications. Dreher condemned the behavior, writing that it "confirmed the worst authoritarian stereotypes" about Hungary. He also criticized Orban's announcement that he would welcome the construction of a giant Chinese-funded university in Budapest, worrying that it would be an inroad for spies.

Still, the institute is meant to serve as a conduit between Central Europe and the English-speaking world, and the visitors' program is part of a broader effort by Orban to capitalize on the outsize interest that his Hungarian-style "illiberal democracy" has prompted. He is inviting, at an increasing pace, important conservative thinkers and politicians to Budapest and encouraging them to learn about Hungary, while profiting from the attention that they bring with them. Budapest is to be the "intellectual home," as he put it, of 21st-century conservatism. Dreher accepted partly on the basis of his most recent book, "Live Not by Lies," which was based on conversations with Eastern and Central Europeans who'd lived under communism. In it, Dreher argues that leftist identity politics in America is bringing about a cultural revolution, in which the punishments for transgressors echo those of Soviet totalitarianism.

The problem of how to stem this perceived cultural revolution has been roiling the Republican Party. At a conference outside Washington in July titled "The Future of the American Political Economy," attended by dozens of young conservatives, a panel devoted to the ideal role of the state devolved into an uproarious brawl. A few party members argued, as they have for decades, that all government is bad. In response, Julius Krein, the 35-year-old editor of the heterodox right-wing magazine American Affairs, countered with some rough statistics: Conservatives compose a minimal percentage of Silicon Valley; their influence is declining in the corporate world; and they are all but absent from mainstream media, academia and Hollywood. But with nearly half of Congress and possibly more government control in the future, conservative cultural power would come from the state.

On the question of whether politics can serve as a "bulwark" against cultural "disintegration," Orban had given Dreher much to think about. Orban is the politician he wishes Trump could have been: In 2018, just after re-election, Orban's government defunded gender-studies programs at universities (then offered by only two colleges in Hungary). "A few years ago, I would have said, No, the government cannot get involved in the freedom of universities,"' Dreher said. But now, "having seen how incredibly destructive these sorts of programs have been to American society," he went on, "and how extremely intolerant people who support them are when they're in power, I'm much more sympathetic." As Dreher saw it, studying gender theory, which holds that gender is a social construction, led not to the consideration of ideas, but to enforced dogmas that had taken over one institution after another. This year, the U.S. Embassy to the Vatican had flown, for the first time, a rainbow flag during pride month; recently, some Jesuits had come down in favor of referring to God as "they." Dreher cited a story he'd just read about a university chaplain in Britain who told students it was OK to question new L.G.B.T.Q. policies at the school; the college reported him to the country's antiterrorism unit for radicalization. In his blog, Dreher often cites examples of what he considers an egregious practice, like in Oregon, where 15-year-olds can be treated with puberty-suppressing drugs or cross-sex hormones without parental permission (the age of medical consent in Oregon is 15), and then extrapolates to half the country: "This is where the Left wants to take all of us," Dreher wrote in his blog this summer. "Don't believe them when they say otherwise." As an Orthodox Christian, he believes that this "gender ideology" denies "Christian anthropology" and "shatters the authority" of the Bible.

What's more, he maintains, in America those who raise objections to such measures are vulnerable to persecution. "If you resist, you get targeted by a multibillion-dollar industrial complex that has the full support of the U.S. government, high and low culture, the legal establishment, the courts, etc.," he continued. The Republican Party "seems to exist mainly to ratify whatever the Democrats were advocating about five years ago." The handful of recent court decisions that favor conservatives have offered little comfort amid a profound societal transformation. In this light, Orban's latest legal move — restricting the exposure of children under 18 to books or other materials that "promote" homosexuality or transgenderism — was nothing short of heroic, even if the European Union declared it would sue Hungary for violating anti-discrimination statutes. As Dreher wrote: "This is what an actual pro-family, socially conservative government acts like."


Dreher didn't seem to be concerned about the violent potential of stigmatization. I told Dreher about Hungarian friends of mine who were helping immigrants and had been subject to lurid harassment by right-wing groups as "traitors" to the nation. In some instances, red stickers were plastered onto buildings by the youth wing of Orban's party, labeling them as an "organization helping migrants." One such house had been marked with a yellow star in 1944. "I find that appalling," Dreher said. "But it's hard for the American left to see how similar things are happening in America, not from the state, but from activists and institutions." We were in the airy sitting room of the Danube Institute apartment, and Dreher took off his glasses, leaned forward and rubbed his eyes. This was why he had clung to classical liberalism, he said; he didn't even believe in it as a philosophy, and yet here he was depending on it. "It's an ironic and maybe even tragic position to be in," he said. "If not for the First Amendment, then it's all about power. And all the power in America now is against people like me."

For American conservatives, the appeal of Orban lies not so much in the details of his laws or policies as in his tactics and his advocacy, at least publicly, for Christianity. He invokes regularly, if vaguely, the "Christian values" of Europe. Hungary is predominantly Catholic, though Orban himself is not, and it isn't incidental that many of the American conservatives most interested in Orban's government are themselves part of an increasingly muscular Catholic wing of postliberal conservatives.

Dreher, who converted to Catholicism at 26 but left after the church's sex abuse scandals and became Eastern Orthodox, derives much of his following from his 2017 book, "The Benedict Option," in which he argued that religious conservatives today should take inspiration from the monastic practices that preserved Christian communities through centuries of persecution and conquest. Dreher's work influenced, among many others, the Notre Dame political philosopher Patrick Deneen. In his book "Why Liberalism Failed," Deneen also argued that the antidote to the disenchantments of modern liberal society was to be found in the closeness and custom of local communities. Surprisingly explosive for a book of political theory, "Why Liberalism Failed" spawned enough reviews to form a subgenre of its own. It was described as an "electrifying book of cultural criticism " in The Week, and Deneen was called a "Jeremiah" in The Times. Dreher declared it "the most important political book of the year," and it has been central in the creation of a postliberal politics. Though published in 2018, it was largely written before Trump's election, an event that seemed to suggest new possibilities: Rather than retreat from society, it might be possible to actually reshape it, with the help of Catholic thought.

I first met Deneen in South Bend, Ind., last winter, where he lives close to the seminary-like Notre Dame campus in a neighborhood of exemplary Midwestern demureness. Amy Coney Barrett lived nearby until recently, as did Pete Buttigieg. Each left for Washington, where, before coming to South Bend, Deneen held a tenured position at Georgetown. "I left D.C. to get out of the political universe of America," he said. "And here I am."

At a time when many, left and right, are pointing to the failures of liberalism and neoliberalism, Deneen suggested to me that Catholicism was becoming the religion of the intelligentsia. The president, the speaker of the House and six of the nine Supreme Court justices are Catholic (a seventh was raised Catholic), along with a number of prominent writers, many of them converts. "It's a tradition that gives you the resources," Deneen said, "for how to think outside of liberal categories."

In "Why Liberalism Failed," Deneen argues that liberalism, understood as the continuous expansion of individual rights, is not, as its champions insist, humankind's natural destiny but rather an ideology of its own. In its quest to liberate the individual, it has turned the things that traditionally constitute the self — family, community, religion — into arbitrary impositions from which we seek to be freed. People, especially Americans, pick up and move, leave their families and neglect to form new ones, eroding the local networks and customs that regulate economic relationships. A new aristocracy, whose members believe they've earned everything they have and therefore feel no obligation to anyone else, has created a society that claims to be all about freedom but in which most people feel little control over their lives. Liberalism, Deneen insists, will bring about its own undoing.

"The book was written out of a sense of why I'm politically homeless," Deneen told me. "Sort of 'a pox on both your houses.'" Catholics, he said, are often left-wing on economic issues and right-wing on social issues. "And you tell me: Which party now represents that position?" He went on: "But that's really where the debate within conservatism is right now. What do we make of the way that market capitalism arguably undermines those things that we otherwise say that we value: family, and stability, and generational continuity, and memory?" Some of the most important economic thinkers on the right today say that liberalism's knee-jerk reliance on the supposed wisdom of markets has caused conservatives to betray their moral principles. Karl Marx is name-dropped frequently. "Marx was brilliant in the passages where he talks about capitalism being a solvent that erases everything," Deneen said. "For a conservative, that ought to be concerning."

Deneen's book "has definitely garnered a lot of interest among younger conservatives," says Oren Cass, the founder and executive director of American Compass, a think tank devoted to reforming market economics on the right. Free markets might have been good policy in the 1950s and '60s, when they were functioning well for Americans, he went on, but now they had been gamed by giant corporations and the ultrarich. Cass served as domestic policy director to Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential campaign. He came away with the sense that markets on their own were inadequate to solving the problems plaguing communities that had been hollowed out by the offshoring of jobs and the opioid crisis that followed.

The birthrate in the United States had plummeted since 2008; millennials said they wanted to have children but couldn't afford it. The solution in many European countries — direct payments to mothers with children, no matter their income — seemed anathema in conservative America. After Trump's election blew open the G.O.P., a few unorthodox policies were put forward by Republican senators with populist aspirations, but they weren't taken seriously. Then, amid the crisis of the pandemic, Romney introduced a kind of community-building plan: a child benefit that would go not just to the needy but to everyone. "This really caught fire, in ways that I didn't fully expect," Chris Barkley, Romney's deputy chief of staff for policy, told me. "Here's an opportunity to say, We're going to put our money where our mouth is and not only talk in terms of tax relief or some of these more antigovernment terms. We're going to talk about the positive cultural values that we hold, and we believe are good."

For Deneen, Catholicism is useful in this regard because it holds that "politics is the space where the common good is secured," he said. Though Catholics represent a minority in the Republican Party — around 25 percent — their distinct philosophical traditions make them a potent force. Catholicism's insistence, as developed in the work of Thomas Aquinas and his modern adherents, on the social nature of human existence has always been at odds with Protestant ideas about individual autonomy. But this, in part, was why the popularity of Catholic social teaching has historically waxed during periods when the white working classes, largely Catholic, were struggling economically.

The foundational document of Catholic social tradition, the 1891 encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, argued that individual freedom did little to help workers secure a living wage, and valorized workers' associations, urging government to intervene to balance the economy. Four decades later, Pope Pius XI's encyclical of 1931 was cited by Franklin Roosevelt on the campaign trail as "one of the greatest documents of modern times." Joe Biden, himself a Catholic, has also cited Catholic social thought as a major influence. "I think you do see now this rise of both a conservative and a left Catholicism," Deneen said, "that's taking at least part of what had been the WASP public philosophy and occupying that space."

The postliberal right is still a loose constellation of conservatives with a variety of unorthodox ideas, but among them are those who believe that a more radical reading of the Constitution is necessary to promote a moral society. Many social conservatives see themselves as having failed to win key national legal battles on issues like abortion, gay rights and religious liberty. As Adrian Vermeule, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, wrote in 2018 in American Affairs, the very logic of liberalism turned it into an "imperialist progressive" force — an ever-expanding demand for individual rights that upended social custom. The scale of defeat became clear in 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges, when the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry, seeming to prove that conservative principles could be overturned on a moment's notice. Then came the Bostock decision, in 2020. Neil Gorsuch, a Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice and heir to Antonin Scalia, wrote the majority opinion, expanding the definition of sex-based discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Josh Hawley, the freshman senator from Missouri, gave a withering speech in response: "If textualism and originalism give you this decision," Hawley said from the chamber floor, then "all of those phrases don't mean much at all." He ended by declaring that this was the end of "the conservative legal project as we know it."

New approaches were needed. And Vermeule, a recent convert to Catholicism who is considered one of the most limber legal scholars of his generation, was in a position to provide them. Recently, in a spate of articles published in national magazines and small conservative quarterlies, Vermeule has laid out a methodology for halting what he regards as the relentless advance of the liberal "creed." In place of originalism — a theory espoused by conservative judges which holds that the meaning of the constitution is fixed — Vermeule proposed "common-good constitutionalism": reading "into the majestic generalities and ambiguities" of the Constitution to create an "illiberal legalism" founded on "substantive moral principles that conduce to the common good." Vermeule also offered a complementary theory of the administrative state, a topic on which he has written a number of books, that could be used to promote those moral principles. Those occupying positions of power in government administration could have a "great deal of discretion" in steering the ship of bureaucracy. It was a matter of finding a "strategic position" from which to "sear the liberal faith with hot irons."

Even many of those interested in Vermeule's ideas consider him extreme; some suspect him of wanting to impose a Catholic monarchy on America. (Vermeule declined to comment for this article.) But scholarship based on Vermeule's ideas is starting to trickle out, some of it reshaping his concept as "common-good originalism." Josh Hammer, the opinion editor of Newsweek, has argued that the emphasis on "general welfare" in the preamble to the Constitution, a synonym for the Greco-Roman concept of the "common good," is a part of America's heritage that is overshadowed by our focus on individual liberties. Originalism, with its insistence on "one true meaning," has turned out to be "morally denuded," Hammer told me. "Is that the end unto itself, or is it something a little greater?" he said. "It's a viable political concept to care about national cohesion."

Samuel Goldman, a conservative political theorist who directs the politics and values program at George Washington University, concedes that the historical record supports the view that "many, though not all, of the American founders really did imagine the U.S. as a sort of Christian nation state, in which public institutions would play a significant role in promoting virtue and be committed to specific religious doctrines. It didn't work out that way, because even at the time, the population was too diverse, the institutions were too precariously balanced to permit it." He went on to say that what the postliberals are doing seems strange because "it's a trip back into an intellectual world that no longer exists."

For Vermuele, promoting "substantive moral principles" might allow the state to intervene in areas like health care, guns and the environment, where "human flourishing" would take priority over trying to divine the 18th-century meanings of terms like "commerce" and "bearing arms." Abortion would be illegal. But the outcomes of such policies would not always be the expected conservative ones. Vermeule recently argued in favor of a Covid-19 vaccine mandate, on the grounds that the health and safety of the community was necessary for the common good.

Governing for the common good would be the "final rejection" of the neoliberal dogma that "if you leave individuals to seek their own ends, you'll necessarily build a good society," Sohrab Ahmari, the former opinion editor of The New York Post, who says he is launching a new media company, told me. Ahmari, a recent convert to Catholicism, is one of Vermeule's most visible allies and has become practically synonymous with a self-consciously pugilistic right. He urged conservatives in a 2019 essay to approach the culture war "with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square reordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good," a phrase that has enjoyed a long half-life. "I don't want to turn this into a Catholic country," Ahmari told me when I met him earlier this year. But he counts himself among those who believe conservatism has failed because it insists that the only kind of tyranny "comes from the public square and therefore what you should do is check government power."

This is where it has proved helpful to have models abroad. "There's a tendency that's almost universal to want somewhere in the world that you can point to and say, It's really happening," Goldman said. And now here was this other, European tradition of Catholic conservatism, that was afraid neither of a strong state, nor of using it to promote a conservative vision of life. Hungary and Poland offered an "example of something that looks different," Goldman went on. "And that's thrilling to people who are trying to break out of the strictures of liberalism and have been told, in some cases for their entire lives, You can't do that, there's nothing else." Damon Linker, a columnist at The Week and a friend of Dreher's (Linker also left the Catholic church over the abuse scandals) no longer considers himself a member of the right but noted that these conservatives see Hungary and think: "Actually, we like that Orban makes it so that you can be against him, the state won't throw you in jail. But just as a conservative in our country has a hard time getting a job at a university, now, in our world, liberals are going to have a hard time getting a job."

In Hungary, Dreher and others claim, there is true freedom; no online vigilante mob is waiting to deprive people of their livelihood for uttering a wrong word. (This freedom does not extend to the journalists who've had their phones surveilled by the Hungarian government or been taken in for questioning by the Hungarian police.) It comes from a reversal of the cultural and institutional tilt: Orban pushed out the Soros-backed Central European University and used hostile takeovers to transform the media, outlet by outlet, into a conservative (and government-friendly) landscape. American conservatives might not use the same methods, but they would have "no compunctions about using state power," Linker said, "to impose a different set of moral views than the default ones that we've lived with for 50 years."

Dreher seemed to confirm this. "If the right should somehow gain that kind of power, I don't trust us with it," Dreher told me. He seemed uncomfortable with the way this sounded like a threat, even as he articulated it. "I don't trust us to be judicious and fair to the others in victory," he went on. "The left is not being that way to us. And we're not going to be that way to them."

Orban was elected in 2010 with the help of a political machine that remains beholden to him. For most of the last decade, his party, Fidesz, has held a supermajority in the Hungarian Parliament, thanks to the way he has intertwined politics and business and the changes the party made to election laws, which bolstered its representation. Along with what has been described as perfect party discipline — no one breaks rank — this has enabled Orban to govern with great efficiency. He has put in place numerous policies to counter a low birthrate and encourage Hungarian, not immigrant, babies: There are subsidies for family cars; women who have four or more children will never pay income tax again; and some older citizens who leave their jobs to take care of grandchildren are compensated by the government.

Along with Orban's rhetorical homages to "Christian civilization,"' these family programs have given American conservatives reason to feel they have much to learn: Ahmari and Deneen have also visited Budapest recently. Apart from the stubborn question of whether Orban's rhetoric isn't just a front for a kleptocracy — he has shuffled millions in E.U. subsidy money into contracts with family members and close friends — his penchant for positioning himself as the sine qua non of the global culture wars suggests the true objective may simply be power.

Nearby Poland has also made an illiberal turn, though with less showmanship than in Hungary, from whose playbook it nonetheless borrows. Poland, too, has placed family policy at the center of its programs, with generous monthly allowances and some success in increasing the birthrate. Earlier this year, it pushed through a law that eliminated one of the few exceptions under which an abortion is permitted. The Polish government also recently engaged in an Orban-like legal battle for greater control of media outlets. And, like Hungary, Poland has placed its own laws and Constitution above the E.U.'s, in part in reaction to L.G.B.T.Q. protections, even as this stance threatens its standing in the body.


The Catholic Church in Poland is a more widely popular and legitimate institution, because of the role it played in resisting communism. In Krakow this winter, I met the philosopher Ryszard Legutko, a former anti-communist dissident who became increasingly disenchanted with liberal democracy in the 1990s, in a way that was illuminating for skeptics of liberalism. His 2016 book, "The Demon in Democracy," has become a canonical text for postliberal conservatives. Legutko, 71, has argued that democrats can behave much like communists. While allowing that liberal democracy is superior to communism, he nonetheless maintains that certain characteristics of communist ideology — the belief that it will eventually prevail worldwide, that it is the apotheosis of human nature, that it represents the culmination of history — are true of liberal democracy as well. Both, he says, are totalizing ideologies: There is nothing "natural" about individual rights, "no such thing as a rights-bearing individual," Legutko told me.

Legutko is a member of the ruling Law and Justice party in Poland and was elected to the European Parliament, where he sits on the Committee on Culture and Education. On the wall of the salon in his pied-à-terre hung a painting of Polish cavalry bloodily beating back the Red Army in 1920 during the Polish-Soviet War. Through the window, the colors of the Polish landscape were so subdued that the city looked like a sepia-tone photograph. "A couple of decades ago there was a theory that the age of ideology is over, that in a liberal democracy we just solve problems, nobody is interested in big ideas," Legutko told me. "They couldn't be more wrong than that. We are prisoners of certain intellectual patterns."

What Marxists and liberals had in common, he continued, was "this notion of history's progress, you cannot go back, you made the omelet, so the eggs are no longer there." After the end of communism in 1989, the Polish economy was quickly liberalized through privatizations and foreign investment, and a push for Poland to join the E.U. brought social reforms. "They were telling us, 'OK, the old regime is gone, and now we are living in freedom,'" Legutko said. "Now that you live in freedom, you have to do this, you have to do that. Come on. If it's freedom, we have to do it? We don't have to do it." According to Legutko, liberal democracy would not tolerate the family, the church and other nonliberal institutions that Poland was trying to preserve.

In referring to America's cultural battles, Legutko says that the efforts to change traditional understandings of gender lead to "social engineering." I pointed out that arguments over nomenclature are a matter of fighting against derogatory speech and the derogatory treatment it engenders. "But you can insult Catholics in Poland and the judge will say, Well, that's individual opinion, or artistic performance," he said. It wasn't about hate per se, he argued, but about power. "You say something about gay activists, and immediately you're punished, because that is hate speech." The control of language, Legutko insisted, was another similarity between liberal democracy and Communism. "The language is being dictated to you by the powers that be, and if you do not conform, you're being punished." Legutko's party has been trying to pass a law that would fine tech companies for regulating any speech that isn't strictly illegal (even as the party has exerted control over how Polish involvement in the Holocaust may be described), a measure in which American conservatives have taken great interest.

"My friends from the United States, they see here a country in which conservatives are not cornered," Legutko said. "We won the elections, we have the institutions, and that's why we are considered by this liberal machine illegitimate." The problem for the modern mind, he went on, was that there were no alternatives. "So, if we manage to make Poland the country where there is an alternative, that would be something," Legutko said. "We are almost an extinct species. The world would be lost without us."

Over the summer, the United States got a taste of what the implementation of such ideas might look like on this side of the Atlantic. The introduction of bills in state legislatures to control or ban the teaching in public schools of what conservatives describe as Critical Race Theory was arguably the first attempt by postliberals to use the power of the state in cultural regulation. Christopher Rufo, a main activist behind the effort (his ideas were disseminated on Tucker Carlson's show), told The New Yorker that the goal of his movement was to "create rival power centers" within state agencies. In a debate with the conservative writer and lawyer David French, Rufo impugned the "strain of naïve libertarianism that says any meddling with the state is accepting a statist ideology, and therefore we should unilaterally relinquish any authority or any guidance or any shaping of state institutions."

In electoral politics, the postliberal influence finds expression in J.D. Vance, the author of the best-selling memoir "Hillbilly Elegy," who is in a distant second place, though gaining ground, in the Ohio primary for the Republican nomination to the Senate. Vance is a good friend of Dreher's, and is enthusiastically backed by Tucker Carlson, who called Vance one of the very rare figures "running for office because they really believe something," a comment that appears to ignore the wholesale reversal in Vance's politics, from a formerly mild-mannered anti-Trump moderate, to a hard-swinging cultural warrior who blows past the boundaries he once embraced. Vance also converted to Catholicism, in 2019 — Dreher attended his reception into the church — because, he has said, he came to discover that "Catholicism was true." Vance peppers his speech with terms from the right's postliberal lexicon. On Carlson's show, he argued that conservatives should "seize the assets of the Ford Foundation" and redistribute them to people whose lives had been destroyed by the "radical open-borders agenda, " a very Orban-like, if not very American-sounding, proposal.

But these ideas remain an awkward fit with many American traditions. Even some of the Hungarians I met seemed skeptical about how such ideas might play out in America. On a rainy afternoon in Budapest, I visited the Scruton Café, the city's unofficial conservative gathering place, which sits a few blocks from the Parliament and is named for the conservative English writer Roger Scruton. Over fruit and cheese, I sat with Boris Kalnoky, a former journalist who is involved in Orban's international outreach at the Mathias Corvinus Collegium, an educational foundation that trains the conservative elite. Even as he explained Orbanism to me, he observed that it wasn't a powerful state that had made America, in many respects, "the greatest country in the world." It grew to dominate "because it was the land of the free, and unlimited possibilities," Kalnoky said. Europe had never had that. "And we will never have it, I dare say," he said. "But the States may want to hold onto it as much as possible."

Elisabeth Zerofsky is a contributing writer for the magazine. She was a finalist for the 2017 Livingston Award in international journalism and has reported from across Europe for the last five years, writing about the politics in the banlieues in France and the rise of the far right. Javier Jaén is an illustrator and designer based in Barcelona, Spain, known for his translation of complex ideas into simple images, often with a playful tone.

And as a sample:
QuoteTexas lawmaker says 850 books ranging from race to sexuality could cause 'discomfort' [...]

Krause, who chairs the state's House Committee on General Investigating, also directed the districts to identify "any other books" that could cause students "guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex or convey that a student, by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously." 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-lawmaker-says-850-books-ranging-race-sexuality-cause-discomfort-rcna3953?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on October 30, 2021, 10:46:25 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FC9SEC0UcAYw_EO?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on October 30, 2021, 02:59:15 PM
She's almost 60.  She shouldn't be surprised that men don't come calling like when she was 25.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on October 30, 2021, 04:06:24 PM
Also yelling a lot on tv probably doesn't help.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2021, 09:29:36 AM
Wow that's really harsh criticism of a fellow Fox News anchor.   I mean sure Tucker Carlson is the ultimate beta and a pathetic stepdown from O"Reilly but he's got a solid lock on the mypillow.com demographic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on November 01, 2021, 09:34:40 AM
I guess it is true that Trump supporters have been seen to get rather aggressive and violent.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 12:27:51 PM
IS this the closest we have to a QAnon thread?  I think so.

Apparently dozens of people are gathering in Daly Plaza in Dallas today expecting to see the return of John F Kennedy, who will in turn restore Trump to power.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgd85a/qanon-dallas-jfk-trump

Not JFK Jr (who is also dead, but will also be there), But President Kennedy, whose murder was recorded for all to see.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 12:38:51 PM
Dozens? Dozens and dozens? Or just a single set of dozens?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on November 02, 2021, 12:46:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 12:38:51 PM
Dozens? Dozens and dozens? Or just a single set of dozens?
https://www.earthcam.com/usa/texas/dallas/dealeyplaza/?cam=dealeyplaza

Multiple dozens.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on November 02, 2021, 12:52:42 PM
Totally normal, sane, people.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.   :shutup:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 12:57:35 PM
If only there was a source of unbiased information people could use instead of crazy nutjob websites. Sadly there is no such thing in existence.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 01:35:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 12:57:35 PM
If only there was a source of unbiased information people could use instead of crazy nutjob websites. Sadly there is no such thing in existence.

You just can't help yourself can you Berkut.

Noting that every news site has some level of bias you should be aware of does not mean "media is nothing but fake news!".

Take here - I linked to Vice.  Vice has a very definite bias - much more so than the Times or CNN.  But the reporting seemed solid so I linked to it anyways.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on November 02, 2021, 01:41:02 PM
Good thing Kennedy apparently has the blood of christ in him, since he would be over 100 now this type of adventure might have been too much for him otherwise.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 01:48:50 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 02, 2021, 01:41:02 PM
Good thing Kennedy apparently has the blood of christ in him, since he would be over 100 now this type of adventure might have been too much for him otherwise.

And of course it makes so much sense for him to have stayed in hiding the last 50+ years while he misses his kids growing up, watches his wife go on to remarry, watches both his brother's presidential ambitions fail...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on November 02, 2021, 01:52:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 01:48:50 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 02, 2021, 01:41:02 PM
Good thing Kennedy apparently has the blood of christ in him, since he would be over 100 now this type of adventure might have been too much for him otherwise.

And of course it makes so much sense for him to have stayed in hiding the last 50+ years while he misses his kids growing up, watches his wife go on to remarry, watches both his brother's presidential ambitions fail...
and come back to reinstate a Republican President.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on November 02, 2021, 02:16:01 PM
JFK has more brains than Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 02, 2021, 02:16:01 PM
JFK has more brains than Trump.

Pretty sure they were picking pieces of JFK's brains off of Governor Connally...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 02:28:22 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 02, 2021, 12:46:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 12:38:51 PM
Dozens? Dozens and dozens? Or just a single set of dozens?
https://www.earthcam.com/usa/texas/dallas/dealeyplaza/?cam=dealeyplaza

Multiple dozens.

Looks like they're gone now.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 02, 2021, 02:35:08 PM
But did JFK show?  :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 02:46:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 01:35:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 12:57:35 PM
If only there was a source of unbiased information people could use instead of crazy nutjob websites. Sadly there is no such thing in existence.

You just can't help yourself can you Berkut.

Noting that every news site has some level of bias you should be aware of does not mean "media is nothing but fake news!".

Take here - I linked to Vice.  Vice has a very definite bias - much more so than the Times or CNN.  But the reporting seemed solid so I linked to it anyways.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Pretending that "The mainstream media is all biased towards liberals" is the same statement as "every news site has some level of bias you should be aware" is not at all the same statements.

But keep bringing it up over and over again. Once again, I didn't even mention you, yet here you are trotting out your defense. I think you know perfectly well what I am saying, and you know I am right. Which is why you are so incredibly defensive about it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on November 02, 2021, 02:49:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 02, 2021, 02:16:01 PM
JFK has more brains than Trump.

Pretty sure they were picking pieces of JFK's brains off of Governor Connally...

That's... that's the joke. Trump being very stupid.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 02:50:46 PM
And yes, I am going to keep on bringing this up.

"The mainstream media is biased against us!" is at the very core of the modern GOP narrative that has tainted our ability to have a rational conversation about nearly every single significant problem that faces us today. It is bullshit when held up to any meaningful critique, it has directly led to the erosion of trust in the media, and the rise of Fox News as the "alternative", which then led to more and more polarization of the political conversation, and the modern reality of a huge chunk of the population simple dismissing the "mainstream media" as unreliable sources of information, and instead relying on OAN and Breitbart and now at the most extremes - QANON.

Trump could never had happened if the groundwork had not been laid by a generation of pundits telling everyone over and over and over again that the liberal media cannot be trusted.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 03:08:30 PM
Stalkers are fun.  Everyone should have one.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on November 02, 2021, 03:10:49 PM
I'm my own stalker. I don't know how I do it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 03:14:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 03:08:30 PM
Stalkers are fun.  Everyone should have one.

He is harmless.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 02:50:46 PM
And yes, I am going to keep on bringing this up.

"The mainstream media is biased against us!" is at the very core of the modern GOP narrative that has tainted our ability to have a rational conversation about nearly every single significant problem that faces us today. It is bullshit when held up to any meaningful critique, it has directly led to the erosion of trust in the media, and the rise of Fox News as the "alternative", which then led to more and more polarization of the political conversation, and the modern reality of a huge chunk of the population simple dismissing the "mainstream media" as unreliable sources of information, and instead relying on OAN and Breitbart and now at the most extremes - QANON.

Trump could never had happened if the groundwork had not been laid by a generation of pundits telling everyone over and over and over again that the liberal media cannot be trusted.

SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 03:35:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 02:50:46 PM
And yes, I am going to keep on bringing this up.

"The mainstream media is biased against us!" is at the very core of the modern GOP narrative that has tainted our ability to have a rational conversation about nearly every single significant problem that faces us today. It is bullshit when held up to any meaningful critique, it has directly led to the erosion of trust in the media, and the rise of Fox News as the "alternative", which then led to more and more polarization of the political conversation, and the modern reality of a huge chunk of the population simple dismissing the "mainstream media" as unreliable sources of information, and instead relying on OAN and Breitbart and now at the most extremes - QANON.

Trump could never had happened if the groundwork had not been laid by a generation of pundits telling everyone over and over and over again that the liberal media cannot be trusted.

SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

Note how different that is from saying that the media has no bias. You might also consider, if you care about the truth, being a but more nuanced in your statements. "The media" is not some singular thing. It is a category error to say "the media is...." much of anything, because the reality is that the variation with the set is radically greater then the variation of the group. Which again, is obviously true. You might as well say "humans are all liberals!". It makes no sense. Some of them are, but clearly some of them are not.

And even if you keep chanting about mainstream liberal media bias, that doesn't mean you like Trump. It does mean you are helping him though - that is just obviously true. He makes that same chant all the time, because he knows it does in fact help him.

Although Trump is just a symptom of the problem, he isn't the problem itself.

But more broadly, to answer the implied question, yes. The narrative of a mainstream liberal media bias that is meaningful (ie, that that overall media's coverage is actually influenced in a meaningful way by their bias against conservatives/for liberals that means people should not trust them or trust them less) does in fact have consequences.

I don't understand why anyone would find that surprising. Of course it has consequences! That is the entire point of crafting and pounding that narrative incessantly for the last three decades in right wing radical media! Rush and Sean and now Tucker and Trump and all of them haven't been chanting that incessantly for the last 30 years because they are so worried about honestly informing the public.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 03:54:24 PM
https://www.prri.org/research/competing-visions-of-america-an-evolving-identity-or-a-culture-under-attack/ (https://www.prri.org/research/competing-visions-of-america-an-evolving-identity-or-a-culture-under-attack/)

QuoteMore than two-thirds of Republicans (68%), compared to 26% of independents and 6% of Democrats, believe that the election was stolen from Trump. These shares are even greater among Republicans who most trust Fox News (82%) and essentially universal among those who most trust far-right news (97%). Less than half of Republicans who most trust mainstream news agree (44%).


This is what I am talking about.

82% of Republicans who trust Fox say the election was stolen.
97% of Republicans who trust even more far right news say it was stolen.
For those Republicans who have NOT bought the narrative that they should not trust the mainstream media because it is biased against them, it is half those rates (44%), and not much higher then the general public (31%).

"The mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals". That statement is the rallying cry for Fox News - it is the very essence of their claim to relevance. And it has a direct path line to a bunch of people taking over the capital on January 6th. You cannot possibly claim that the fact that the more people trust right wing information sources they more fucked up they get cannot possibly have anything to do with a narrative that pushes the idea that they CANNOT trust mainstream information sources!

Those kinds of narratives are bullshit. It is like saying there isn't any consensus among climate scientists about global warming. It is strictly "true" in some very narrow sense of "true", but is actually not at all true in how it is used routinely by those with an agenda. And parroting it is owning the practical effects of the narrative, and retreating to pretending you only mean the most narrow (and meaningless) sense is just....well, cowardice. Words have consequences, ideas have power, and they result in actual things actually happening.


QuoteRepublicans who most trust Fox News (30%) or far-right news outlets (44%) are more likely than those who most trust mainstream news (16%) to be QAnon believers. Just 8% of Republicans who trust Fox News and 12% of Republicans who trust far-right news, compared to 28% of Republicans who trust mainstream news, are QAnon rejecters.


Yes, I think bringing up the lack of trust in the mainstream media as a response to someone marvelling at how dumb people are to believe QAnon is pretty god damned relevant. There is a clear correlation between lack of trust of mainstream media, willingness to trust the alternatives to mainstream media, and trust of QAnon.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:07:02 PM
Quote"Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country."

Republicans (30%) are more likely to agree with this than independents (17%) and Democrats (11%).

Among Republicans who most trust far-right news sources, agreement increases to 40%, compared to 32% among those who most trust Fox News and 22% among those who most trust mainstream news sources.

When violence does break out, again, and it is reported in the mainstream media, and the response is "OMG That is terrible! Who could have predicted such a thing!" and then in the same breath casually chatting about how biased the mainstream media is against liberals, I will point right back at this.

It really is pretty telling. The fact that Republicans overall are more tolerant of using violence comes as no surprise of course. But if you limit to just Republicans who have NOT bought into the narrative that the mainstream media cannot be trusted because it is biased against them, again, you cut that support rate in half. When compared to the general public at 18% in fact, the delta between Republicans overall and the general population is MOSTLY explained by the lack of trust in the mainstream media.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:10:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 03:35:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 03:21:31 PM
SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true. :mellow:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 04:14:47 PM
Throughout history various people have used the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was executed at the request of the Jewish religious leadership as justification for pogroms.  Therefore we should say that this is not true.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:10:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 03:35:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 03:21:31 PM
SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true. :mellow:

So you think the Wall Street Journal is biased against conservatives?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:25:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 04:14:47 PM
Throughout history various people have used the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was executed at the request of the Jewish religious leadership as justification for pogroms.  Therefore we should say that this is not true.

You should definitely stop repeating slogans that focus on some specific fact that is meaningless but is crafted in order to fucking justify genocide, yes. Seems rather obvious to me.

If you are sitting around having a conversation about politics in 1933 Germany and you know that there are a bunch of people out there itching to murder them some Jews, yeah, constantly bringing up how the Jews did actually ask for Jesus to be executed, and then retreating  to a claim that "Well, strictly speaking it's true!" to justify bringing it up over and over and over again (and pointedly leaving off any nuance or disclaimer that it is not relevant or even useful to the overall conversation about what to do about Jewish people) is utter bullshit.

Hiding behind "BUT IT IS TRUE!" in some facile manner when you know in fact that the story is being used for a very specific agenda is definitely enabling those with those agendas.

All good propaganda has some little kernel of truth in it. The media does suck a lot of the times. Every single media outlet out there screws up and gets things wrong. They are all run by humans, and hence have bias. All these things are true.

It is NOT true, however, that the mainstream media ought not to be trusted because it is all biased against conservatives and for liberals. That is a lie. It is a comforting lie for conservatives, but a lie nonetheless. And we know exactly what the purpose of the lie is, just like we know what the purpose of the "...but the Jews asked for Jesus to be executed, and hence deserve a wee bit of genocide!" is a lie as well.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 04:28:23 PM
Got it.  If Beeb had only said it once, tht would be fine.  Or he could repeat it, but only in a place less packed with rabid climate deniers and anti-vaxxers than Languish.

Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:29:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:10:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 03:35:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 03:21:31 PM
SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true. :mellow:

So you think the Wall Street Journal is biased against conservatives?

WSJ is one of the few major outlets that has a more right-wing bent. :mellow:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:29:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:10:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 03:35:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 03:21:31 PM
SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true. :mellow:

So you think the Wall Street Journal is biased against conservatives?

WSJ is one of the few major outlets that has a more right-wing bent. :mellow:

FOx News? Doesn't count as major media? The Hill? BBC? Reuters? Forbes, The Economist?

There are many more then "a few" that lie in the middle of the bias chart.

The mainstream media is not biased against conservatives or for liberals. Indeed, there is a direct correlation (and I would claim causation) between the objectivity of a news source and its lack of actual, meaningful bias.

https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button# (https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button#)

You are confusing (and it isn't confusion of course since this has been explained over and over and over again) not being pro-conservative with being pro-liberal/anti-conservative.
(https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Media-Bias-Chart-8.0_Sept-2021-Unlicensed-Social-Media_Hi_Res-scaled.jpg)

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:42:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 04:28:23 PM
Got it.  If Beeb had only said it once, tht would be fine.  Or he could repeat it, but only in a place less packed with rabid climate deniers and anti-vaxxers than Languish.

Thanks for the clarification.

It is interesting how unwilling you both are to actually engage with the argument and instead just create fake responses to respond to instead.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 02, 2021, 04:45:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 04:14:47 PM
Throughout history various people have used the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was executed at the request of the Jewish religious leadership as justification for pogroms.  Therefore we should say that this is not true.

We shouldn't believe fairy tales of any sort.  I think that it is fair to say that the commonly-believed story detailing Jesus's trial is almost certainly untrue, regardless of whether we believe that he existed, was the savior, etc.  Even the gospels differ as to what happened.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:49:26 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2021, 04:45:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 04:14:47 PM
Throughout history various people have used the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was executed at the request of the Jewish religious leadership as justification for pogroms.  Therefore we should say that this is not true.

We shouldn't believe fairy tales of any sort.  I think that it is fair to say that the commonly-believed story detailing Jesus's trial is almost certainly untrue, regardless of whether we believe that he existed, was the savior, etc.  Even the gospels differ as to what happened.

An excellent point.

And since we know that is the case, it does raise the question of why would someone, in the context of 1933 Germany as an example, keep raising that particular point, which is likely not even true, and they almost certianly KNOW that it isn't true in any meaningful way, and will definitely be used as if it were true in a very different, and more dangerous way?

Yi's analogy about really does line up very well with the "mainstream media is biased for liberals!" narrative. Thanks Yi!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:50:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:29:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:10:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 03:35:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 03:21:31 PM
SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true. :mellow:

So you think the Wall Street Journal is biased against conservatives?

WSJ is one of the few major outlets that has a more right-wing bent. :mellow:

FOx News? Doesn't count as major media? The Hill? BBC? Reuters? Forbes, The Economist?

There are many more then "a few" that lie in the middle of the bias chart.

The mainstream media is not biased against conservatives or for liberals. Indeed, there is a direct correlation (and I would claim causation) between the objectivity of a news source and its lack of actual, meaningful bias.

https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button# (https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button#)

You are confusing (and it isn't confusion of course since this has been explained over and over and over again) not being pro-conservative with being pro-liberal/anti-conservative.
(https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Media-Bias-Chart-8.0_Sept-2021-Unlicensed-Social-Media_Hi_Res-scaled.jpg)

We've been over this.

Take the green line above which shows "Mostly analysis or mix of facts and analysis.

Take the line which is below the word "middle".

Look at the 5 or 6 news sources on the right side of the line - most of which I don't recognize.

Now look at the huge number that are on the left side of the line.  Which includes huge news sources like CNN, NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, NPR, Politico...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:42:46 PM
It is interesting how unwilling you both are to actually engage with the argument and instead just create fake responses to respond to instead.

You said in response to my Jesus post that it would be a bad thing to mention Jewish involvement in his death in a room full of Nazis.  I took that to mean it would also be a bad thing to repeat that mainstream media has a liberal bias in a room full of Trumpists.  If I misunderstood that point, please help me understand.

You also said that CONSTANTLY repeating that mainstream media has a liberal bias is a bad thing in and of itself.  Saying it once then by inference is acceptable, unless, again, I misunderstood your point.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:50:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:29:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 04:10:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 03:35:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 03:21:31 PM
SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true. :mellow:

So you think the Wall Street Journal is biased against conservatives?

WSJ is one of the few major outlets that has a more right-wing bent. :mellow:

FOx News? Doesn't count as major media? The Hill? BBC? Reuters? Forbes, The Economist?

There are many more then "a few" that lie in the middle of the bias chart.

The mainstream media is not biased against conservatives or for liberals. Indeed, there is a direct correlation (and I would claim causation) between the objectivity of a news source and its lack of actual, meaningful bias.

https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button# (https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button#)

You are confusing (and it isn't confusion of course since this has been explained over and over and over again) not being pro-conservative with being pro-liberal/anti-conservative.
(https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Media-Bias-Chart-8.0_Sept-2021-Unlicensed-Social-Media_Hi_Res-scaled.jpg)

We've been over this.

Take the green line above which shows "Mostly analysis or mix of facts and analysis.

Take the line which is below the word "middle".

Look at the 5 or 6 news sources on the right side of the line - most of which I don't recognize.

Now look at the huge number that are on the left side of the line.  Which includes huge news sources like CNN, NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, NPR, Politico...

I've looked at them. The majority  all in the middle of the zone that is marked as the objectively "not biased" part.

There are many, many, many sources of mainstream news that are in the zone that is marked as "middle", and NOT "leans".

It's amazing how hard people will hold onto their own biases, even when the facts are sitting there right in front of them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 05:10:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 04:42:46 PM
It is interesting how unwilling you both are to actually engage with the argument and instead just create fake responses to respond to instead.

You said in response to my Jesus post that it would be a bad thing to mention Jewish involvement in his death in a room full of Nazis.  I took that to mean it would also be a bad thing to repeat that mainstream media has a liberal bias in a room full of Trumpists.  If I misunderstood that point, please help me understand.

You also said that CONSTANTLY repeating that mainstream media has a liberal bias is a bad thing in and of itself.  Saying it once then by inference is acceptable, unless, again, I misunderstood your point.

I said nothing at all about rooms full of Nazis.

I think you understand my point as well as I do. Your responding to things I never say has nothing to do with any misunderstanding of my point, but in fact exactly the opposite.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 05:12:29 PM
And Beeb, I notice you are very quiet in response to my actual data showing how belief in your narrative of liberal media bias directly leads to belief in alternative sources of information - the very same ones you so breathlessly wonder about how people could possibly believe?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2021, 05:13:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 05:10:32 PM
I said nothing at all about rooms full of Nazis.

I think you understand my point as well as I do. Your responding to things I never say has nothing to do with any misunderstanding of my point, but in fact exactly the opposite.

My bad.  You said a bunch of people who want to kill Jews.

I agree, I think I understand your point exactly.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on November 02, 2021, 05:16:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 02:46:29 PM
But keep bringing it up over and over again. Once again, I didn't even mention you, yet here you are trotting out your defense. I think you know perfectly well what I am saying, and you know I am right. Which is why you are so incredibly defensive about it.
You don't have to mention Beeb for him to know that it's aimed at him.  It was pretty clear to me as well that this was aimed at him, just like the ten previous posts of this nature in random threads.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 05:22:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2021, 05:16:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 02:46:29 PM
But keep bringing it up over and over again. Once again, I didn't even mention you, yet here you are trotting out your defense. I think you know perfectly well what I am saying, and you know I am right. Which is why you are so incredibly defensive about it.
You don't have to mention Beeb for him to know that it's aimed at him.  It was pretty clear to me as well that this was aimed at him, just like the ten previous of this nature in random threads.

Nothing random at all, and nothing specifically aimed at Beebs either.

The destruction of faith in the media has far reaching implications, hence there is nothing random about it coming up in a variety of contexts.

The fact that Beeb is such a champion of the narrative means that he feels a need to come to its defense when he perceives it to be under attack. That is on him, not me.

I do find it rather ironic that he would be complaining about people believing QAnon, when it is his cherished narrative that has directly led to people believing QAnon, among other shitty outcomes.

It might be "clear to you" that it was aimed at Beeb, but it is clear to me it was not - and since I was doing the aiming, I suspect I am the better authority on the subject.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 06:56:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 05:22:16 PM
The fact that Beeb is such a champion of the narrative means that he feels a need to come to its defense when he perceives it to be under attack. That is on him, not me.

I do find it rather ironic that he would be complaining about people believing QAnon, when it is his cherished narrative that has directly led to people believing QAnon, among other shitty outcomes.

:lmfao:

So I have to worry about "where my narrative might lead".  And not whether or not it is true.  Gotcha.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 06:59:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 05:12:29 PM
And Beeb, I notice you are very quiet in response to my actual data showing how belief in your narrative of liberal media bias directly leads to belief in alternative sources of information - the very same ones you so breathlessly wonder about how people could possibly believe?

I would have thought you'd agree that one should speak the truth as one sees it without concern about "where it might lead". :mellow:

Cuz otherwise that can lead pretty quickly to some pretty dark places.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 07:16:15 AM
Except that we know that it is not in fact true, as has also been rather conclusively shown.

And I addressed that as well, which you also ignored. It is about as "true" as saying "Climate scientists are divided on the human causes of global warming!". A statement that can be defended on technical grounds, but which the speaker knows is not true in any real sense, and has a very specific agenda behind it that is an outright lie.

And yes, you should in fact worry about how you repeating something you know isn't true is actually damaging to things you value. Of course, when the things you value come into conflict, it says a lot about your actual values when you can see what gives.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 07:21:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 06:56:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 05:22:16 PM
The fact that Beeb is such a champion of the narrative means that he feels a need to come to its defense when he perceives it to be under attack. That is on him, not me.

I do find it rather ironic that he would be complaining about people believing QAnon, when it is his cherished narrative that has directly led to people believing QAnon, among other shitty outcomes.

:lmfao:

So I have to worry about "where my narrative might lead".  And not whether or not it is true.  Gotcha.

As Yi was kind enough to point out, you should most definitely be worried about where your myth leads, and why it is being pushed, and whether you should help push it.

If you are pushing the "You know, Jews really did have Jesus murdered..." narrative in 1933 Germany, yeah, you should probably have some concern about why that narrative is being pushed, and what the effects of it are, and what reason YOU have to repeat it.

Or not. There were millions of Germans who probably repeated that narrative, and then were SHOCKED, SHOCKED I SAY! when the were escorted through their local concentration camp. I am sure they all told themselves the same thing. Sure am glad that didn't lead to "dark place"!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 09:34:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 07:16:15 AM
Except that we know that it is not in fact true, as has also been rather conclusively shown.

Repetition does not make something "conclusively shown" Berkut.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 09:34:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 07:16:15 AM
Except that we know that it is not in fact true, as has also been rather conclusively shown.

Repetition does not make something "conclusively shown" Berkut.

No, but actually showing something to be true does, no matter how much you repeat that you know something is true because you feel that way.

Again, notice that you just ignore the meat of the argument. I get that you are really invested in this story. But wanting something to be true doesn't actually make it true, even if it does align so nicely with your political views.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 09:58:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 09:34:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 07:16:15 AM
Except that we know that it is not in fact true, as has also been rather conclusively shown.

Repetition does not make something "conclusively shown" Berkut.

No, but actually showing something to be true does, no matter how much you repeat that you know something is true because you feel that way.

Again, notice that you just ignore the meat of the argument. I get that you are really invested in this story. But wanting something to be true doesn't actually make it true, even if it does align so nicely with your political views.

Repetition does not make something "conclusively shown" Berkut.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:06:56 AM
Ok Barrister. You keep on keeping on.

But do stop wondering how the crazy ass nutjobs on the right keep managing to convince people to vote for racism and bigotry and denial of science. Because you know the answer, even if you want to pretend otherwise.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:16:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:06:56 AM
Ok Barrister. You keep on keeping on.

But do stop wondering how the crazy ass nutjobs on the right keep managing to convince people to vote for racism and bigotry and denial of science. Because you know the answer, even if you want to pretend otherwise.

Clearly the answer is because I said that the mainstream media is biased on Languish. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 10:32:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:16:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:06:56 AM
Ok Barrister. You keep on keeping on.

But do stop wondering how the crazy ass nutjobs on the right keep managing to convince people to vote for racism and bigotry and denial of science. Because you know the answer, even if you want to pretend otherwise.

Clearly the answer is because I said that the mainstream media is biased on Languish. :rolleyes:
:o What the fuck, Beeb, what the fuck?  Why did you say that?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:16:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:06:56 AM
Ok Barrister. You keep on keeping on.

But do stop wondering how the crazy ass nutjobs on the right keep managing to convince people to vote for racism and bigotry and denial of science. Because you know the answer, even if you want to pretend otherwise.

Clearly the answer is because I said that the mainstream media is biased on Languish. :rolleyes:

The answer is very much because the right has convinced their faithful that the media is not a fair player, and the truth cannot be found in the mainstream media.

Ideas have consequences.

So, yes, it is in fact quite clear (as shown by actual evidence posted) that in fact the attack on the integrity of the mainstream media has directly led to the radicalization of the right and the rise of alternative media.

Again, this is not complicated. The most interesting part of the interchange is another example of just how hard it is to get someone to change their cherished beliefs, even in light of clear evidence.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:38:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:16:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:06:56 AM
Ok Barrister. You keep on keeping on.

But do stop wondering how the crazy ass nutjobs on the right keep managing to convince people to vote for racism and bigotry and denial of science. Because you know the answer, even if you want to pretend otherwise.

Clearly the answer is because I said that the mainstream media is biased on Languish. :rolleyes:

The answer is very much because the right has convinced their faithful that the media is not a fair player, and the truth cannot be found in the mainstream media.

Ideas have consequences.

So, yes, it is in fact quite clear (as shown by actual evidence posted) that in fact the attack on the integrity of the mainstream media has directly led to the radicalization of the right and the rise of alternative media.

Again, this is not complicated. The most interesting part of the interchange is another example of just how hard it is to get someone to change their cherished beliefs, even in light of clear evidence.

Repetition does not make something "conclusively shown" Berkut.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on November 03, 2021, 10:46:33 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 10:32:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:16:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:06:56 AM
Ok Barrister. You keep on keeping on.

But do stop wondering how the crazy ass nutjobs on the right keep managing to convince people to vote for racism and bigotry and denial of science. Because you know the answer, even if you want to pretend otherwise.

Clearly the answer is because I said that the mainstream media is biased on Languish. :rolleyes:
:o What the fuck, Beeb, what the fuck?  Why did you say that?

you're biased against BB being biased. someone should bring it up in every second thread. that'll teach you!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:48:53 AM
I guess I should not find this surprising. The conservatives have been using this well known propaganda tool for a long, long time.

You take something that is "true" in some incredibly narrow sense. Then you craft a story around that that takes that claim to radically different levels, that are clearly not true, but advance an agenda you care about.

You apply some handy label to it that sounds good.

Then you sell everyone on the idea, and anytime someone challenges you on the rational basis, you fall back on the narrow definition, all the while you are selling the broader lie in the media.

When people broadly hear "The mainstream media is biased against conservatives and for liberals" they don't hear the narrow definition Beebs and Yi claim to mean. That all media has some bias and you should be aware of that bias. They hear "The mainstream media cannot be trusted, they are liars". That is what that phrase means to the broader culture. And it is a lie.

"There is no proof of evolution!"

"There is no consensus around climate change!"

"Vaccines don't even prevent COVID!"

"There were discrepancies in the Georgia election results!"

"Biden got that prosecutor who was looking into the company Hunter was on the board of fired!"

"Clinton let Americans die at Benghazi!"

All those statements are "true" in some strict definition of the word "true". And all of them are a fucking lie in the actual narrative that is popularly advanced by the claims they make. I am certain I could come up with another dozen examples of the same thing (and plenty from the left as well, for that matter - it's not like this tactic is unique to modern authoritarian conservatism).

The part of the "mainstream media is biased towards liberals" example is that it is a "true" lie that makes all the other lies that much easier to sell. It is an attack on the very tool a liberal democracy must use to combat all the other propaganda. It is a uniquely dangerous myth.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:51:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:48:53 AM
I guess I should not find this surprising. The conservatives have been using this well known propaganda tool for a long, long time.

You take something that is "true" in some incredibly narrow sense. Then you craft a story around that that takes that claim to radically different levels, that are clearly not true, but advance an agenda you care about.

You apply some handy label to it that sounds good.

Then you sell everyone on the idea, and anytime someone challenges you on the rational basis, you fall back on the narrow definition, all the while you are selling the broader lie in the media.

When people broadly hear "The mainstream media is biased against conservatives and for liberals" they don't hear the narrow definition Beebs and Yi claim to mean. That all media has some bias and you should be aware of that bias. They hear "The mainstream media cannot be trusted, they are liars". That is what that phrase means to the broader culture. And it is a lie.

"There is no proof of evolution!"

"There is no consensus around climate change!"

"Vaccines don't even prevent COVID!"

"There were discrepancies in the Georgia election results!"

"Biden got that prosecutor who was looking into the company Hunter was on the board of fired!"

"Clinton let Americans die at Benghazi!"

All those statements are "true" in some strict definition of the word "true". And all of them are a fucking lie in the actual narrative that is popularly advanced by the claims they make. I am certain I could come up with another dozen examples of the same thing (and plenty from the left as well, for that matter - it's not like this tactic is unique to modern authoritarian conservatism).

The part of the "mainstream media is biased towards liberals" example is that it is a "true" lie that makes all the other lies that much easier to sell. It is an attack on the very tool a liberal democracy must use to combat all the other propaganda. It is a uniquely dangerous myth.

:tinfoil:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:53:31 AM
As eloquent and rational a response as ever.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:53:31 AM
As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved. :hug:

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 11:00:14 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 03, 2021, 10:46:33 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 10:32:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:16:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:06:56 AM
Ok Barrister. You keep on keeping on.

But do stop wondering how the crazy ass nutjobs on the right keep managing to convince people to vote for racism and bigotry and denial of science. Because you know the answer, even if you want to pretend otherwise.

Clearly the answer is because I said that the mainstream media is biased on Languish. :rolleyes:
:o What the fuck, Beeb, what the fuck?  Why did you say that?

you're biased against BB being biased. someone should bring it up in every second thread. that'll teach you!
Won't I come off as frothing and deranged if I do that? :unsure:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:02:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:53:31 AM
As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved. :hug:

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

You aren't saying anything at all beyond chanting that there is a bias in the media against your party. Then when challenged on that, you insist it doesn't mean anything at all beyond some platitude about how everyone has bias.

There isn't anything to engage with on that. To the extent it is narrowly true, it is meaningless and trite. There is nothing to be done about it, and nothing interesting to say about it.

The interesting part of that claim is how it is actually used in our world and its impacts, which are severe. You don't care about that though, clearly.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 11:00:14 AM

Won't I come off as frothing and deranged if I do that? :unsure:

You think I am frothing and deragend because I think that this attack on the credibility of the media matters?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 11:00:14 AM

Won't I come off as frothing and deranged if I do that? :unsure:

You think I am frothing and deragend because I think that this attack on the credibility of the media matters?
I didn't even mention you. :unsure: It is telling that you think this was an attack on you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:02:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:53:31 AM
As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved. :hug:

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

You aren't saying anything at all beyond chanting that there is a bias in the media against your party. Then when challenged on that, you insist it doesn't mean anything at all beyond some platitude about how everyone has bias.

There isn't anything to engage with on that. To the extent it is narrowly true, it is meaningless and trite. There is nothing to be done about it, and nothing interesting to say about it.

The interesting part of that claim is how it is actually used in our world and its impacts, which are severe. You don't care about that though, clearly.

If what I am actually saying is just meaningless and trite then why do you keep bringing it up?  Rather than keep attributing thoughts and motives to me that I don't actually have?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 11:00:14 AM

Won't I come off as frothing and deranged if I do that? :unsure:

You think I am frothing and deragend because I think that this attack on the credibility of the media matters?
I didn't even mention you. :unsure: It is telling that you think this was an attack on you.

OK, but can you answer the question?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:06:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 11:00:14 AM

Won't I come off as frothing and deranged if I do that? :unsure:

You think I am frothing and deragend because I think that this attack on the credibility of the media matters?
I didn't even mention you. :unsure: It is telling that you think this was an attack on you.

I legit laughed out loud to this.   :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:07:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:02:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:53:31 AM
As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved. :hug:

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

You aren't saying anything at all beyond chanting that there is a bias in the media against your party. Then when challenged on that, you insist it doesn't mean anything at all beyond some platitude about how everyone has bias.

There isn't anything to engage with on that. To the extent it is narrowly true, it is meaningless and trite. There is nothing to be done about it, and nothing interesting to say about it.

The interesting part of that claim is how it is actually used in our world and its impacts, which are severe. You don't care about that though, clearly.

If what I am actually saying is just meaningless and trite then why do you keep bringing it up?  Rather than keep attributing thoughts and motives to me that I don't actually have?

I am pretty sure I explained ad naseum why I am bringing this up, and why I think it is important.

"There is no proof for evolution" is true, meaningless, and trite. Do you not understand why someone might bring it up when people say that in the context of a discussion about science?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:12:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:07:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:02:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:53:31 AM
As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved. :hug:

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

You aren't saying anything at all beyond chanting that there is a bias in the media against your party. Then when challenged on that, you insist it doesn't mean anything at all beyond some platitude about how everyone has bias.

There isn't anything to engage with on that. To the extent it is narrowly true, it is meaningless and trite. There is nothing to be done about it, and nothing interesting to say about it.

The interesting part of that claim is how it is actually used in our world and its impacts, which are severe. You don't care about that though, clearly.

If what I am actually saying is just meaningless and trite then why do you keep bringing it up?  Rather than keep attributing thoughts and motives to me that I don't actually have?

I am pretty sure I explained ad naseum why I am bringing this up, and why I think it is important.

"There is no proof for evolution" is true, meaningless, and trite. Do you not understand why someone might bring it up when people say that in the context of a discussion about science?

Again - why don't you engage in what I am saying, rather than bring up some odd hypothetical / strawman kind of argument?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:15:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:12:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:07:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:02:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 10:53:31 AM
As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved. :hug:

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

You aren't saying anything at all beyond chanting that there is a bias in the media against your party. Then when challenged on that, you insist it doesn't mean anything at all beyond some platitude about how everyone has bias.

There isn't anything to engage with on that. To the extent it is narrowly true, it is meaningless and trite. There is nothing to be done about it, and nothing interesting to say about it.

The interesting part of that claim is how it is actually used in our world and its impacts, which are severe. You don't care about that though, clearly.

If what I am actually saying is just meaningless and trite then why do you keep bringing it up?  Rather than keep attributing thoughts and motives to me that I don't actually have?

I am pretty sure I explained ad naseum why I am bringing this up, and why I think it is important.

"There is no proof for evolution" is true, meaningless, and trite. Do you not understand why someone might bring it up when people say that in the context of a discussion about science?

Again - why don't you engage in what I am saying, rather than bring up some odd hypothetical / strawman kind of argument?

I have engaged in what you are saying. I am doing so right now.

THe irony is that you have consistently refused to even address any argument I've made.

There is nothing hypothetical about my example - this exact argument has in fact been made.

It is not a strawman - you don't get to ignore an argument by just saying "strawman". If my analogy is not relevant, then tell us why the two situations are in fact different.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:15:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:12:42 AM
Again - why don't you engage in what I am saying, rather than bring up some odd hypothetical / strawman kind of argument?

I have engaged in what you are saying. I am doing so right now.

THe irony is that you have consistently refused to even address any argument I've made.

There is nothing hypothetical about my example - this exact argument has in fact been made.

It is not a strawman - you don't get to ignore an argument by just saying "strawman". If my analogy is not relevant, then tell us why the two situations are in fact different.

Because I'm not going to try and argue / rebut an argument I'm not making.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 11:25:46 AM
An interesting example of how well the media discrediting program works comes from the Virginia governor's election, won by the absolutely despicable Glenn Youngkin:  Yougkin's most powerfully motivating message was his promise to stop the teaching of critical race theory in Virginia schools so that students would no longer be taught to hate one another.  The news media uniformly* pointed out that no school in Virginia actually teaches critical race theory.  But that was dismissed by his voters because "everyone knows that the media lies." 

There was no issue on which Youngkin wasn't punching a straw man, but he won anyway.  Virginia had a pretty good string of successful governors, Republican and Democrat, but that line has been broken.

*except Fox and those further to the right, though Fox didn't say that it actually WAS being taught.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:26:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:15:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:12:42 AM
Again - why don't you engage in what I am saying, rather than bring up some odd hypothetical / strawman kind of argument?

I have engaged in what you are saying. I am doing so right now.

THe irony is that you have consistently refused to even address any argument I've made.

There is nothing hypothetical about my example - this exact argument has in fact been made.

It is not a strawman - you don't get to ignore an argument by just saying "strawman". If my analogy is not relevant, then tell us why the two situations are in fact different.

Because I'm not going to try and argue / rebut an argument I'm not making.

I think you are not trying to rebut an argument you know you cannot win, but you are not willing to give up your faith in your conservative myth.

Again, my claim is that your argument that "the mainstream media is biased towards liberals" is not different in kind with many other similar claims, and they have serious consequences (many of which I've listed already).

That is the argument *I* am making. I have created no strawman for you.

In fact, I  will steel man your argument. What you should be arguing is "Berkut, you are right - the lack of trust in the media has dire consequences. Which is why the modern media should be a lot more careful to make sure they are not seen as partisan, and make it harder for the crazy fucking conservatives to advance this bullshit narrative that the mainstream media is biased and fake news".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:27:05 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 11:25:46 AM
An interesting example of how well the media discrediting program works comes from the Virginia governor's election, won by the absolutely despicable Glenn Youngkin:  Yougkin's most powerfully motivating message was his promise to stop the teaching of critical race theory in Virginia schools so that students would no longer be taught to hate one another.  The news media uniformly* pointed out that no school in Virginia actually teaches critical race theory.  But that was dismissed by his voters because "everyone knows that the media lies." 

There was no issue on which Youngkin wasn't punching a straw man, but he won anyway.  Virginia had a pretty good string of successful governors, Republican and Democrat, but that line has been broken.

*except Fox and those further to the right, though Fox didn't say that it actually WAS being taught.

Stop frothing grumbler!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:26:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:15:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:12:42 AM
Again - why don't you engage in what I am saying, rather than bring up some odd hypothetical / strawman kind of argument?

I have engaged in what you are saying. I am doing so right now.

THe irony is that you have consistently refused to even address any argument I've made.

There is nothing hypothetical about my example - this exact argument has in fact been made.

It is not a strawman - you don't get to ignore an argument by just saying "strawman". If my analogy is not relevant, then tell us why the two situations are in fact different.

Because I'm not going to try and argue / rebut an argument I'm not making.

I think you are not trying to rebut an argument you know you cannot win, but you are not willing to give up your faith in your conservative myth.

Again, my claim is that your argument that "the mainstream media is biased towards liberals" is not different in kind with many other similar claims, and they have serious consequences (many of which I've listed already).

It is different because one is an argument I am making, and the others are not.  :mellow:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on November 03, 2021, 11:35:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 11:25:46 AM
An interesting example of how well the media discrediting program works

Aknowledging a media's bias is not the same as discrediting it.  The NYT remains a good journal.  But don't try to make me believe it has no bias in how it reports news, how they are titled, and how the columnists and editorialists are chosen.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:47:04 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2021, 11:35:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 11:25:46 AM
An interesting example of how well the media discrediting program works

Aknowledging a media's bias is not the same as discrediting it.  The NYT remains a good journal.  But don't try to make me believe it has no bias in how it reports news, how they are titled, and how the columnists and editorialists are chosen.

That isn't the debate under question though.

The discrediting of the media is not about calling into question the bias of the NYT, it is about calling into question the overall credibility of the "mainstream media" as an entirety. It is making the classic logical fallacy of attributing to the whole the characteristic of a singular example.

Claim: "Climate scientists are not honest about their results!"
Response: "Yes they are! Here are various articles and journals and descriptions about how fact checking and peer review work!"
Counter: "Hah! But look! Here is an example of this one time this climate scientist was wrong, or even actually dishonest!"

Of course, that doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny, but no matter - this isn't actually a battle of logic and rationality, it is a battle of propaganda. And the lazy lie, we all know, works so much better than the careful truth.

"The media is all biased against conservatives!" is easy and trite and people who make the claim have no interest or care about actually evidencing it. They just say it, and hold to it and demand that YOU disprove it.

And if you do, if you provide copious evidence that by its nature is nuanced and never truly definitive, they simply reject it. They take singular examples and extrapolate to the entirety. Like this here - "What about the NYT? THEY are obviously biased!". But of course if you respond with a singular example ("What about the WSJ? They are clearly RIGHT wing biased!" or "What about Reuters? They have an excellent reputation for being incredibly fair!") the response is "Yeah, but those are the exceptions!"

The rules are not the same. But this has always been true of these kinds of claims.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 11:48:50 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2021, 11:35:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 11:25:46 AM
An interesting example of how well the media discrediting program works

Aknowledging a media's bias is not the same as discrediting it.  The NYT remains a good journal.  But don't try to make me believe it has no bias in how it reports news, how they are titled, and how the columnists and editorialists are chosen.

No one is saying that no reporters, editors, etc are unbiased.  That's a straw man.  What I pointed out was how Youngkin could get major traction using an issue he made up out of whole cloth, in spite of every reputable news source pointing out that it was a strawman argument, because Youngkin voters preferred to believe him over the "biased media."

Saying a reporter or editor is biased is like saying that they breathe oxygen.  It is a mere truism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:54:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:47:04 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2021, 11:35:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 11:25:46 AM
An interesting example of how well the media discrediting program works

Aknowledging a media's bias is not the same as discrediting it.  The NYT remains a good journal.  But don't try to make me believe it has no bias in how it reports news, how they are titled, and how the columnists and editorialists are chosen.

That isn't the debate under question though.

But it is though - because that's all I've been saying.

You just keep trying to attribute OTHER arguments that OTHER conservatives might say to me, and then get frustrated when I won't actually defend those other arguments.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:02:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 11:54:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 11:47:04 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2021, 11:35:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 11:25:46 AM
An interesting example of how well the media discrediting program works

Aknowledging a media's bias is not the same as discrediting it.  The NYT remains a good journal.  But don't try to make me believe it has no bias in how it reports news, how they are titled, and how the columnists and editorialists are chosen.

That isn't the debate under question though.

But it is though - because that's all I've been saying.

You just keep trying to attribute OTHER arguments that OTHER conservatives might say to me, and then get frustrated when I won't actually defend those other arguments.

No, I get frustrated that you won't acknowledge that such other arguments exist and are linked in a pretty obvious direct correlation to the argument you (and others like Rush and Hannity and Fox) have made.

I am not asking you to defend "the media are all liars!". It is very clear you do not think that.

I am asking you to acknowledge that "the media is biased against liberals!" has in fact led to "the media are all liars!" (I actually go further then that - that in fact "the media is biased against liberals" is actually just the dog whistle for "the media are all liars" for most of the people out there pushing that narrative, but I understand that YOU don't personally think that). And then on to what follows from that, specific cases where the successful selling of that claim has resulted in shitty outcomes for actual people.

You want to make a claim (one that you still have never given a single shred of evidence for, btw) and then pretend like it doesn't mean anything beyond its most narrow definition, and you and those how make that claim have no responsibility for it beyond that.

To the extent that is defensible, it is *exactly* as defensible as many other similar claims made under similar circumstances and made with similar agendas. Even the one Yi cited in your support - "You know, the Jews are the ones who asked for Jesus to be executed...."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:17:07 PM
But there are lots of arguments that are true that can then be linked or correlated to things that aren't true.

Covid vaccines have rare side effects.  Those rare side effects are frequently cited by anti-vaxxers.  But mentioning those rare side effects does not make one an anti-vaxxer.

Windmills kill a lot of birds.  That fact has been used against windmills by climate-change deniers.  But mentioning that windmills kill birds does not make one a climate-change denier.

I just find the idea that you shouldn't discuss an idea or theory - and in fact you should say the opposite - not because of any inherent flaw in the idea but because it might be used by other people for nefarious purposes to be really, really dangerous.


As for my proof of a general left-wing bias in the mainstream media I present to you:

(https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Media-Bias-Chart-8.0_Sept-2021-Unlicensed-Social-Media_Hi_Res-scaled.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:32:02 PM
That chart shows very clearly that there is no such thing as a left wing bias in the mainstream media. It shows lots and lots of media on both sides of the bias line, and plenty of media in the "no bias" middle, and further shows a direct correlation between lack of bias a quality.

If "bias" means anything it has to mean something other then "it falls a micrometer on one side or the other of the imaginary perfectly non-biased line". That chart has an entire middle section that represents the "not biased" part, and there are a bunch of mainstream media in that section, and then broadly the further you get from that section, the more the quality tends to fall of on BOTH sides. That is not an argument for *liberal* bias in the media, it is an argument that the more bias you ahve either way, the shittier you are as a media company, by and large.

You cannot cite a chart that shows a bunch of media not in the "skews left" category to support your claim that the media overall skews left!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:40:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:32:02 PM
You cannot cite a chart that shows a bunch of media not in the "skews left" category to support your claim that the media overall skews left!

I just cited a chart that shows virtually all of the media outlets one would call "mainstream" as being left of the middle.

As an aside it's odd that it includes BBC, The Guardian and the Daily Mail, but is otherwise exclusively American.  I would be curious where they'd rank some of the big Canadian news sources, such as the CBC.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:40:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:17:07 PM
But there are lots of arguments that are true that can then be linked or correlated to things that aren't true.

Covid vaccines have rare side effects.  Those rare side effects are frequently cited by anti-vaxxers.  But mentioning those rare side effects does not make one an anti-vaxxer.

If we are having a discussion about whether people should get vaccinated, and you know that the exaggeration of incredibly rare side effects is the core myth of those who are pushing an anti-vax agenda, and you go into the debate and drop comments like "COVID vaccines have deadly side effects!" without context or nuance or the added explanation of how rare they are, or how immaterial those side effects are compared to the dangers of COVID, then you are an anti-vax asshole probably, and at least a very useful idiot to the anti-vax assholes.

Now, when someone calls you on it, sure, you can retreat to the claim that the statement "Covid vaccines have deadly side effects" is strictly true. And that you mean nothing beyond the bare minimum of the statement.

But if you cannot see what that is problematic, I think you are being rather willfully blind.

Things can be true in their particular, narrow definition of "true" while being used to promote a lie. And when the extent of their utility in the narrowest version of their "truth" is basically zero (which is the case for comments like "The Covid vaccines have deadly side effects" or "The mainstream media is biased against liberals") I think that relevant conversation is about the overall narrative being talked about, rather then the narrow definition nobody cares about except for those who need an excuse for what they have said.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:44:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:40:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:32:02 PM
You cannot cite a chart that shows a bunch of media not in the "skews left" category to support your claim that the media overall skews left!

I just cited a chart that shows virtually all of the media outlets one would call "mainstream" as being left of the middle.

As an aside it's odd that it includes BBC, The Guardian and the Daily Mail, but is otherwise exclusively American.  I would be curious where they'd rank some of the big Canadian news sources, such as the CBC.

There is a middle line, so by definition every single entity on the chart has to be on one side or the other. So that tells us nothing at all.

The chart is very clearly defined as showing actual categories - those are those that are "skew left", "skew right", more extreme versions of those, and "middle". There is a LOT of mainstream media in the "middle" category, and we can see that the BEST media is in fact in that middle category.

You want to cite the chart as evidence, but actually ignore what it is telling you - that the best media is the most unbiased media, and there is plenty of "mainstream" media that is not skewed left or right, and plenty of mainstream media that skews right as well.

The only way to torture this into your narrative is to re-define the categories so that there cannot be any media that is actually objective!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on November 03, 2021, 12:47:49 PM
The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:52:13 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 03, 2021, 12:47:49 PM
The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.

Its a function of their methodology and the way that conservatives now define "biased" as being anything that isn't FOR them.

So if Reters reports "Trump claimed COVID would be over by Easter. Scientists doubt that" then some conservative "evaluators" will rate that as "biased", and they will get a very slight "liberal" push to their rating.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:53:15 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 03, 2021, 12:47:49 PM
The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.

Because bias extends beyond the opinion pages.  Bias can factor into which stories are covered or not, or which sources are interviewed.

No idea if that's what Berkut's source is measuring or not, but that's the argument that can be made.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:54:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:53:15 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 03, 2021, 12:47:49 PM
The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.

Because bias extends beyond the opinion pages.  Bias can factor into which stories are covered or not, or which sources are interviewed.

No idea if that's what Berkut's source is measuring or not, but that's the argument that can be made.

You have no idea if that is what "Berkut's source is measuring" yet you are willing to take it on as YOUR source without even checking their methodology?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on November 03, 2021, 12:55:32 PM
The question for me is not why mainstream media skews left, but rather why there's so comparatively few "conservative" outlets reporting factfully. :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:40:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:17:07 PM
But there are lots of arguments that are true that can then be linked or correlated to things that aren't true.

Covid vaccines have rare side effects.  Those rare side effects are frequently cited by anti-vaxxers.  But mentioning those rare side effects does not make one an anti-vaxxer.

If we are having a discussion about whether people should get vaccinated, and you know that the exaggeration of incredibly rare side effects is the core myth of those who are pushing an anti-vax agenda, and you go into the debate and drop comments like "COVID vaccines have deadly side effects!" without context or nuance or the added explanation of how rare they are, or how immaterial those side effects are compared to the dangers of COVID, then you are an anti-vax asshole probably, and at least a very useful idiot to the anti-vax assholes.

That's really something coming from you Berkut, because you're the one who keeps bringing up media bias (or lack thereof)!

I posted in this thread to make fun of QAnon idiots who thought JFK was alive and going to make a public appearance at Dealey Plaza yesterday.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:58:29 PM
Quote from: Syt on November 03, 2021, 12:55:32 PM
The question for me is not why mainstream media skews left, but rather why there's so comparatively few "conservative" outlets reporting factfully. :P

And that's fair. :weep:

I get more out of reading Vox, which definitely skews hard left but tries to mostly be accurate, than I would from reading, I dunno, Fox News or National Review. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 01:03:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:40:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:17:07 PM
But there are lots of arguments that are true that can then be linked or correlated to things that aren't true.

Covid vaccines have rare side effects.  Those rare side effects are frequently cited by anti-vaxxers.  But mentioning those rare side effects does not make one an anti-vaxxer.

If we are having a discussion about whether people should get vaccinated, and you know that the exaggeration of incredibly rare side effects is the core myth of those who are pushing an anti-vax agenda, and you go into the debate and drop comments like "COVID vaccines have deadly side effects!" without context or nuance or the added explanation of how rare they are, or how immaterial those side effects are compared to the dangers of COVID, then you are an anti-vax asshole probably, and at least a very useful idiot to the anti-vax assholes.

That's really something coming from you Berkut, because you're the one who keeps bringing up media bias (or lack thereof)!

I posted in this thread to make fun of QAnon idiots who thought JFK was alive and going to make a public appearance at Dealey Plaza yesterday.

And I mentioned the irony of someone who pushes the media cannot be trusted narrative (and that is most certainly how QAnon dumbasses see the "media is biased against conservatives!" narrative) finding it odd that some of the people out there actually believed them.

Back to Yi's analogy. You are the German non-Nazi who is appalled at the existence on concentration camps, but who was very happy talking about how the Jews were the ones who asked for Jesus to be executed - after all, that is just plain true!


What I find fascinating is that you cannot connect the dots between "the media is biased against us poor conservatives!" to "the media cannot be trusted" to "the media is fake news" to "Fox is just as good!" to "OAN is legit!" when it is perfectly clear to me that the people who are at the "You should watch Fox!" end of that are the people who invented the "media is biased against conservatives!" narrative to begin with!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on November 03, 2021, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:53:15 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 03, 2021, 12:47:49 PM
The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.

Because bias extends beyond the opinion pages.  Bias can factor into which stories are covered or not, or which sources are interviewed.

No idea if that's what Berkut's source is measuring or not, but that's the argument that can be made.

Checking the graph maker's methodology that's not how they work, they work with what they publish, they don't assume stuff that is not there:

QuoteQ: How does Ad Fontes Media generate the scores for each news source on the Media Bias Chart?

A: We generate overall news source scores based on scores of individual articles (in the case of online news sources) or episodes (in the cases of podcasts, radio, TV, and video-based sources).

Each individual article and episode is rated by at least three human analysts with balanced right, left, and center self-reported political viewpoints. That is, at least one person who has rated the article self-identifies as being right-leaning, one as center, and one as left-leaning. Articles and episodes are rated in three-person live panels conducted in shifts over Zoom. Analysts first read each article and rate them on their own, then immediately compare scores. If there are discrepancies in the scores, they discuss and adjust scores if necessary. The three analysts' ratings are averaged to produce the overall article rating. Sometimes articles are rated by larger panels of analysts for various reasons–for example, if there are outlier scores, the article may be rated by more than three analysts.

Q: Do you differentiate between news and opinion articles?

Yes! We rate all types of articles, including those labeled analysis or opinion by the news source. Not all news sources label their content as opinion, and regardless of how it is labeled by the news source, we make our own methodology determinations on whether to classify articles as analysis or opinion on the appropriate places on the chart.

Q: How do you select the articles for each source?

For each news source, we pick a sample of articles that are most prominently featured on that source's website over several news cycles. We typically have at least 15 articles rated per source, but for our top 100 we have several dozen articles each, and for the largest sources (such as the New York Times and Washington Post) we have over 100 articles each in our sample.

Our content ratings periods for each rated news source are performed over multiple weeks in order to capture sample articles over several news cycles. Sources that have appeared on our Media Bias Chart for longer have articles over much longer periods of time.

Often, our sample sets of articles and shows are pulled from sites on same day, meaning that they were from the same news cycle. Doing so allows analysts to incorporate evaluations of bias by omission and bias by topic selection.

We use a multi-person rating per article system to minimize the impact of any one person's political bias on the published rating. We purposefully assign each analyst a breadth of coverage over as many sources as possible to to enhance each analyst's familiarity with sources across the spectrum.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 01:32:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:40:07 PM
I just cited a chart that shows virtually all of the media outlets one would call "mainstream" as being left of the middle.

The middle is clearly the column labelled "middle." It isn't a line.  For all we know, the creators of this may have moved some symbols to the right or left, or up or down, so that they didn't fall on top of one another.  Your belief that the symbol placement on this chart is precise is almost certainly wrong.  By your standards, The Hill is both biased to the right AND biased to the left!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on November 03, 2021, 02:26:25 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 03, 2021, 12:47:49 PM
The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.
Technically, you can insert opinion by the choice of what you report on without opinion or matter-of-factly.  If you matter-of-factly cover murders by immigrants, and no one else, you're engaging in right-wing propaganda even if your actual reporting has zero things that can be taken issue with.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on November 03, 2021, 03:06:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 01:32:13 PM
By your standards, The Hill is both biased to the right AND biased to the left!

It simply means The Hill generally skews slightly left of center, but some opinion writers may lean further to the right than the rest of the media.  Look at Fox News.  Some of their anchors are clearly aligned with the insane right while some others are more centrists, per Fox News standards.  It doesn't mean FN is fair&balanced because a few employees are.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 03:09:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2021, 03:06:03 PM
It simply means The Hill generally skews slightly left of center, but some opinion writers may lean further to the right than the rest of the media.  Look at Fox News.  Some of their anchors are clearly aligned with the insane right while some others are more centrists, per Fox News standards.  It doesn't mean FN is fair&balanced because a few employees are.

Really?  What is the basis for your assertion about what "it simply means?" 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2021, 03:44:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 01:03:07 PM
What I find fascinating is that you cannot connect the dots between "the media is biased against us poor conservatives!" to "the media cannot be trusted" to "the media is fake news" to "Fox is just as good!" to "OAN is legit!" when it is perfectly clear to me that the people who are at the "You should watch Fox!" end of that are the people who invented the "media is biased against conservatives!" narrative to begin with!

Endlessly repeated straw man #3.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 03:52:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2021, 03:44:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 01:03:07 PM
What I find fascinating is that you cannot connect the dots between "the media is biased against us poor conservatives!" to "the media cannot be trusted" to "the media is fake news" to "Fox is just as good!" to "OAN is legit!" when it is perfectly clear to me that the people who are at the "You should watch Fox!" end of that are the people who invented the "media is biased against conservatives!" narrative to begin with!

Endlessly repeated straw man #3.

Endlessly repeated evasion #1.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2021, 04:08:37 PM
What am i evading?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on November 04, 2021, 10:06:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:52:13 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 03, 2021, 12:47:49 PM
The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.

Its a function of their methodology and the way that conservatives now define "biased" as being anything that isn't FOR them.

So if Reters reports "Trump claimed COVID would be over by Easter. Scientists doubt that" then some conservative "evaluators" will rate that as "biased", and they will get a very slight "liberal" push to their rating.

Since right wing medias aren't in the center, I'm guessing you got it all wrong.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on November 04, 2021, 11:58:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 01:03:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2021, 12:40:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2021, 12:17:07 PM
But there are lots of arguments that are true that can then be linked or correlated to things that aren't true.

Covid vaccines have rare side effects.  Those rare side effects are frequently cited by anti-vaxxers.  But mentioning those rare side effects does not make one an anti-vaxxer.

If we are having a discussion about whether people should get vaccinated, and you know that the exaggeration of incredibly rare side effects is the core myth of those who are pushing an anti-vax agenda, and you go into the debate and drop comments like "COVID vaccines have deadly side effects!" without context or nuance or the added explanation of how rare they are, or how immaterial those side effects are compared to the dangers of COVID, then you are an anti-vax asshole probably, and at least a very useful idiot to the anti-vax assholes.

That's really something coming from you Berkut, because you're the one who keeps bringing up media bias (or lack thereof)!

I posted in this thread to make fun of QAnon idiots who thought JFK was alive and going to make a public appearance at Dealey Plaza yesterday.

And I mentioned the irony of someone who pushes the media cannot be trusted narrative (and that is most certainly how QAnon dumbasses see the "media is biased against conservatives!" narrative) finding it odd that some of the people out there actually believed them.

Back to Yi's analogy. You are the German non-Nazi who is appalled at the existence on concentration camps, but who was very happy talking about how the Jews were the ones who asked for Jesus to be executed - after all, that is just plain true!


What I find fascinating is that you cannot connect the dots between "the media is biased against us poor conservatives!" to "the media cannot be trusted" to "the media is fake news" to "Fox is just as good!" to "OAN is legit!" when it is perfectly clear to me that the people who are at the "You should watch Fox!" end of that are the people who invented the "media is biased against conservatives!" narrative to begin with!

Meanwhile, the election in Virginia had a 12.3% swing to the GOP. If you extrapolate that across the country in 2022 house races, the GOP would pick up 51 seats and have a majority of 264-171.

But no need to panic. There was another governor's race: New Jersey, where the swing was a more modest 10.8%. That would result in the GOP only picking up 44 seats.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on November 04, 2021, 12:08:38 PM
After all that's been demonstrated about the GOP's intentions, actions and methods, it's really amazing to me how Democrat voters just don't show up on election day.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2021, 12:08:38 PM
After all that's been demonstrated about the GOP's intentions, actions and methods, it's really amazing to me how Democrat voters just don't show up on election day.
Indeed, given what is at stake (including redistricting) it is a baffling apathy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 12:14:58 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2021, 12:08:38 PM
After all that's been demonstrated about the GOP's intentions, actions and methods, it's really amazing to me how Democrat voters just don't show up on election day.

It's almost as if there's a big bunch of voters who don't identify as "democrat voters".  And that the democratic party should try to make a play for the political centre, and not just rely on motivating their base.

My understanding from afar is that Republican Youngkin won in Virginia by pushing issues around schools and education, while democrat McAuliffe relentlessly tried to tie Youngkin to Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 12:17:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 12:14:58 PM
My understanding from afar is that Republican Youngkin won in Virginia by pushing strawman issues around schools and education, while democrat McAuliffe relentlessly tried to tie Youngkin to Trump.

FTFY

Youngkin is tied to Trump root and branch.  Not enough people cared.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on November 04, 2021, 12:18:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2021, 12:08:38 PM
After all that's been demonstrated about the GOP's intentions, actions and methods, it's really amazing to me how Democrat voters just don't show up on election day.
Indeed, given what is at stake (including redistricting) it is a baffling apathy.
Baffling and depressing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PJL on November 04, 2021, 01:14:00 PM
The issue is that the US (and other countries) have moved to the right, at least on social issues. Democrats need to realise that they need to be more conservative to start winning again.  Technological & societal change is moving so rapidly that a reactionary party is now viable (see the Republicans). Put simply, the Democrats need to be where the Republicans were 20 years ago.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 01:14:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 12:17:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 12:14:58 PM
My understanding from afar is that Republican Youngkin won in Virginia by pushing strawman issues around schools and education, while democrat McAuliffe relentlessly tried to tie Youngkin to Trump.

FTFY

Youngkin is tied to Trump root and branch.  Not enough people cared.

Whether or not it was a strawman is moot - it was effective.  And tying Youngkin to Trump is not a good strategy if, as you note, not enough people care.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on November 04, 2021, 01:44:17 PM
Quote from: PJL on November 04, 2021, 01:14:00 PM
The issue is that the US (and other countries) have moved to the right, at least on social issues. Democrats need to realise that they need to be more conservative to start winning again.  Technological & societal change is moving so rapidly that a reactionary party is now viable (see the Republicans). Put simply, the Democrats need to be where the Republicans were 20 years ago.
I agree that it's part of the problem.  Especially on social issues, there is a tendency for some on the left to get so deep into the echo chamber that they completely lose track of how alien they start sounding even to other people on the left who are outside of their echo chamber.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 02:03:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 12:14:58 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2021, 12:08:38 PM
After all that's been demonstrated about the GOP's intentions, actions and methods, it's really amazing to me how Democrat voters just don't show up on election day.

It's almost as if there's a big bunch of voters who don't identify as "democrat voters".  And that the democratic party should try to make a play for the political centre, and not just rely on motivating their base.

My understanding from afar is that Republican Youngkin won in Virginia by pushing issues around schools and education, while democrat McAuliffe relentlessly tried to tie Youngkin to Trump.

More like there is a big bunch of voters out there who don't want to support either party of the right but will come out to support progressive policies which the Democrats can't seem to bring themselves to do.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 02:03:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 12:14:58 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2021, 12:08:38 PM
After all that's been demonstrated about the GOP's intentions, actions and methods, it's really amazing to me how Democrat voters just don't show up on election day.

It's almost as if there's a big bunch of voters who don't identify as "democrat voters".  And that the democratic party should try to make a play for the political centre, and not just rely on motivating their base.

My understanding from afar is that Republican Youngkin won in Virginia by pushing issues around schools and education, while democrat McAuliffe relentlessly tried to tie Youngkin to Trump.

More like there is a big bunch of voters out there who don't want to support either party of the right but will come out to support progressive policies which the Democrats can't seem to bring themselves to do.

You see - I think that's the exact wrong lesson to learn.

If you ask voters they'll say sure - I'd like to expand medicaid.  But experience has shown that isn't an issue that drives voters.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on November 04, 2021, 02:12:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 12:14:58 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2021, 12:08:38 PM
After all that's been demonstrated about the GOP's intentions, actions and methods, it's really amazing to me how Democrat voters just don't show up on election day.
My understanding from afar is that Republican Youngkin won in Virginia by pushing issues around schools and education, while democrat McAuliffe relentlessly tried to tie Youngkin to Trump.

What I mean is there's a big chunk of ppl who voted for Biden and Kane etc. who then stayed home when another rich white guy pushing lies about CRT was on the ballot.

Either they were not properly informed, did not care or a combination of both. Kinda depressing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 04, 2021, 03:21:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.

THis is the problem with the left now.

They are following the right down the path of ideological purity politics.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 04, 2021, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2021, 02:12:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 12:14:58 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2021, 12:08:38 PM
After all that's been demonstrated about the GOP's intentions, actions and methods, it's really amazing to me how Democrat voters just don't show up on election day.
My understanding from afar is that Republican Youngkin won in Virginia by pushing issues around schools and education, while democrat McAuliffe relentlessly tried to tie Youngkin to Trump.

What I mean is there's a big chunk of ppl who voted for Biden and Kane etc. who then stayed home when another rich white guy pushing lies about CRT was on the ballot.

Either they were not properly informed, did not care or a combination of both. Kinda depressing.

I have really become rather pessimistic about US politics.

I think the authoritarian right has figured out a method that works. It is downright evil in its manipulation of the worst in human tendencies.

And the left is not willing or able to respond. Maybe that is because the reality is that there *isn't* a good way to respond, other then to become just as bad.

:secret: (and yes....it was a necessary condition to the success of the rights strategy to just embrace lying and appealing to the worst in humans that they first destroy the very idea of a credible and free press. mission accomplished)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 04:21:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.

How many non knuckle draggers remain on the right of the American political spectrum?  There are not many.  The Dems are not going to win by appealing to only the Berkuts and Yis of the American population.  If anything they would face electoral disaster.  No, the way to beat Trump is not to support the same policies the Republicans would.  The better way to find policies that appeal to a broader base.  Those policies also have the benefit of being the better policies.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 04:44:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 04:21:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.

How many non knuckle draggers remain on the right of the American political spectrum?  There are not many.  The Dems are not going to win by appealing to only the Berkuts and Yis of the American population.  If anything they would face electoral disaster.  No, the way to beat Trump is not to support the same policies the Republicans would.  The better way to find policies that appeal to a broader base.  Those policies also have the benefit of being the better policies.

You're not appealing to Republic politicians you dunderhead - you're appealing to occasional Republican voters.  You know, the ones who voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.  You don't push the same policies as Republicans - but you do push policies that would appeal to moderate suburban voters.  You know the same voters that voted for Joe Biden one year ago, but then voted for Youngkin earlier this week.

CRT may be a red herring, but you don't go saying parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools.

Joe Biden won election because of voters who voted for him at the top of the ticket in 2020, but then voted Republican down-ballot.  If those voters had voted for Trump, Trump would have won the election fair and square.

You could pretty easily come up with a platform that would be different than the GOP (to the extent they even have a platform), but that runs a centre-left direction.  And explicitly rejecting "defund the police" should be one of those policies.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on November 04, 2021, 05:11:37 PM
I think that's a good reminder of what happened in 2020, Beeb.  People who compare the results of 2021 candidates against the Biden margin forget that even 2020 candidates underperformed the Biden margin.  It seems like voters are only marginally less scared of Democrats than they are of Trump, at least the marginal ones (in more ways than one).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 04, 2021, 06:16:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 04:44:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 04:21:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.

How many non knuckle draggers remain on the right of the American political spectrum?  There are not many.  The Dems are not going to win by appealing to only the Berkuts and Yis of the American population.  If anything they would face electoral disaster.  No, the way to beat Trump is not to support the same policies the Republicans would.  The better way to find policies that appeal to a broader base.  Those policies also have the benefit of being the better policies.

You're not appealing to Republic politicians you dunderhead - you're appealing to occasional Republican voters.  You know, the ones who voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.  You don't push the same policies as Republicans - but you do push policies that would appeal to moderate suburban voters.  You know the same voters that voted for Joe Biden one year ago, but then voted for Youngkin earlier this week.

CRT may be a red herring, but you don't go saying parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools.

Joe Biden won election because of voters who voted for him at the top of the ticket in 2020, but then voted Republican down-ballot.  If those voters had voted for Trump, Trump would have won the election fair and square.

You could pretty easily come up with a platform that would be different than the GOP (to the extent they even have a platform), but that runs a centre-left direction.  And explicitly rejecting "defund the police" should be one of those policies.

It's interesting how the rhetoric from the far left sounds almost exactly like the rhetoric from the far right.

"The same policies as the Republicans". This is common cause with the radical right who calls anyone not as radical as them "RINOS".

The idea that everyone must be 1 or the other - if you are not a radical progressive, you might as well be a radical Trumper.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 04:44:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 04:21:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I can see why you would think that.  But if the Dems just want to be another party of the right, why bother?

*shakeshead*

SO YOU DON'T ELECT TRUMP AGAIN AND END AMERICAN DEMOCRACY YOU FOOL!

If Trump is such an existential threat (and I think he is) - act like it.  Do whatever it takes to defeat him, even if it means shelving some progressive ideas for the moment and making common-cause with the political centre.

How many non knuckle draggers remain on the right of the American political spectrum?  There are not many.  The Dems are not going to win by appealing to only the Berkuts and Yis of the American population.  If anything they would face electoral disaster.  No, the way to beat Trump is not to support the same policies the Republicans would.  The better way to find policies that appeal to a broader base.  Those policies also have the benefit of being the better policies.

You're not appealing to Republic politicians you dunderhead - you're appealing to occasional Republican voters.  You know, the ones who voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.  You don't push the same policies as Republicans - but you do push policies that would appeal to moderate suburban voters.  You know the same voters that voted for Joe Biden one year ago, but then voted for Youngkin earlier this week.

CRT may be a red herring, but you don't go saying parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools.

Joe Biden won election because of voters who voted for him at the top of the ticket in 2020, but then voted Republican down-ballot.  If those voters had voted for Trump, Trump would have won the election fair and square.

You could pretty easily come up with a platform that would be different than the GOP (to the extent they even have a platform), but that runs a centre-left direction.  And explicitly rejecting "defund the police" should be one of those policies.

That is the sort of thinking that has the Conservatives winning only occasionally in Canada.  The problem with US politics is that with rare exceptions politicians rarely try to fight the right. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 04:44:12 PM
You're not appealing to Republic politicians you dunderhead - you're appealing to occasional Republican voters.  You know, the ones who voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.  You don't push the same policies as Republicans - but you do push policies that would appeal to moderate suburban voters.  You know the same voters that voted for Joe Biden one year ago, but then voted for Youngkin earlier this week.

There aren't enough of those voters to matter.

QuoteCRT may be a red herring, but you don't go saying parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools.

No one has ever said that parents have no say in what's taught in their kid's schools.  That's just yet another right wing red herring.  What McAuliffe said was that "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach," which is perfectly true.  Parents have a voice, but it's not a personal voice in directing a school's curriculum.

QuoteJoe Biden won election because of voters who voted for him at the top of the ticket in 2020, but then voted Republican down-ballot.  If those voters had voted for Trump, Trump would have won the election fair and square.

Where do you get the idea that the seven million votes that Biden out-polled Trump by voted Republican down-ticket?  [/quote]  If that had happened, the Democrats would have lost the House and the Senate.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 04, 2021, 07:36:33 PM
I'm not sure how the McAuliffe quote you gave differs from Barristers interpretation. I don't think that hair can be split.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 04:44:12 PM
You're not appealing to Republic politicians you dunderhead - you're appealing to occasional Republican voters.  You know, the ones who voted for Obama twice, then voted for Trump.  You don't push the same policies as Republicans - but you do push policies that would appeal to moderate suburban voters.  You know the same voters that voted for Joe Biden one year ago, but then voted for Youngkin earlier this week.

There aren't enough of those voters to matter.

QuoteCRT may be a red herring, but you don't go saying parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools.

No one has ever said that parents have no say in what's taught in their kid's schools.  That's just yet another right wing red herring.  What McAuliffe said was that "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach," which is perfectly true.  Parents have a voice, but it's not a personal voice in directing a school's curriculum.

QuoteJoe Biden won election because of voters who voted for him at the top of the ticket in 2020, but then voted Republican down-ballot.  If those voters had voted for Trump, Trump would have won the election fair and square.

Where do you get the idea that the seven million votes that Biden out-polled Trump by voted Republican down-ticket? 
If that had happened, the Democrats would have lost the House and the Senate.
[/quote]

I'm not going to fancy up the formatting, but:

-I've heard smart people say there are
-I don't think there's a meaningful difference between my summary and your exact quote
-I didn't say Trump would have won the popular vote, but rather that Trump would have won enough votes in enough states to win the electoral college
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 09:44:47 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 04, 2021, 07:36:33 PM
I'm not sure how the McAuliffe quote you gave differs from Barristers interpretation. I don't think that hair can be split.

If you can't see the difference between:
a. "parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools," and
b. "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,"
then I'm guessing reading comprehension just isn't your thing.  One is a prohibition on them having any power, and the other is a prohibition on them having complete power.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 09:48:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 07:55:04 PM
I'm not going to fancy up the formatting, but:

-I've heard smart people say there are
-I don't think there's a meaningful difference between my summary and your exact quote
-I didn't say Trump would have won the popular vote, but rather that Trump would have won enough votes in enough states to win the electoral college

- I don't know how you can read my evidence-based analysis and discard it in favor of some word of mouth about what some unidentified "smart people say."
- If you can't see the difference, then I pity the Crown Service.
- Your unsupported assertions are unconvincing.  Even more so in light of the two points above.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 02:30:50 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 09:44:47 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 04, 2021, 07:36:33 PM
I'm not sure how the McAuliffe quote you gave differs from Barristers interpretation. I don't think that hair can be split.

If you can't see the difference between:
a. "parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools," and
b. "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,"
then I'm guessing reading comprehension just isn't your thing.  One is a prohibition on them having any power, and the other is a prohibition on them having complete power.

If parents aren't part of the decision process, then they have no say. If they are, that is "telling schools what they should teach". Being able to mouth off at a school board meeting doesn't count for anything.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on November 05, 2021, 06:33:32 AM
Wasn't the whole debate in the Virginia campaign about parents and school curriculums about a busybody mother who wanted his son's high school to remove Toni Morrison's Beloved from the school curriculum because it gave his 17 year old kid nightmares or somesuch?

To my euroweenie mind having parents tell their sons' school about what they can and can't teach seems most of the time a fig leaf for nutters and busybodies to impuse their nuttery on others while clutching their pearls and screaming "won't somebody think of the children?"
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 05, 2021, 06:41:06 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 02:30:50 AM
If parents aren't part of the decision process, then they have no say. If they are, that is "telling schools what they should teach". Being able to mouth off at a school board meeting doesn't count for anything.

Well, if you think that parents only have a say if they can tell schools what to teach, then you have defined the issue in such an extremist way that you cut off any possibility of a reasonable take on the situation.

If you are right, then Youngkin can only keep his promise by telling schools that they must teach what each parent wants them to teach; which, of course, isn't a power of the governor, but let's pretend that your concept isn't completely impossible for a moment, as a thought experiment.  So, when one parent tells their school that it must teach only Mark Twain in tenth grade English, and another tells the school that it must teach only Charles Dickens in tenth grade English, the school must bifurcate into two schools, so that each parent gets their way.  Then a third parent tells the school it must teach creationism and a fourth tells the school it must not teach creationism, the two schools bifurcate into four, teaching each parents kid what the parent insists on.  Continue this process for 1,000 parents, and where are you?

So, if you are right, then schools are completely fucked. 

If I am right, then parents continue to have their current voice in school curricula, by electing the school board, serving on academic committees reporting to the school board, being members of the PTA, and, yes, speaking out at school board meetings.  You know; the system that worked for 200 years or so.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 07:12:33 AM
Parents collectively, not individually. They have a say, to a degree.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on November 05, 2021, 07:13:13 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 07:12:33 AM
Parents collectively, not individually. They have a say, to a degree.

Parents, of course, have a say. But that doesn't mean they tell the school what to do.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 07:15:34 AM
To the same degree as their say is meaningful, they do.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on November 05, 2021, 08:01:47 AM
Most don't.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 05, 2021, 09:56:44 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 07:12:33 AM
Parents collectively, not individually. They have a say, to a degree.

Collectively, they have a say in school district policies. This is not the same as "parents have no say in what's taught in their kids schools," which was the statement that you were defending.

Parents do not, however, get to tell schools themselves what to teach.  Schools follow school district policy.  That's what McAuliffe was saying.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 11:58:36 AM
That's probably what he meant, but it could be interpreted more broadly. Which gets back to the complaint about poor messaging.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on November 05, 2021, 12:01:34 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 11:58:36 AM
That's probably what he meant, but it could be interpreted more broadly. Which gets back to the complaint about poor messaging.

The benefit politicians on the right have is they get to dumb down their messages to reach their target audience.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on November 06, 2021, 01:14:03 PM
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/january-6-capitol-riot-republicans-elected-to-office_n_6181bc04e4b0ad6f587b79a8

QuoteAt Least 10 Republicans Who Were At The Jan. 6 Rally Just Got Elected To Office

And even more attendees of the rally that turned into the Capitol riot will likely be on the ballot in 2022.

At least 10 Republicans who attended the Jan. 6 rally in Washington, D.C., that turned into a deadly insurrection were elected to office Tuesday.

Three were elected to state legislatures, and seven won positions at the local level.

Although most have claimed they didn't breach the U.S. Capitol on that day, all were participants in the demonstration leading up to the attack, standing alongside extremists to take part in the finale of a months-long anti-democratic campaign to falsely claim that then-President Donald Trump hadn't really lost the 2020 election.

Their victories on Tuesday are a possible sign of things to come: HuffPost previously identified at 57 state and local GOP officials who attended the Jan. 6 rally, many of whom will be up for reelection — and will likely keep office — next year.

That these candidates enjoy the support of the wider Republican Party and are winning elections does not bode well for American democracy, showing that one of the country's major political parties, despite some initial gestures at being horrified by the events of Jan. 6, is almost completely unrepentant over its role in fomenting the historic attack on the Capitol.

Among the Jan. 6 attendees who won office on Tuesday were two Republicans reelected to the Virginia House of Delegates: Dave LaRock and John McGuire.

Earlier this year LaRock, responding to criticism from a Black elected official about his role in the insurrection, said the official should focus on "the needs of the colored community." (He later apologized for the comment.)

McGuire won his seat despite his Democratic opponent unearthing a photo showing him standing near men in paramilitary gear confronting police on Jan. 6. McGuire had previously claimed he hadn't heard of the violence at the U.S. Capitol until returning home. The news, he said, had "shocked and horrified" him.

Marie March, a restaurant owner who bragged in a campaign advertisement about her attendance at the Jan. 6 "Stop the Steal" rally and who in a since-deleted Facebook post warned of a "coming Civil War" in which she would be willing to "fight and die" for both her "family" and "small businesses," also won a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday.

In city councils across the country, Jan. 6 rally attendee Natalie Jangula won a seat in Nampa, Idaho, and Christine Ead, who did not enter the Capitol building and later wrote a Facebook post falsely blaming the violence on "ANTIFA and other anarchists," won a seat in Watchung, New Jersey.

Charles Ausburger also won a seat on the town council of Mansfield, Connecticut, an official at the town clerk's office confirmed to HuffPost. Ausburger didn't have to campaign too hard though: There were only eight candidates for the nine-seat council.

Susan Soloway, who helped organized a bus to transport Trump supporters to the Jan. 6 rally, won reelection to the Hunterdon County, New Jersey, Board of Directors. Soloway attended the rally and later posted on Facebook a selfie outside of the Capitol, which she later deleted. She claims not to have entered the building, and to have turned over footage she took at the riot to the FBI.

In Braintree, Massachusetts, a former high school teacher who resigned his position after local activists sent a photo of him outside the Capitol on Jan. 6 to the FBI, won a seat on the local school committee. Matthew Lynch received the second most votes in the six-candidate race for three open school committee seats. He told Patch earlier this year that the FBI has visited him twice since Jan. 6, but did not elaborate on what occurred during those interviews. In his correspondence with Patch, he accused the activists of "slandering me as a domestic terrorist," and called them a "digital Lynch mob." It's unclear if he breached the Capitol building.

And in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, wife-husband duo Danielle and Stephen Lindemuth — who were part of a bus trip to the rally from nearby Lancaster — won two seats on the school board. The couple, according to The Lancaster Online, campaigned on promising to keep "critical race theory" and The 1619 Project out of schools. In a March school board meeting on Zoom, the couple — who have said multiple bigoted things online — complained about a poster in their daughter's classroom depicting Black Lives Matter protesters. Stephen Lindemuth told the school board that Black Lives Matter was a "Marxist organization with anti-American values that are largely anti-family."

At least one race involving a Jan. 6 attendees is still undecided. Monica Manthey is still awaiting results in her race to join the Annapolis, Maryland, city council.

"I'm not a crazy insurrectionist person," Manthey, who attended the rally but claimed she didn't enter the Capitol building on Jan. 6, insisted to HuffPost on Wednesday morning. Asked if the riot made her rethink her support of Trump, Manthey replied: "I never rethought my support."

Elsewhere across the country, at least five Jan. 6 attendees were defeated at the ballot box. In Virginia, two candidates — Maureen Brody and Phillp Hamilton — lost their bids to join the House of Delegates.

Steve Lynch, who pushed debunked conspiracy theories that the siege of the Capitol was a false flag event carried out by leftists, lost his race for county executive in Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

Incumbent T.J. Onerlaw, who said he got "pretty darn close to where the door is" at the Capitol but was unaware until later that night that anyone had breached the building, was defeated in his quest for another term in the Mason, Ohio, city council.

And Edward Durfee Jr., a member of the far-right militia the Oath Keepers, a group heavily implicated in the violence on Jan. 6, lost a race for a seat in the New Jersey General Assembly. Durfee, who previously told BuzzFeed News he did not storm the Capitol but was working as security for the Oath Keepers, currently heads up the Republican Party in Northvale, New Jersey.


Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on November 06, 2021, 01:32:55 PM
Let me guess: one of them is the Camp Auschwitz shirt guy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2021, 03:02:01 PM
Digital "Lynch" mob. Cute.  :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2021, 10:35:52 AM
Dear Governor Abbot and Friends:

I am writing to express my outrage at the filth and smut that our vulnerable children are being exposed to in school libraries. I was horrified to learn that my son's school library includes a book that contains the most execrable and morally offensive material I have ever seen.  Every single chapter of this disgusting screed contains a parade of sick and monstrous outrages, including graphic depictions of rape, incest, murder, the most foul and deviant sexual practices, indiscriminate slaughter, and genocide. Moreover, not content with mere depiction of this parade of unspeakable horrors, the book affirmatively promotes and advocates unthinkable and barbaric practices, such as the murder or dismemberment of children for minor acts of disobedience.  My son has suffered uncurbable trauma and pain from being exposed to this material and our family has been driven to financial ruin paying for his therapy and counseling. Worst of all, not only does the library contain multiple prominently displayed copies of this disgusting text, I have learned that many teachers in the school have secretly encouraged children to seek out and read the book.  What kind of perverted deviants have we hired to teach in our schools?  On behalf of all decent people and concerned parents in the State of Texas, I urge you to take immediate action to collect and destroy all copies of the book in school libraries and fire all teachers who have suggested that our children read it.  I am sure that a upright, moral man such as yourself has never read the book - which I understand to be a collection of ancient mythology, apparently selected for its salacious and prurient content.  It is called "The Bible".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on November 12, 2021, 05:54:37 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/12/steve-bannon-indicted-capitol-attack-subpoena

QuoteSteve Bannon indicted for refusal to comply with Capitol attack subpoena

Former Trump adviser indicted by grand jury on two counts for contempt of Congress
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on November 12, 2021, 10:31:50 PM
Not sure of the technicalities, but 100% that the goptards drop the suit as soon as they win next year. It won't amount to anything.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2021, 08:05:22 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 12, 2021, 10:31:50 PM
Not sure of the technicalities, but 100% that the goptards drop the suit as soon as they win next year. It won't amount to anything.
On Bannon? Biden will still be in office and control the DOJ, they wouldn't drop the prosecution even if the House flipped.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 13, 2021, 08:22:15 PM
He'll probably comply with the subpoena.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on November 15, 2021, 07:39:06 AM
Aaah, the rancid stench of theocracy...

QuoteFormer Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn calls for one religion in America

At a three-day conference in San Antonio, Texas, for the "ReAwaken America" tour, former national security adviser and keynote speaker Michael Flynn called for Christianity to become the singular religion of the United States.

"If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God, and one religion under God," said Flynn, who recently talked about his Christian faith in an effort to refute QAnon claims that he worships Satan.

At the conference, Flynn also discussed former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who was indicted by a federal grand jury for refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot. Flynn called the indictment an "abuse of freedom of speech."

Flynn also said he has taped a segment for "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on what he calls the "insurrection crucifixion," comparing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Pontius Pilate, the man who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus in the Bible.

"This is the crucifixion of our First Amendment freedom to speak, freedom to peacefully assemble. It's unbelievable," Flynn said at the conference on Friday.

The "ReAwaken America" tour features Flynn, other Trump loyalists, and anti-vaxx doctors, including Stella Immanuel and Scott Jensen, who have a history of spreading disinformation about the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Other Trump allies participating as speakers for the tour include Roger Stone, Mike Lindell, and Lin Wood.

Flynn also has a history of propagating conspiracy theories, such as COVID-19 vaccines being added to salad dressing, and previously claimed that COVID-19 was fabricated to distract from the 2020 election.

He served as the Trump administration's national security adviser and was pardoned in 2020 after pleading guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his communications with Russia.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on November 15, 2021, 07:40:22 AM
Wasn't everyone becoming one faith part of Revelations?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on November 15, 2021, 08:07:38 AM
I'm not really sure why what Flynn says is newsworthy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 15, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 15, 2021, 07:40:22 AM
Wasn't everyone becoming one faith part of Revelations?

Wasn't freedom of religion part of the First Amendment?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 15, 2021, 08:15:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2021, 08:07:38 AM
I'm not really sure why what Flynn says is newsworthy.

Yeah, mocking senile old men for their drooling nonsense is unbecoming.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on November 15, 2021, 09:48:17 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 15, 2021, 07:40:22 AM
Wasn't everyone becoming one faith part of Revelations?

Wasn't freedom of religion part of the First Amendment?
That is typical Communist misleading nonsense. 

Judeo-Christian heritage.  Patriotism.  Moslem invasion. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 15, 2021, 10:34:19 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 15, 2021, 09:48:17 AM
That is typical Communist misleading nonsense. 

Judeo-Christian heritage.  Patriotism.  Moslem invasion.

:huh:  I thought the invasion was by (mostly Catholic) Latin Americans.

I'm so out of tough with the Religious Reich's latest delusions.  :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2021, 11:03:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2021, 08:07:38 AM
I'm not really sure why what Flynn says is newsworthy.

He is America's next and last national security advisor. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on November 15, 2021, 11:05:21 AM
And he's still getting invited on TV where he's presumably seen by a not entirely insignificant audience.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2021, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 15, 2021, 07:40:22 AM
Wasn't everyone becoming one faith part of Revelations?

Wasn't freedom of religion part of the First Amendment?

Just the freedom to choose which branch of anti-papal Christianity you prefer.  Except for that uppity heretic Anne Hutchison; she should burn too.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on November 15, 2021, 11:16:50 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 15, 2021, 11:05:21 AM
And he's still getting invited on TV where he's presumably seen by a not entirely insignificant audience.

My thought is that such reports just magnify his inane thoughts for little tangible benefit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on November 15, 2021, 11:45:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2021, 10:34:19 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 15, 2021, 09:48:17 AM
That is typical Communist misleading nonsense. 

Judeo-Christian heritage.  Patriotism.  Moslem invasion.

:huh:  I thought the invasion was by (mostly Catholic) Latin Americans.

I'm so out of tough with the Religious Reich's latest delusions.  :(
In league with the Moslems.   Illegal immigrants are part of a global plot by China and the Taliban and Hollywood. They are all against you.  You alone are smart enough, strong enough, and wise enough to recognize it.  Which makes you much better than the sheep.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 15, 2021, 12:27:43 PM
I thought Q was a Trumpy. Is Satanism in now?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on November 15, 2021, 06:24:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2021, 11:16:50 AM
My thought is that such reports just magnify his inane thoughts for little tangible benefit.
But it is news, isn't it?

If Susan Rice was out there calling for a Communist revolution I think it would deserve reporting.

Although with Flynn the thing I always find baffling/alarming is how he rose up through the army and ended up head of the DIA before Trump, which strikes me as alarming.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on November 15, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2021, 06:24:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2021, 11:16:50 AM
My thought is that such reports just magnify his inane thoughts for little tangible benefit.
But it is news, isn't it?

If Susan Rice was out there calling for a Communist revolution I think it would deserve reporting.

Although with Flynn the thing I always find baffling/alarming is how he rose up through the army and ended up head of the DIA before Trump, which strikes me as alarming.

Indeed.

How did someone so clearly unhinged get so high?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2021, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2021, 06:24:43 PM
Although with Flynn the thing I always find baffling/alarming is how he rose up through the army and ended up head of the DIA before Trump, which strikes me as alarming.

Amen.

Though in the glass is half full department it doesn't seem to be a trend.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on November 15, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2021, 06:24:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2021, 11:16:50 AM
My thought is that such reports just magnify his inane thoughts for little tangible benefit.
But it is news, isn't it?

If Susan Rice was out there calling for a Communist revolution I think it would deserve reporting.

Although with Flynn the thing I always find baffling/alarming is how he rose up through the army and ended up head of the DIA before Trump, which strikes me as alarming.

Indeed.

How did someone so clearly unhinged get so high?
Meth.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 15, 2021, 09:54:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
Indeed.

How did someone so clearly unhinged get so high?

Perhaps he became unhinged after rising so high.  He'd not be the first crazy person to develop craziness later in life after being normal for most of it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on November 16, 2021, 02:37:09 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2021, 06:24:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2021, 11:16:50 AM
My thought is that such reports just magnify his inane thoughts for little tangible benefit.
But it is news, isn't it?

If Susan Rice was out there calling for a Communist revolution I think it would deserve reporting.

Although with Flynn the thing I always find baffling/alarming is how he rose up through the army and ended up head of the DIA before Trump, which strikes me as alarming.

Is it? He has been irrelevant for a while and always says crazy things. Not sure why he needs his words repeated nationally and internationally.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on November 16, 2021, 12:27:42 PM
People who know him say he went nuts after Obama fired him.  Obama fired him because he was just making up stuff (a bad trait in an intel guy), so I think he probably went started cracking before he that.

There is another possibility, that he his deranged raving are not simply the result of a menially ill man, but that he was simply more and more influenced by a political culture that has become deranged.  The kind of stuff he was putting into intel reports were "Fox News" type things like "Iranians are sending militants into America".  When he was fired, Flynn was trumpeted as a bold truth-teller who was punished by Obama.  His recent ravings are the crystalizing dogma  of what is now the right-wing of the Republican party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on November 16, 2021, 12:47:24 PM
Indeed. His insane ravings put him smack in the GOP mainstream.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 16, 2021, 12:52:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 12:27:51 PM
IS this the closest we have to a QAnon thread?  I think so.

Apparently dozens of people are gathering in Daly Plaza in Dallas today expecting to see the return of John F Kennedy, who will in turn restore Trump to power.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgd85a/qanon-dallas-jfk-trump

Not JFK Jr (who is also dead, but will also be there), But President Kennedy, whose murder was recorded for all to see.

They're back (or never left) because you have to calculate these things with the Julian calendar (naturally).

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4awvyb/qanon-dallas-jfk-protzman

These predictions are all made by a fellow named Michael Protzman.  Here's a recent photo apparently (no joke):

(https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1637067406777-screenshot-2021-11-16-at-121010.png?resize=800:*)

:tinfoil:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on November 16, 2021, 04:57:04 PM
That's smiley has never been more appropriate...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on November 18, 2021, 11:55:19 AM
So, apparently this is a real poster for the event...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEcP1e3WUAMZmrE?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 01:09:28 PM
That is wise.  You don't want to attract kids with Matt Gaetz lurking around.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on November 18, 2021, 01:13:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 01:09:28 PM
That is wise.  You don't want to attract kids with Matt Gaetz lurking around.

Gaetz might be busy training his new intern.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEfdJ7sVkAIDPRe?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on November 18, 2021, 01:42:38 PM
Kind of young for Gaetz isn't he?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on November 18, 2021, 01:48:35 PM
17?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on November 18, 2021, 02:39:28 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 18, 2021, 11:55:19 AM
So, apparently this is a real poster for the event...
And of course CPAC 2022 will in Budapest - I believe it's their first trip out of the US.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on November 18, 2021, 03:28:42 PM
Secretary of Homeland Security Kyle Rittenhouse in the upcoming Gaetz administration.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on November 19, 2021, 03:58:50 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FElYJipUYAMhT0V?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on November 19, 2021, 04:11:15 PM
at what point can they charge him with inciting treason?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on November 19, 2021, 05:03:51 PM
What the hell is the big deal over this rittenhouse kid?  (such a odd name. That series with the rittenhouse villains was very recent).
So he's a dumb idiot who shot at protestors.... And this has somehow made him a massive hero with the fasc. Didnt loads of people do that?
Though it is pretty crazy he got off with nothing... I can only guess its a "the libs are pissed so lol" thing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on November 19, 2021, 05:32:11 PM
It's not an odd name.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on November 19, 2021, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 19, 2021, 05:03:51 PM
What the hell is the big deal over this rittenhouse kid?  (such a odd name. That series with the rittenhouse villains was very recent).
So he's a dumb idiot who shot at protestors.... And this has somehow made him a massive hero with the fasc. Didnt loads of people do that?
Though it is pretty crazy he got off with nothing... I can only guess its a "the libs are pissed so lol" thing.

The far right is openly celebrating the murder or threatened murder of their political opponents. And the bulk of the GOP is going along.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on November 19, 2021, 05:44:03 PM
Derspeiss will be happy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on November 19, 2021, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 19, 2021, 05:03:51 PM
What the hell is the big deal over this rittenhouse kid?  (such a odd name. That series with the rittenhouse villains was very recent).
So he's a dumb idiot who shot at protestors.... And this has somehow made him a massive hero with the fasc. Didnt loads of people do that?
Though it is pretty crazy he got off with nothing... I can only guess its a "the libs are pissed so lol" thing.

Thankfully, no.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on November 19, 2021, 07:30:13 PM
I think this may be the most unhinged I've seen:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEl2g60X0Ak2xtZ?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on November 19, 2021, 07:31:30 PM
Or else...?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 20, 2021, 03:43:06 AM
I think he's just taking the piss.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on November 20, 2021, 04:20:46 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 20, 2021, 03:43:06 AM
I think he's just taking the piss.

Feels like a very poor time for jokes / their usual defense.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on November 20, 2021, 04:25:08 AM
Really bad sign

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/politics/wisconsin-republicans-push-election-takeover/index.html

QuoteMore than a year after Donald Trump's loss, Wisconsin Republicans wage relentless attacks on the state's election commission
Fredreka Schouten byline
By Fredreka Schouten, CNN

Updated 0504 GMT (1304 HKT) November 20, 2021

(CNN)Republicans in Wisconsin are engaging in a multi-pronged attack on the state's bipartisan election commission -- in one of the latest efforts to relitigate the 2020 election in a key presidential battleground state.

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson has publicly urged fellow Republicans who control the Wisconsin Legislature to take over the running of federal elections in the state and direct local officials to ignore election guidance issued by the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

His push, first reported by The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, comes after a Republican sheriff in Racine County called for five members of the state's six-member election commission to be charged with felonies because they waived a requirement to send poll workers into nursing homes during the pandemic. On Monday, Rebecca Kleefisch, a Republican running for governor, asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to find that the commission's election guidance runs counter to state law.

Johnson's calls for a legislative takeover of the elections system demonstrate "the firm grasp that the (Donald) Trump wing of the Republican Party has not only everywhere, but particularly here in Wisconsin," said Jay Heck, who runs the state branch of Common Cause.

"It's a lot of political bluster, but it has to be taken seriously in these times," he added.
Johnson did not immediately respond to an interview request from CNN. But he told The Journal-Sentinel that the state legislature should claim authority over the election system and argued that the state's Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is powerless to stop it.

"There's no mention of the governor in the Constitution" when it comes to running elections, Johnson told the newspaper. "It says state legislatures, and so if I were running the joint -- and I'm not -- I would come out and I would just say, 'We're reclaiming our authority. Don't listen to WEC anymore. Their guidances are null and void.' "

"I think the state Legislature has to reassert, reclaim this authority over our election system," he added.

Some Republicans aligned with Trump have advanced an aggressive interpretation of the so-called "independent state legislature doctrine," which argues state legislators have full power over federal elections.

Top GOP lawmakers in Wisconsin have cast doubts on Johnson's proposal. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said recently that he's not sure there is a "legal opportunity" for such a takeover.
And Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos told reporters that the issue did not come up at a recent meeting with Johnson. "The idea that somehow we are going to take over the elections and do all those things, I've never studied that," Vos said. "I don't know about it."

'We did not break the law'

Wisconsin will be a key swing state in 2024. President Joe Biden won it by a little more than 20,600 votes in 2020; Trump captured it four years earlier by fewer than 23,000 votes.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission, established by Republican lawmakers six years ago, has faced anger and scrutiny from GOP officials about its guidance to local election officials in the run-up to the 2020 election.

A top issue: The commission's 5-1 decision advising election clerks around the state not to send poll workers, known as special voting deputies, into nursing homes during the pandemic.

Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling announced last month that an investigation by his office determined that employees at a nursing home in his county had helped residents cast ballots, which he said violated state law.

He recommended election fraud and misconduct charges be lodged against the five commission members who approved the guidance.

Officials with the commission said they did nothing wrong. They said the change in procedures was discussed in public meetings and occurred only because state and federal guidance limited access to nursing homes to avoid spreading the coronavirus to vulnerable residents.

"To put it simply, we did not break the law," Ann Jacobs, a Democrat who chairs the commission, said in a statement, responding to Schmaling. "In fact, without action from the Commission, many residents in Wisconsin care facilities could have and would have been disenfranchised and not able to vote in the 2020 elections."

Mark L. Thomsen, the Democratic vice chair of the commission, condemned Republicans' efforts in Wisconsin during an interview on Friday with CNN's Don Lemon.

"In 2016, President Trump won the election by the same rules. 2020, President Biden won the election by the same rules," Thomsen said. "And to adopt Senator Johnson's attack would be a complete unlawful act, unheard of. It really is astounding."

Other efforts to relitigate or undo the 2020 election persist in Wisconsin.

A former state Supreme Court justice is continuing a Republican-ordered investigation into the election.

And this week, Wisconsin GOP state Rep. Timothy Ramthun moved to advance a resolution to decertify Biden's victory -- despite an analysis by lawyers on the state's non-partisan legislative council, noting that there is no mechanism in state or federal law to do so.
Trump issued a statement, cheering on Ramthun's move.

Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke, however, said lawmakers would not take up the resolution, citing the legislative council analysis.

Wisconsin election observers say the current debate may be a warmup for a takeover of the state's election system ahead of 2024 and the next presidential election.

"As a matter of law, given that we now have a Democratic governor, this is mostly talk," Robert Yablon, an election law expert at the University of Wisconsin's law school, said of the debate over who runs elections.

"If there is unified Republican control in Wisconsin after 2022," he added, "the fact that these discussions are being had now is a strong signal that (Republicans) would very much try to move in the direction of replacing the elections commission with more unilateral, partisan control."
CNN's Jeremy Herb and Kelly Mena contributed to this story.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 01, 2021, 06:51:09 PM
Dr Oz announces a republican senate bid from pennsylvania.

I wonder if in a few years we aren't saying, "The aftermath of the Trump presidency and covid created the path to the whitehouse for our first muslim president, president doctor oz."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 01, 2021, 07:14:01 PM
Not to mention, both are known for giving suspect medical advice.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on December 04, 2021, 10:22:26 PM
From Sam Adler-Bell of the excellent Know Your Enemy podcast - and I think this matters because what circulates in young activist/intellectual circles now is the orthodoxy of tomorrow, but especially in a political tradition with such a self-conscious identification with their intellectual history and as a movement of "ideas".

I've said before but there's interesting, alarming stuff going on there:
QuoteThe Radical Young Intellectuals Who Want to Take Over the American Right
They hate the establishment. They want to destroy the system. Meet the illiberal upstarts trying to remake conservatism.
Sam Adler-Bell/December 2, 2021

"Conservatism in 2021 means radicalism," announced Nate Hochman, a 23-year-old writer at National Review. Describing the posture of his political milieu, Hochman spoke with urgency and without pretense, less eager to impress than to be understood. "We have to think of ourselves as counterrevolutionaries or restorationists who are overthrowing the regime." He doesn't mean by violence, necessarily. "But ... there's not a lot left to conserve in the contemporary state of things. There are things that need to be destroyed and rebuilt."

If you're scandalized by the language of "counterrevolution" or surprised to hear a conservative talk about "destroying" things and "overthrowing" regimes, you probably haven't spent much time around right-wing college grads of late. Which makes sense. As a matter of demography, they're exceedingly hard to find. "Young, highly educated people, as a group, are now overwhelmingly Democratic to an extent that's literally never been seen before, probably ever in history," explained David Shor, the progressive pollster and statistician. The well-known liberal biases of millennials have held for Generation Z, and education polarization continues apace. We've become accustomed to thinking about the distorting effect these factors have on Democratic campaigns and NGOs, which are dominated by young activists with beliefs well to the left of the median Democrat. But the same forces are shaping the right's leading lights. Given the high statistical likelihood that a young person who went to college is a Democrat, those college grads who are not liberal—the hardheaded holdouts who buck the trend—tend to be, well, as Shor put it, "really very weird."

And because the right is not exempt from the iron laws governing left-wing nonprofits, highly educated elites tend to run Republican institutions, too. Hochman—who graduated from Colorado College earlier this year—may be a statistical unicorn, but young people who share his attitudes are common on the mastheads of conservative magazines, as well as among conservative activists, Capitol Hill staffers, and lower-tier alumni of the Trump administration. Which is to say, don't be surprised if we begin hearing a lot more about "counterrevolution" from GOP officeholders.

Hochman has thick brown hair, with a disobedient cowlick in front, and large brown eyes. He wears a trim beard and—whenever possible—jeans and a flannel shirt. He looks like the kind of kid who would offer you granola at a trailhead. (And he might. He grew up in Oregon and loves to camp and hike; an overlap, he notes, between the far right and the far left in the Pacific Northwest is a love of roughing it outdoors.)* Hochman is a rising a star of what is being called, rather unimaginatively, the New Right. He and his comrades are populist culture warriors, cohered as much by temperament as ideology—and by certain fiercely held enmities. Some are "national conservatives," who, like "Reformicons" of the 2010s, support pro-family welfare policy and reject the GOP's tax-cutting orthodoxy. (NatCons, as they're known, also tend to be China and immigration hawks who want an "industrial policy" for the heartland.) Others are "postliberal" localists, in the vein of Patrick Deneen, who wrote Why Liberalism Failed, and Rod Dreher, the irascible Eastern Orthodox blogger and author of The Benedict Option, a spirited argument for Christian retreat from the turpitude of public life into virtuous communal separatism. And others are Roman Catholic integralists, aspiring to a theologically ordered politics; Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule and University of Dallas politics professor and American Affairs editor Gladden Pappin are their touchstones.

Whichever denomination they prefer, New Rightists tend to agree that classical liberalism—of the sort embraced by previous generations of conservatives—has a big hole in the middle of it where a substantive concept of the Good should be. "My core belief is just that you can't be a libertarian," said Declan Leary, an integralist writer at The American Conservative. "You have to be something." Leary, who is 22, lacks Hochman's infectious sincerity; he can be rather droll and speaks in a world-weary tone belied by the occasional postpubescent voice crack. But Leary is no less passionate in his views. "All law is imbued with moral character," he told me. "Let's stop pretending otherwise, and just acknowledge which morals we're trying to legislate ... and then commit ourselves to them."


Most New Right activists see the Trump presidency as a salutary development. At the very least, they view Trump's success as a symptomatic expression of the novel forces at work in American life. "I'm still lukewarm on Trump, the man," Hochman said. "I think he's a moronic boomer who tapped into something by accident." Saurabh Sharma, a 23-year-old New Right activist, told me that he got his start in politics watching the 2016 presidential campaign, listening to Bernie rallies and Trump rallies "and finding interesting things to like about both." Trump would have been a better president, they believe, had his populist instincts not been reined in by the more establishment-minded figures on his staff, like son-in-law Jared Kushner. Nonetheless, Trump's presidency was a suitable vehicle for the group's blistering grievances against the liberal left and the conservative establishment. Indeed, their contempt for the latter sometimes seems to exceed their contempt for the former. "The smartest conservatives I knew in college had nothing but venom for the Republican Party," one young writer told me. "Conservative priorities have been completely out of whack," agreed Hochman. "We've been way too deferential to business interests at the expense of the people and the values that we claim to care about." The New Right wants to see Republicans abandon their fealty to free-market dogmas, embrace traditional Christianity, and use the levers of state power to wage the culture war for keeps.

Importantly, most of them are Catholic. The church has always had an allure for conservatives—with its strict rules, hierarchies, and status as an institution bestriding antiquity and modernity. "Generally people expect that if you have radical politics, you converted," said Leary, a rare Cradle Catholic in the bunch. Hochman, who was raised in a secular Jewish household, hasn't been confirmed yet, but he attends Mass, where he occasionally finds himself sobbing uncontrollably, experiencing something, he said, "that I could not explain to you in the English language." Hochman said his religious and political journeys are entangled; each made him more open to the idea that a tradition "preexisting modernity" has something to teach us.

He is the first to admit his movement is an elite phenomenon. "This is always something I have to check myself on. I don't really know what a 22-year-old Republican voter in West Virginia thinks about these issues." The battles raging between the new and old guards on the right—like those between socialists and liberals on the left—are battles between competing factions of the power elite. "By polling ... most young Republicans are more liberal than their older counterparts on everything from diversity to LGBT rights to immigration to climate change," Hochman acknowledged. Meanwhile, his milieu of young, conservative, intellectual elites is moving in the opposite direction. "They want a more culture war–oriented Republican Party."

Not every young conservative shares the New Right's orientation; some of the people I spoke to for this article dissented vociferously. But even the dissenters tend to acknowledge, if begrudgingly, that the "energy" among young conservatives is with the radicals. "The flavor of today's politics is populism on the left and right, said Stephen Kent, a 31-year-old libertarian writer and podcaster. "It's dismantling and challenging systems." Kent speaks in a plaintive, almost philosophical tone about the failure of his own views to capture the moment: "Young people want radical ideas right now." And though he believes libertarian ideas can be "quite disruptive to the status quo ... the young right don't see it that way." For them, libertarianism is synonymous with the laissez-faire approach to economics and morality that dominates Washington, D.C., and has permitted the twin cancers of hyper-individualism and secularism to metastasize through the culture. "I suppose that's the fault of libertarians," Kent reflected, regretfully.

I asked Shor if he thought these "really very weird" young men stood a chance of becoming the next generation of Republican leaders. Coyly, he pointed to the recent advances of left-wing ideologues, who increasingly shape the Democratic agenda. "If you had interviewed young people at a Jacobin reading club in 2014 and printed that in TNR, they would've sounded pretty crazy to most people." But now, he said, their sentiments are repeated by elected members of Congress. (As someone who attended many pre-Bernie gatherings of socialist nerds, I can tell you, the experience of the past five years has been disorienting.) "I think it's really easy to be like, 'Ah, these people are nuts,'" Shor said. "But it turns out, it's a lot easier to take over a political party than you would think." Shor, who is loath to make a prediction he can't back up with data, said if he "had to bet," he would bet on the New Right.


Conservatism has always been a young man's game. William F. Buckley Jr. was 25 when he wrote God and Man at Yale, the book that launched his career and established an enduring if tiresome literary genre: Native informant skewers the hypocrisies and perversions of liberal campus life. In a harsh New York Times review, erstwhile éminence grise of the nascent conservative revival Peter Viereck, himself only 35, faulted Buckley—a glib but vivacious "product of narrow economic privilege"—for skipping over the agonizing nights of "lonely, unrespectable soul-searching" by which a "sunnily conservative" disposition was earned by the likes of Disraeli, Churchill, Pope, and Swift. The happy warrior Buckley evidently hadn't suffered enough to fully appreciate the moral frailty that everywhere bedevils man's utopian designs. "Some day, being intelligent and earnest, Buckley may give us the hard-won wisdom of synthesis," Viereck wrote. "For that, he will first need to add, to his existing virtues, three new ones: sensitivity, compassion, and an inkling of the tragic paradoxes of la condition humaine."

But as Viereck soon discovered, a successful "revolt against revolt" enlists more than gloomy, ironical old men. Indeed, it requires savvy arrivistes like Buckley. It was precisely those qualities Viereck resented in his rival—the flashy clubman's wit, the willfulness and self-regard, the soft spot for splenetic populists like Joe McCarthy—that would prove indispensable to the task at hand. In 1955, just four years after Viereck's broadside, Buckley founded National Review, providing the intellectual spark, as whiggish conservative self-mythology has it, to ignite the prairie fire of Goldwater, and, later, the heedless conflagration of Reagan.

Still, it's not surprising that Viereck mistrusted Buckley's youthful exuberance and guile. The English philosopher Michael Oakeshott memorably defined conservatism as a preference for "the familiar to the unknown ... the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss." Insofar as the conservative disposition cherishes the permanent things, conservative activism presents a problem. Someone, at some point, must forgo quiet contemplation of man's tragicomic fallenness, put down the pipe, and enter the fray. As Buckley put it, in an editorial on the eve of his candidate's epic defeat in 1964, "Counterrevolution—and that, really, is what Barry Goldwater is talking about—is a sweaty, brawly business." (As you can see, "counterrevolution" isn't, or at least wasn't, foreign to the conservative lexicon.)

And herein lies a contradiction. Only the young have the energy, the optimism and will, to engage in that "brawly business." And yet they have no real memory of the world they seek to restore. They can only grasp in the dark, among their own shapeless longings, for a handhold on the paradise lost. And thus the world they imagine and the means they enlist to enact it are inevitably novel. In this way, conservative activists are always retro-futurists of a sort, imagining into being—from within the heady stew of modernity—a grisly simulacrum of the "old world." Stutter-step utopians, they move things forward by trying to move them back.

Buckley was the movement's "Paul-in-a-hurry" (Viereck's phrase), but the church of postwar conservatism was built by many soft, unlined hands. In September 1960, Buckley welcomed more than 90 of the nation's leading student conservatives to his family's 47-acre estate in Sharon, Connecticut. In the shade of an enormous elm tree on the Buckley front lawn, postwar conservatism's first mass membership youth organization—the Young Americans for Freedom—was founded. Twenty-six-year-old M. Stanton Evans, one of the older activists in attendance, drafted a manifesto of shared principles, "The Sharon Statement." Just 400 words long, it essentially restates the "fusionist" vision set out in the pages of National Review—affirming God-given rights, free markets, and militant anti-Communism.

"What is so striking in the students who met at Sharon is their appetite for power," marveled Buckley a few weeks later. "Ten years ago the struggle seemed so long, so endless, even, that we did not even dream of victory." Something had changed. The left saw it, too. "The new conservatives are not disinterested kids who maintain the status quo by political immobility," wrote Tom Hayden, soon-to-be author of the Students for a Democratic Society's Port Huron Statement, a rejoinder of sorts to the sentiments at Sharon, in 1961. "They are unashamed, bold, and articulately enamored of certain doctrines." What distinguished these "new conservatives" from their forebearers, Hayden warned, was "their militant mood."

That militancy paid off. Members of Young Americans for Freedom secured Goldwater's nomination, fueled Reagan's campaign for governor, and engineered the right-wing takeover of the Republican Party from tail to snout—upending the liberal consensus embodied by Nelson Rockefeller. The organization's first executive secretary, Richard Viguerie, innovated direct-mail strategies that powered conservative issue campaigns for decades. And by the end of the twentieth century, alumni such as Jeff Sessions and Dan Quayle were holding federal office—and others, like David Keene, were running the show behind the scenes.

To the New Right vanguard, twentieth-century conservatism is a victim of its own success. The "militant mood" that fueled postwar conservativism's rise has given way to a stolid and nostalgic institutionalism, an ideology in thrall to its victorious past and complacent about the challenges of the present. In the process, figures like Buckley sheared off the movement's rougher, populist edges as a condition of full inclusion in the project of governance. The movement's flagship think tanks (Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute) are sepultures. Young Americans for Freedom's successor organization, Young America Foundation, is a refuge for young people still clinging to the old ways—as Hochman put it, "fusionists with pictures of Ronald Reagan in their dorm bedrooms." Meanwhile, the GOP has ossified into a decadent, self-dealing oligarchy, perilously distant from its base, accommodated to the moral heresies of so-called wokeness and clinging to the rotted corpse of the Reaganite consensus. The conservative old guard and their younger functionaries, Hochman told me, "just want to run the greatest hits of 1984 over and over again."

Lately, skirmishes (which is to say, Twitter fights) among young fusionists—i.e., defenders of conservative orthodoxy—and the New Right have increased in frequency and vitriol. "It's become more and more vicious," Hochman said, especially since Trump lost the 2020 election. Hochman has a friendly, likable disposition and a curious mind; his impulse is to unite different factions. But the battles lines are stark. "I still have friends who are YAF-types," he said. "Those friendships are much more strained than they used to be."

Jack Butler, who is 28, doesn't have a picture of Ronald Reagan in his room, but his writing—also for National Review—has frequently attracted the New Right's ire.* More than Hochman or Leary, Butler has a bit of the "old man in a young man's body" affect one traditionally associates with young conservatives. He grew up in a red suburb of Cincinnati and attended Hillsdale College, a conservative school with a Great Books curriculum. He is ornery and practical; he loves Dune and Tolkien. As others told me, he is a bit of a glutton for punishment, picking fights with the most pugnacious New Right figures, like 36-year-old former New York Post opinion editor Sohrab Ahmari. But he's not attracted to conflict for conflict's sake. Butler's differences with his antagonists are profound: philosophical, temperamental, and strategic. "They're convinced that everything that exists currently within the conservative movement just needs to be burned down, obliterated," Butler said. He disagrees. Much of what the New Right wants, he said, has "an intellectual paternity already within the conservative movement." Pat Buchanan emphasized immigration, trade, and isolation; Reformicons wanted pro-natalist tax policy. Butler believes conservativism has room for many competing tendencies—or perhaps it's best thought of as a generation-spanning game of king of the hill, in which one strain is dominant for a time before another topples it. The rise and fall "is a natural process." "There's never going to be a point where you've slain all of your enemies and you are now in charge," he said. This, he believes, is precisely what the New Right wants: total domination. They'll only be satisfied when the libertarians and neocons bend the knee and beg for forgiveness. "Their real enemy," Butler said, "is reality."

Not that he isn't open to new ideas. "I can't really afford to be one of these sticks-in-the-mud who is in outright denial that there are these new currents." Butler is the submissions editor at National Review, and thus arguably Hochman's boss. It's another tribute to Hochman's geniality—or at least his self-preservationist instinct—that there appears to be no ill will between the two. "I like Jack," Hochman told me. "One of the reasons I wanted to work at National Review in the first place is because it has traditionally been the place where these important intra-conservative debates happen."

But not everyone shares Hochman's judicious assessment of National Review's ecumenism. "It was definitely not an environment conducive to the thriving of a 20-year-old integralist writer," said Leary, who interned at NR. Although, he hastened to add, "it wasn't actively stifling." For many on the New Right, the magazine represents the old guard. And to the extent that its writers—like Butler—have lashed out against the new forces, they do so out of anxiety about no longer being the protagonists of conservative history (if they ever were).

Michael Anton, the truculent conservative essayist who served on Trump's National Security Council, goes further. Anton sees the former Buckleyite bullhorn as a cudgel for policing the discourse. "Nobody is worse on this than the clowns and the sissies at National Review," Anton said in a recent interview. "They think that the most heroic act of the twentieth century was Buckley purging the Birchers. They just spend every day searching through what people on the Right write for some little minor thing they can disagree with so they can accuse them of being evil, racists, etcetera, and oust them from the conservative movement. They do the left's bidding for the left."

Such bellicosity is Anton's signature. He's a teacher at Hillsdale and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, a California think tank founded by students of Harry Jaffa, the infamously combative Lincoln scholar best known for applying the esoteric methods of his teacher, the German Jewish émigré philosopher and classicist Leo Strauss, to the American scene. (Recounting these sorts of patrimonial genealogies is de rigueur in conservative intellectual circles.) In Jaffa's telling, Lincoln, like the founders before him, believed in an objective moral order, from which sprung natural rights discernible by human reason. Slavery, for Lincoln, was wrong; no vote by the people could make it right. The same, Jaffa and his heirs later argued, goes for abortion.

Among legacy conservative institutions, Claremont has the closest ties to the New Right. In the Trump years, it became something of a clearinghouse for pro-Trump intellectualism. Anton is most famous as the pseudonymous author of "The Flight 93 Election" essay, a 2016 call to arms for conservatives to swallow their pride—and their misplaced prudence—and align with Donald Trump. Another Claremont scholar, John Eastman, prepared a memo outlining how Mike Pence could throw out the 2020 election results. ("You really need to listen to John," Trump reportedly told Pence.) Recently, the institute has published several pieces speculating about the prospect of civil war. Claremont has close ties to the most serious New Right political project, American Moment, a sort of policy shop cum training institute, founded by Sharma and two other conservative twentysomethings, that aims to "identify, educate, and credential" a new generation of staffers and bureaucrats who believe in "strong families, a sovereign nation, and prosperity for all." In other words, they hope to staff the next Trump presidency with true believers like themselves.

Many impressive thinkers, as well as several hacks and propagandists, have passed through Claremont's youth programs and fellowships. Hochman and Sharma were Publius Fellows this summer; so was a young staffer for Marjorie Taylor Greene. Other beneficiaries of Claremont's tutelage include Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer (a New Right fellow traveler), the Manhattan Institute's Christopher Rufo (lead shit-stirrer of the critical race theory panic), Ben Shapiro (the fast-talking YouTube mega-personality), The New York Times' Ross Douthat, and Jack Posobiec, the notorious Pizzagate conspiracist who now edits Human Events. A mixed bag, to say the least. Fellowships of this sort—which involve long days of discussing political philosophy and long nights of drinking wine with conservative luminaries—have long played a role in shaping the next generation of right-wing elites.

There's a joke one hears in academic circles that all this conservative foundation money slushing around functions as a "welfare state" for lackluster writers and scholars. "That's a real thing," Hochman told me. "A lot of not-smart people can get by because there's dearth of talent." But the flip side, he said, "is that if you're a young conservative who's intellectually minded, can actually think and put together coherent sentences, and likes to read, the world opens up for you." Hochman has had fellowships at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and is currently a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow; he marvels at the generosity of the mentors he's acquired through these experiences. They'll "have me over to their house, talk to me until 1 a.m. about all my stupid questions," he said.

For young thinkers who feel alienated by the liberal consensus on their campuses, being invited into a circle of like-minded outsiders can feel like genuine succor. Moreover, Hochman said, "that marginalization gives a sense of intimacy and connection and community." (Hochman's path to the right was paved, in part, by his friendship with Tim Fuller, a renowned Oakeshott scholar and one of the only conservative teachers Hochman encountered at Colorado College.) My friend and podcast co-host, Matthew Sitman, a former conservative who moved through similar circles as a graduate student in the mid-2000s, agrees. "It felt like an initiation into a tradition that was simultaneously an alternative to the mainstream, but also gave you a real sense of purpose and continuity." That heady mix of gravitas and tradition with exclusivity and rebellion is the conservative movement's special sauce.

For older conservative scholars, access to genuinely hungry young intellects—who aren't already Marxists—is its own sort of reward. Anton has thought deeply about how to harness the youthful dynamism of the New Right to achieve conservative ends. In a recent essay for Claremont's The American Mind entitled "The Art of Spiritual War," Anton looked, as he often does, to the Florentine Secretary for guidance. Machiavelli, Anton writes, faced a challenge similar to that of today's insurgent right; he "sought to liberate philosophy and politics—theory and practice—from a stultifying tradition and corrupt institutions." Anton derives his interpretation of Machiavelli from Strauss, who taught multiple generations of (mostly conservative) thinkers to mine classical and modern philosophy for useful bits of statecraft. "Machiavelli addresses his passionate and muted call to the young," Strauss writes, "to men whose prudence has not enfeebled their youthful vigor of mind, quickness, militancy, impetuosity and audacity."

These days, Anton shares Machiavelli's preference for youth. "The boomers ... tend to be the ones besotted with Reagan nostalgia and conservatism's past successes," Anton recently said. For Anton and his compatriots, the rot in the existing order is deep. And the old, who enjoy a place of honor, if not power, in the regime, have a stake in preserving it—a squeamishness about upsetting the apple cart. The young, by contrast, have no such loyalties nor inhibitions. Unlike the fuddy-duddy elders in conservatism's mainstream, the New Right—to quote a ubiquitous Claremont shibboleth—know what time it is.


(Jack Butler can't conceal his pique when I quote this phrase to him: "For the record, I wear a watch all the time as a runner. I'm pretty confident of what time it is during most periods.")

In the interest of attracting and retaining youthful vigor, Claremont has opened its doors to some of the less savory and certainly illiberal ideas percolating on the right. In 2019, The American Mind hosted a symposium on the alt-right Twitter personality "Bronze Age Pervert," known as BAP, who posts homoerotic photos of bodybuilders alongside diatribes against the repulsive "bugmen" who would impose egalitarian shackles on their beautiful betters. More recently, Claremont scholars have come under the spell of Silicon Valley's monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin, who advocates a coup to install an American Caesar to preside over a corporatist government with no democratic legitimacy. Anton has said he finds "disagreeing with BAP, and with Yarvin ... infinitely more fruitful than engaging with the entire 'conservative establishment' combined." As he wrote in a review of BAP's manifesto, Bronze Age Mindset, "In the spiritual war for the hearts and minds of the disaffected youth on the right, conservatism is losing. BAPism is winning." BAP's most odious pronouncements, Anton writes, remind "one of Machiavelli," who "obscures his sensible and moderate teachings with outrageous statements that appeal to the impetuosity, zeal, and bravado of the young." Anton sees his and Claremont's role as yoking the "ardor of youth" to "the prudence of age."

And how's that working? It's not clear whether Claremont has managed to convert any BAPists—young male fetishists for classical architecture, bodybuilding, and eugenics—into Straussian constitutionalists. Hochman said, politely, that he appreciates that Claremont is "committed to being open to ideas outside of the rules that have been set about what you're allowed to say." But as a skinny political theory nerd whose father is a secular Jew, Hochman was never a likely candidate for Übermenschian reaction. Leary, a post-liberal Catholic with little use for the American founding, said, "I don't know that anybody under the age of 70 actually believes anything Claremont says." No doubt as a shot at his friend Hochman, he added, "You go to a Claremont fellowship to get free booze and two weeks in California." (Leary later clarified that "Claremont is an invaluable part of the New Right coalition, to be sure.")

For his part, Butler noted that ardor itself has no moral valence. Young people are often attracted to energetic movements; those movements aren't always good. The Claremont strategy, Butler said, appears to be allying with everyone on the right who's been "discredited in one way or another." If the left continues to shift "the cultural barometer for acceptable discourse further and further in its direction, then you'll have more and more of these people on your side, and then you can tweet your way to victory—or something." In other words, they're building an army of the canceled and deplorable to retake Rome.

What you will not hear a lot of in New Right circles is discussion of electoral strategy. On first blush, this is odd. After all, if you squint, the New Right is advocating a potentially efficacious political program: that combination of economic populism (a.k.a. welfare state liberalism) and cultural conservatism (a.k.a. Christianity and immigration enforcement) that pollsters are always telling us has untapped potential as a majoritarian prospect in U.S. politics. In 2016, Donald Trump did twice as well as Hillary Clinton, Shor told me, "among people who simultaneously thought that reducing immigration was important and who thought that preventing cuts to Social Security" was important. The median voter is religious, and probably wants somewhat more restrictive abortion laws than status quo. The trouble, Shor said, is that they also "don't want to live in a Catholic dictatorship."

In other words, conservative elites, not unlike their progressive counterparts, are too weird to lead their revolution by democratic means. Many of the things that attract elite conservatives to the New Right—a thick sense of traditional morality, a communitarian ethos, a revolt against licentious modern excess, a sublime integration of spiritual and political life, and punishing, antiquarian modes of religious worship—bewilder and annoy their prospective electoral base, which is composed primarily of folk libertarian Trump voters. (By my lights, Matthew Walther's concept of "Barstool Conservatives"—fratty libertines dedicated primarily to scandalizing overbearing libs and flouting their social norms and niceties—remains the most clear-eyed encapsulation of the GOP's prospective future majority.) The GOP base may not want to cut Social Security, but they also don't care about Common Good Constitutionalism, much less the Latin Mass. The vehement opposition of Trump's most ardent supporters to Covid-19 measures is an expression of this incongruity. To his credit, Vermeule, the Harvard integralist, supports vaccine mandates on the basis of Catholic and communitarian principle—after all, if you're comfortable with legislating in the interest of the common Good, whether or not its beneficiaries know what's Good for them, vaccines make a lot of sense—but he doesn't have much company on the right in doing so.


"The New Right faces a fundamental mismatch of means and ends," wrote the conservative writer Tanner Greer in a clever blog post earlier this year. "They hope to build a post-libertarian national order on the backs of the most naturally libertarian demographic in the country!" Like the Ivy League woke scolds of the progressive left, Greer contends, the New Right derives its philosophic impulses from Puritanism—a top-down, northeastern tradition of communal obligation and piety. Meanwhile, archetypal Trump Country is inhabited by the descendants of Scots-Irish anti-authoritarians who deplore outsiders, hierarchy, and learned university men. In this way, the New Right's enthusiasm for the candidacy of J.D. Vance—as well as his lagging poll numbers—are perfectly legible: Vance made his name deriding the self-destructive impulses of Scots-Irish hillbillies, to the delight of coastal elites; his new program of pious, populist paternalism is a flavor of the same.

But there's another—more disturbing—reason the New Right rarely expresses its ambitions as a democratic proposition: Its adherents are not convinced democracy is the way to go. This impulse, of course, manifested in the Claremont set's well-documented efforts to abet the Trumpian coup. And it's also evident in the New Right's appetite for Yarvin's Caesarist shortcuts, integralist fantasies, and the prospect of deploying state power to punish enemies and reward friends. "What I find most distressing," Butler said, "is a kind of casual, at best, relationship to the thing that I think the conservative movement is organized around and ought always to be promoting—namely, the founding principles." When he invokes the axes of constitutionalism as a limiting factor for conservative aspirations, Butler said, "I'm typically seen as the kind of—let's just say 'kind and sensitive person,' or insert the adjective du jour."

Hochman would quibble with this characterization of his compatriots. He believes, like a good Publius Fellow, that the principles of the founding are sacrosanct; the problem is their abandonment by the contemporary left. The sort of counterrevolution the Claremont set has in mind—in principle—is one that would recover the world-historic genius of the founders and restore American politics to its proper footing at the intersection of natural right, equality, and Judeo-Christian morality. But Leary sees things otherwise: "I don't know anybody who's not 70 who's super into the American founding." In his view, to the extent the Claremonters appreciate the severity of the crisis, they're playing word games about what is to be done. The founding is a sort of catechism for Anton and his ilk, but that doesn't apply to the New Right vanguard. "None of us are particularly committed to it, frankly.... There are no 25-year-old Harry Jaffas on the rise on the American right."

Perhaps to his credit—or, at least, to my relief—Leary is fairly pessimistic about the prospects of his ideas assuming the force of law, whether democratically or otherwise. Asked whether he thought about mass politics, he replied, "No, I think you have to be a psychopath to do so. Politics doesn't interest me. It never has." And when I brought up Vermeule's concept of "integration from within"—the notion that smaller cadres of radical bureaucrats might profitably use the levers of state to reshape the country's moral orthodoxy—he was once again deflating and derisive: "I'm never going to go take over the Treasury Department and try to make it Catholic. But, I mean, good on you if you manage it." In his contemplative moments, Leary seems resigned to Benedictine options: "I basically think we should do what we can and all buy farms, and then whatever happens, happens."

But Leary's quietist pessimism derives from the same sense of doom that inspires other members of the New Right to less quiet solutions. The key to understanding the attitudes of young conservatives is their pervasive sense that the war for the soul of America has already been lost, their belief that progressives have taken control of every efficacious power center in American society—save a few hours per night of Fox News—and reshaped the country beyond recognition. The most acute expressions of this revolution, in their view, are the normalizing of transgender identities, the pervasiveness of racial "equity," abortion, cancel culture, and the pornification of media (including for young children). But their catastrophist sense of American affairs is difficult to fully grasp for those of us who don't feel it. It has a decidedly religious, eschatological dimension. Buckley's febrile heirs have convinced themselves "that basically we're at Megiddo," Butler said, referring to the site of the final showdown in the Book of Revelation. "We're in the battle at the end of time, and the prince of darkness is already at the door, and the whole world is now a contest between activist left and activist right."

If the regime has already been corrupted, usurped by evil forces who will punish anyone who dissents from the woke orthodoxy, what measures aren't justified to redeem it? If the founding principles have been distorted beyond recognition by an unjust regime, why should the legal parameters of that regime circumscribe acceptable means of rebellion? As Claremont senior fellow Glenn Ellmers recently put it, "Overturning the existing post-American order, and re-establishing America's ancient principles in practice, is a sort of counter-revolution, and the only road forward." Liberal democracy as the founders envisioned can only be restored by subverting liberal democracy as it has become. "I think the vast majority of people feel ... that this is the end," Leary told me. "We've either got to take control or all is lost."

One of Buckley's earliest influences was the idiosyncratic libertarian writer Albert Jay Nock. Nock's most memorable concept was that of "The Remnant," a tiny, marginal community of right-thinking people who knew the true nature of state and society. Nock, in a moment of deep pessimism, advised that instead of seeking power through reform or revolution, individualists ought to simply nurture The Remnant—those who, when things got bad enough, would be called upon to restore the good life. The Remnant, as in the Book of Isaiah, are those who remain, who keep the faith, who wait to rebuild in the wake of catastrophe.

"The conservative movement ... has always wobbled between despair at being a remnant—at merely keeping alive the embers of Western Civilization until we pass through the coming Dark Ages—versus the intoxicating prospect of actually wielding political power," Sitman recently told me. In a way, the current radicalism flips the idea of The Remnant on its head. "Why couldn't a relatively small group of people that understand the true situation—if they're willing to open this Pandora's box of extralegal, extrajudicial, even extra-political power—why couldn't they simply direct the inchoate sense of discontent in the country?"

The New Right knows itself to be a Remnant, has no illusions that it could be otherwise—but why not a Remnant that rules?

* This article originally misstated Butler's age and Hochman's hobbies.
Sam Adler-Bell @SamAdlerBell

Sam Adler-Bell is a writer living in New York City.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on December 05, 2021, 06:18:59 AM
I've heard this trite from baby fascists before.
It's weird how they have built up this idea that they aren't actually that far right it's just the world is super far left.
It's just....Wut? This world? The Conservative dominated one? Really?

Interesting that they are learning from the left in putting their energy towards attacking the right though. That bodes well. I like this.

   
QuoteMost New Right activists see the Trump presidency as a salutary development. At the very least, they view Trump's success as a symptomatic expression of the novel forces at work in American life. "I'm still lukewarm on Trump, the man," Hochman said. "I think he's a moronic boomer who tapped into something by accident." Saurabh Sharma, a 23-year-old New Right activist,

Incidentally it is weird the amount of people from minorities who seem to absorb this strain of idiocy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on December 05, 2021, 10:42:57 AM
It's been a theme on the American right - Buckley and Meyer etc reacting against the New Deal dominance and the American conservatives who were basically a bit more like British conservatives/Tory thought in their approach (trim the sails, adapt, Burke basically).

Having said it these guys don't think they are representing popular opinion and I think it's fair to say that if you're an integralist or looking at the Benedict option that the world, from your perspective, is pretty super far left :lol:

Also the energising force on the American right is culture and there has been a cultural revolution since the sixties on so many fronts and most people are part of/support that new settlement.

Meanwhile I get the sense that Democrats still don't just get this or how to fight/do politics :bleeding:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/05/roe-v-wade-democrats-2022-elections-523759
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on December 05, 2021, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 05, 2021, 06:18:59 AM
I've heard this trite from baby fascists before.
It's weird how they have built up this idea that they aren't actually that far right it's just the world is super far left.
It's just....Wut? This world? The Conservative dominated one? Really?

Interesting that they are learning from the left in putting their energy towards attacking the right though. That bodes well. I like this.

   
QuoteMost New Right activists see the Trump presidency as a salutary development. At the very least, they view Trump's success as a symptomatic expression of the novel forces at work in American life. "I'm still lukewarm on Trump, the man," Hochman said. "I think he's a moronic boomer who tapped into something by accident." Saurabh Sharma, a 23-year-old New Right activist,

Incidentally it is weird the amount of people from minorities who seem to absorb this strain of idiocy.
Because if you are a victim of persecution then all your failings are someone else' fault. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on December 06, 2021, 05:38:25 PM
This is my routine reminder that you need to get involved ASAP in local politics. As well as prepare mentally for what you will do when the Republicans overthrow election results. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on December 06, 2021, 05:39:33 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 06, 2021, 05:38:25 PM
This is my routine reminder that you need to get involved ASAP in local politics. As well as prepare mentally for what you will do when the Republicans overthrow election results. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/

I shall redouble my efforts on behalf of the United Conservative Party of Alberta!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on December 06, 2021, 05:46:15 PM
Anything you can do to salvage what you can from the moral bankruptcy of contemporary conservatism is appreciated.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 06, 2021, 07:53:20 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 06, 2021, 05:38:25 PM
This is my routine reminder that you need to get involved ASAP in local politics. As well as prepare mentally for what you will do when the Republicans overthrow election results. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/)


So what sort of things should we be mentally preparing to do?  What exactly am I suppose to do in local politics?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 06, 2021, 08:09:47 PM
Vote Raz for dogcatcher!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 06, 2021, 08:42:16 PM
Vote in local elections and stay informed on what is going on.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2021, 08:46:56 PM
I'd also look up activist groups in your area - personally probably mainly around voting rights because I think that's the particularly essential one.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on December 06, 2021, 08:48:32 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 06, 2021, 05:46:15 PM
Anything you can do to salvage what you can from the moral bankruptcy of contemporary conservatism is appreciated.
of course.  The left is pure, even when corrupt, it will save us! :)

Long live King Justin the 1st! :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 06, 2021, 09:06:17 PM
Don't know to where the GOP is going, but it is currently in a quite disgusting spot.

The guy in the bottom left of the pic is a Republican congressman from Kentucky:

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/10a72ec57e052d517d561ba5e545e7708ec17794/0_117_2048_1229/master/2048.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=8c3345f459564ebfc943ab62ad1d56df)

QuoteIt is a festive family photo with seven broad smiles and a Christmas tree. But one other detail sets it apart: each member of the Massie family is brandishing a machine gun or military-style rifle.

The photo was tweeted last week by Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky, with the caption: "Merry Christmas! PS: Santa, please bring ammo."

Normal, very very normal.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2021, 09:11:43 PM
That's the dude who called Kerry's Political Science degree "pseudoscience."  :D

Shelf:  what does looking up a voting rights activist group do?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2021, 09:21:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2021, 09:11:43 PM
Shelf:  what does looking up a voting rights activist group do?
So you can join them and get involved.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2021, 09:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2021, 09:21:09 PM
So you can join them and get involved.

And then...profit?

Lead me through step by step how that makes a difference.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2021, 09:32:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2021, 09:25:38 PM
And then...profit?

Lead me through step by step how that makes a difference.
Oh it probably doesn't - it certainly doesn't on an individual level. But it has a bigger chance of making a difference than spectating.

Raz wanted to know what to do about local politics - I'd look for candidates (practically speaking probably Democrats) who don't want to empower state legislatures to overturn election results or who are not trying to restrict voting rights/ease of voting and I'd volunteer. That would be my suggestion of trying to do your bit - trying to do something frankly which probably lifts some of the stress of just watching this stuff happen if you're in the fight.

In terms of what you should be preparing to do if Republicans try to throw out democratic results I'd expect protests and civil disobedience and it's probably easier if you're already tapped into groups of like-minded people - it'll increase your chance of knowing what's going on. It also reduces the risk of a solo act of protest/civil disobedience which is typically closer to an adult tantrum.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on December 06, 2021, 09:46:03 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 06, 2021, 08:48:32 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 06, 2021, 05:46:15 PM
Anything you can do to salvage what you can from the moral bankruptcy of contemporary conservatism is appreciated.
of course.  The left is pure, even when corrupt, it will save us! :)

Long live King Justin the 1st! :)

Trump or Justin, you choose :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 06, 2021, 10:26:21 PM
I'll take Sleepy Joe over either.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 06, 2021, 10:27:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2021, 09:32:32 PM

Raz wanted to know what to do about local politics - I'd look for candidates (practically speaking probably Democrats) who don't want to empower state legislatures to overturn election results or who are not trying to restrict voting rights/ease of voting and I'd volunteer. That would be my suggestion of trying to do your bit - trying to do something frankly which probably lifts some of the stress of just watching this stuff happen if you're in the fight.

In terms of what you should be preparing to do if Republicans try to throw out democratic results I'd expect protests and civil disobedience and it's probably easier if you're already tapped into groups of like-minded people - it'll increase your chance of knowing what's going on. It also reduces the risk of a solo act of protest/civil disobedience which is typically closer to an adult tantrum.

The local city council doesn't really deal with issues like that.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 06, 2021, 11:02:30 PM
No but it can be a great place for culture warriors to do all kinds of harm. Especially with regards to law enforcement. It is very important to protect the institutions of your local community from delusional populists.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 06, 2021, 11:06:37 PM
State legislatures, governors,state secretaries of states.  That's the big 3 to control, GOP has big edge right now overall.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on December 06, 2021, 11:38:08 PM
School boards are a major focus for the far right now. They're harassing those currently in office into retiring and pushing their own nutjob candidates.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on December 07, 2021, 12:43:36 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FF9uwacXwAExFbl?format=jpg&name=small)

:hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on December 07, 2021, 03:05:08 AM
Regardless of such percentages, it does create a field where it makes it significantly less important to cater to non-white voters, even though they're in the majority.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 07, 2021, 04:54:13 AM
You know, having safe black districts doesn't really do Democrats any favors.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 06:01:16 AM
Quote from: Syt on December 07, 2021, 03:05:08 AM
Regardless of such percentages, it does create a field where it makes it significantly less important to cater to non-white voters, even though they're in the majority.

And unsurprisingly...

QuoteDoJ sues Texas, saying electoral map plans violate Voting Rights Act
Redistricting proposals violate section 2 by denying rights to Latino and Black voters, attorney general Merrick Garland says

The US Department of Justice is suing Texas over its new electoral maps, saying the plans violate the Voting Rights Act by making it more difficult for Black and Latino voters to elect their preferred candidates.

Minority voters accounted for 95% of population growth in Texas over the last decade but there are no new majority-minority districts in the new plans. Texas gained two new seats in Congress because of its high population growth over the last decade.

Republicans who control the redistricting process drew the lines to shore up their advantage across Texas, blunting the surge in the state's non-white population. The new maps give Republicans a hold on 25 of Texas's 38 congressional seats and help them maintain their majorities in the state legislature, where they've pushed a sweeping number of conservative policies, including anti-abortion measures and easing gun regulations.

The DoJ suit says Texas violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race.

"The complaint that we filed today alleges that Texas violated section 2 by creating redistricting plans that deny or abridge the rights of Latino and Black voters to vote on account of their race, color or membership in a language or minority group," Merrick Garland, the attorney general, told reporters.

Vanita Gupta, the No 3 official at the justice department, said some of the districts were drawn with "discriminatory intent". She also noted that Texas is a repeat offender when it comes to voting discrimination, highlighting that courts have repeatedly found that the state has discriminated against minority voters over the last several decades.

The suit, filed in federal court in El Paso, claims Republicans "deliberately" reconfigured the 23rd congressional district in west Texas, where Latinos currently have a fair opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice, to make it more white and Republican.


Republicans also "surgically excised minority communities" from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and attached them to whiter, rural areas that vote Republican, where the power of their ballot would be diminished. Courts have repeatedly found Republicans undertook similar efforts in the same part of Texas during previous redistricting cycles.

Lawmakers also failed to draw districts that accounted for the growing Latino electorate in Harris county, home of Houston.

The lawsuit asks the federal court to halt any future elections from taking place under the new maps for Congress and the Texas House of Representatives and to come up with an interim plan while the case proceeds. The filing period for candidates in Texas for next year's elections, set to take place under the challenged maps, is already underway.

The suit also says the mapmaking process was "extraordinarily rapid and opaque".

"Once the special [redistricting] session began, redistricting plans and amendments moved at a rapid pace with little transparency and limited opportunities for witness testimony," lawyers wrote.

They added: "Minority legislators frequently decried the compressed timeline, changes made without traditional deference to local delegations, the inability to invite expert testimony, the minimal opportunities for public input, and an overall disregard for massive minority population growth in Texas over the last decade."

Several other advocacy groups have already filed challenges to the Texas maps. This is the first redistricting lawsuit the DoJ has filed this year.

Last week, the DoJ made filings in three cases challenging new voting restrictions in Arizona, Texas and Florida, defending the scope of Section 2.

In their Monday press conference, both Garland and Gupta called for Congress to restore a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of voting discrimination, including Texas, to get electoral maps and voting changes approved by the federal government before they went into effect.

The US supreme court gutted that provision in 2013. In 2011, the DoJ used the provision to prevent some of Texas's initial proposed maps from going into effect.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on December 07, 2021, 06:21:46 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.
More than 18%, for a start.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 07, 2021, 06:21:46 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.
More than 18%, for a start.
We don't know that.  It depends on how the 39% group is clustered.  If every single household has 39% Hispanic people, then you can't have more than 0% of districts controlled by Hispanics.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2021, 08:57:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 07, 2021, 06:21:46 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.
More than 18%, for a start.
We don't know that.  It depends on how the 39% group is clustered.  If every single household has 39% Hispanic people, then you can't have more than 0% of districts controlled by Hispanics.

Yes, I suppose one could choose to make up unrealistic scenarios.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 09:01:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2021, 08:57:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 07, 2021, 06:21:46 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.
More than 18%, for a start.
We don't know that.  It depends on how the 39% group is clustered.  If every single household has 39% Hispanic people, then you can't have more than 0% of districts controlled by Hispanics.

Yes, I suppose one could choose to make up unrealistic scenarios.
I'm not choosing to make up unrealistic scenarios, I'm making a point by going to the extreme.  That's a very common technique when making mathematical arguments. 

What Yi was getting at is that you can't actually infer what the fair numbers would be for the second column.  The quiet implication is that the second column numbers should match the first column, which is a subtle way of lying by statistics.  As I said countless times before, it's possible to support a valid point with invalid arguments, explicit or implicit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 09:09:43 AM
There's no need to get into bizarre theoretical arguments when what happened is known. From the article I quoted:

QuoteMinority voters accounted for 95% of population growth in Texas over the last decade but there are no new majority-minority districts in the new plans. Texas gained two new seats in Congress because of its high population growth over the last decade.

Republicans who control the redistricting process drew the lines to shore up their advantage across Texas, blunting the surge in the state's non-white population. The new maps give Republicans a hold on 25 of Texas's 38 congressional seats and help them maintain their majorities in the state legislature.

(...)

The suit, filed in federal court in El Paso, claims Republicans "deliberately" reconfigured the 23rd congressional district in west Texas, where Latinos currently have a fair opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice, to make it more white and Republican.

Republicans also "surgically excised minority communities" from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and attached them to whiter, rural areas that vote Republican, where the power of their ballot would be diminished. Courts have repeatedly found Republicans undertook similar efforts in the same part of Texas during previous redistricting cycles.

Lawmakers also failed to draw districts that accounted for the growing Latino electorate in Harris county, home of Houston.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 09:57:21 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 09:09:43 AM
There's no need to get into bizarre theoretical arguments when what happened is known.
What's so bizarre about pointing out a fallacy?  Yes, we all know what happened in Texas, that doesn't mean that we should abdicate our critical thinking.  If an argument doesn't follow, it doesn't follow, even if it supports something that's obviously true anyway.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 07, 2021, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: Syt on December 07, 2021, 03:05:08 AM
Regardless of such percentages, it does create a field where it makes it significantly less important to cater to non-white voters, even though they're in the majority.

Well the idea is to keep and expand Republican control. Any other things that result from that are just side-effects.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2021, 09:59:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 09:01:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2021, 08:57:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 07, 2021, 06:21:46 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.
More than 18%, for a start.
We don't know that.  It depends on how the 39% group is clustered.  If every single household has 39% Hispanic people, then you can't have more than 0% of districts controlled by Hispanics.

Yes, I suppose one could choose to make up unrealistic scenarios.
I'm not choosing to make up unrealistic scenarios, I'm making a point by going to the extreme.  That's a very common technique when making mathematical arguments. 

What Yi was getting at is that you can't actually infer what the fair numbers would be for the second column.  The quiet implication is that the second column numbers should match the first column, which is a subtle way of lying by statistics.  As I said countless times before, it's possible to support a valid point with invalid arguments, explicit or implicit.

Yes I got that you were making a commentary about what you can and cannot infer from the numbers Yi had reacted to. As Larch said seemed an unnecessary exercise given what he had posted.

I do understand thought why numerical literacy is a bugbear for you. :hug:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 10:05:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2021, 09:59:39 AM
Yes I got that you were making a commentary about what you can and cannot infer from the numbers Yi had reacted to. As Larch said seemed an unnecessary exercise given what he had posted.

I do understand thought why numerical literacy is a bugbear for you. :hug:
I don't think it's unnecessary.  A bad argument in support of a good point can undermine the point.  Yes, logically speaking, if you make 999 bad arguments in support of a point, and one ironclad good argument, the 999 bad arguments shouldn't matter as long as the one good argument puts away the matter for good. 

Realistically speaking, however, when you make bad arguments, you risk losing credibility, and you also give a convenient rebuttal opportunity.  Your opponents can focus on disproving your bad arguments, ignore the good arguments, and then subtly imply that all your arguments are bad become they showed some of them to be bad.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on December 07, 2021, 10:31:09 AM
Do we want to win arguments or elections?

If we want to win elections, it behooves us to avoid bad arguments ourselves that distract from the point.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on December 07, 2021, 10:34:06 AM
Its definitely true that just seeing a statistic that 12% of the state are black (incidentally I'm surprised at that, I have the mental image of Texas being very white/hispanic) doesn't necessarily equate to 12% of the seats should be black. In a perfectly integrated land this 12% would be scattered all around the state and probably be a minority everywhere.

....but I somehow doubt this is the reality anywhere in the US. Black communities do tend to cluster.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 10:39:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 09:01:32 AM
I'm not choosing to make up unrealistic scenarios, I'm making a point by going to the extreme.

No you are attempting to make a point by postulating a factual scenario known to be false.  That's just sophistry.

We know for a fact that racial identifications are not evenly distributed across households.  In fact there the opposite tend to be true - housing patterns continue to show significant racial concentration and clustering.  Measures of black-white concentration have increased in Texas over the past decade; Hispanic concentration has remained steady at high levels.

An argument - even if posed in the form of a mathematical gedanken experiment - is a bad argument if premised on false underlying factual premises.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2021, 10:40:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2021, 10:31:09 AM
Do we want to win arguments or elections?

If we want to win elections, it behooves us to avoid bad arguments ourselves that distract from the point.

Does it? The Republicans make bad arguments all the time and that doesn't seem to matter.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on December 07, 2021, 10:42:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2021, 10:40:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2021, 10:31:09 AM
Do we want to win arguments or elections?

If we want to win elections, it behooves us to avoid bad arguments ourselves that distract from the point.

Does it? The Republicans make bad arguments all the time and that doesn't seem to matter.

That's because they have baked in stupid and crazy into their brand. We don't have that luxury, nor should we want it.

It isn't a fair playing field. Pointing out that Republicans are shitbags doesn't mean we can be shitbags. They've rigged the deck, and we have to unrig it, or at least stop them from rigging it even more.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 10:52:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.

Framing the issue as an entitlement of a certain percentage of racial seats by racial identification is less than ideal.

The broader point holds though - this is a blatant attempt to dilute the voting power of the affected demographic groups.  There is a reason why the Texas GOP districting map has districts that turn into pretzels put through an industrial tumble dryer the moment one nears an urban area and it isn't because they are devotees of modern art.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 10:56:14 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 10:39:48 AM
No you are attempting to make a point by postulating a factual scenario known to be false.  That's just sophistry.
I am exploring the limiting conditions to show why the implied argument is false.  That's not sophistry, and I'm pretty sure that you know it and are frankly being dishonest about it.  That's how math works, and if you're going to present arguments that contain numbers, then unfortunately you have to understand how math works.  My point was that we don't know how the minorities are clustered, and that for extreme levels of that unknown variable the outcome may be far more unintuitive than first believed. 

Yes, obviously every household can't be 39% Hispanic, just due to integer constraints if nothing else, I thought it would be too obvious to mention.  What we don't know is how far from ideally dispersed minorities are for the purpose of this number.  How far do you have to go from that ideal dispersion before the 18% figure is actually fair?  I don't know, and it's impossible to know without very detailed information.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 10:56:14 AM
My point was that we don't know how the minorities are clustered.

Really, you don't know that?  Perhaps you should inform yourself before accusing others. There is plenty of data out there.

Otherwise you risk making argument along the lines of - if we assume that every household in Texas consists entirely of 11 year old girls, then the redistricting will have no effect because there are no eligible voters in the state.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:13:20 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 10:56:14 AM
My point was that we don't know how the minorities are clustered.

Really, you don't know that?  Perhaps you should inform yourself before accusing others. There is plenty of data out there.

Otherwise you risk making argument along the lines of - if we assume that every household in Texas consists entirely of 11 year old girls, then the redistricting will have no effect because there are no eligible voters in the state.
QuoteWhat we don't know is how far from ideally dispersed minorities are for the purpose of this number.
We don't know whether minorities are dispersed enough for an 18% number of be unfair.  I do know that they are dispersed, but I don't know whether that dispersion would imply 5% or 35% to be the fair number, and neither does Zoupa or you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:13:48 AM
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:18:42 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:13:48 AM
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.
Well, you kind of have to, if you're going to make a statement that 18% number is too low.  I'm sure Zoupa didn't realize the issue was far less obvious than he assumed, which is why I replied to him to begin with.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:18:42 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:13:48 AM
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.
Well, you kind of have to, if you're going to make a statement that 18% number is too low.  I'm sure Zoupa didn't realize the issue was far less obvious than he assumed, which is why I replied to him to begin with.

Did you read the article I posted?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:18:42 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:13:48 AM
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.
Well, you kind of have to, if you're going to make a statement that 18% number is too low.  I'm sure Zoupa didn't realize the issue was far less obvious than he assumed, which is why I replied to him to begin with.

Oh my god, are you this obtuse and unbearable in RL as well?
A bit out of line, don't you think?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:23:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:18:42 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:13:48 AM
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.
Well, you kind of have to, if you're going to make a statement that 18% number is too low.  I'm sure Zoupa didn't realize the issue was far less obvious than he assumed, which is why I replied to him to begin with.

Oh my god, are you this obtuse and unbearable in RL as well?
A bit out of line, don't you think?

Realized and already edited before you answered.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 11:26:38 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:13:20 AM
We don't know whether minorities are dispersed enough for an 18% number of be unfair.  I do know that they are dispersed, but I don't know whether that dispersion would imply 5% or 35% to be the fair number, and neither does Zoupa or you.

I know that residential areas have high levels of segregation based on the public data, that the process followed to produce the maps was tainted, and the results are a map where most rural districts have nice straight lines and the urban districts where ethnic residential areas can be found look an 8.0 richter scale earthquake hit a well advanced game of twister. That is more than enough evidence to reach the conclusion that something improper happen.  That is what an argument based on facts looks like.

I don't need to postulate a particular percentage control number (a conceptual framework I don't really accept anyways) and I don't think a charitable reading of Zoupa's comment would interpret it in such a purely literal way. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:19:18 AM
Did you read the article I posted?

No because the only acceptable alternatives are having complete and 100% accurate household level data on every adult citizen in the state or complete ignorance of all facts.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 12:59:14 PM
If you read the chain of replies, my reply was third, after Yi and Zoupa.  Yi asked a perfectly reasonable question, Zoupa countered it with a flawed assumption, I pointed out the flawed assumption.  I also made it repeatedly clear that I wasn't disputing the conclusion, but rather the usefulness of the 18% number as an argument towards that.  It didn't turn to shit until the words like "bizarre" or "sophistry" started flying around.

Numbers are not means to an end.  Numbers are powerful tools, but only if they're used with honest intent to discover the truth rather than just pile on.  If they're means to an end, then they lose credibility and with that their power.  It's easy to make honest mistakes, this stuff is very tricky even for professionals.  However, where this goes from an honest mistake to an attitude worthy of disdain is when you're made aware of the flaws and still choose to dig in.  I lose all respect for people who do that repeatedly, it's a mindset that I just can't fathom.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on December 07, 2021, 01:30:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.

I think this is a misleading question, as evidenced by DGs marching about with great sound and fury.

The question should be more toward "Were these districts drawn to exclude minorities to an undue degree?" or even "Was there intent to strengthen a position of whites in the formation of these districts?"  A simple cold and analytical question such as yours seeks to withdraw the intent from the debate.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 01:39:15 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 07, 2021, 01:30:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.

I think this is a misleading question, as evidenced by DGs marching about with great sound and fury.

The question should be more toward "Were these districts drawn to exclude minorities to an undue degree?" or even "Was there intent to strengthen a position of whites in the formation of these districts?"  A simple cold and analytical question such as yours seeks to withdraw the intent from the debate.
Yi's question is prompted by the table that someone created and Syt linked.  Whenever someone creates a table, they typically have a point to make, they're not just showing off their Powerpoint formatting skills on a random data dump.  It's a very small table, so there is not a long list of potential points there.  If someone gives you these two columns, they're probably trying to say "here, looks at at this second column, see how obviously different it is from the first column?"

If you're going to make that argument, implicitly or explicitly, whether you're kicking a live horse or a dead horse, then it's natural for Yi or someone else to go "so what should that table look like if there were no funny business?"
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 07, 2021, 01:50:43 PM
They were drawn to make more Republican congressmen, race was only indirectly involved.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on December 07, 2021, 01:54:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 01:39:15 PM
Yi's question is prompted by the table that someone created and Syt linked.  Whenever someone creates a table, they typically have a point to make, they're not just showing off their Powerpoint formatting skills on a random data dump.  It's a very small table, so there is not a long list of potential points there.  If someone gives you these two columns, they're probably trying to say "here, looks at at this second column, see how obviously different it is from the first column?"

If you're going to make that argument, implicitly or explicitly, whether you're kicking a live horse or a dead horse, then it's natural for Yi or someone else to go "so what should that table look like if there were no funny business?"

So one should not ask about intentions before determining the golden ratio of representation? 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 07, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 07, 2021, 01:50:43 PM
They were drawn to make more Republican congressmen, race was only indirectly involved.

Hey! I already said that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2021, 02:58:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 12:59:14 PM
If you read the chain of replies, my reply was third, after Yi and Zoupa.  Yi asked a perfectly reasonable question, Zoupa countered it with a flawed assumption, I pointed out the flawed assumption.  I also made it repeatedly clear that I wasn't disputing the conclusion, but rather the usefulness of the 18% number as an argument towards that.  It didn't turn to shit until the words like "bizarre" or "sophistry" started flying around.



Damn, I had hoped to get a rise of DG by claiming that he and I are the same person.  I should have just called him a "Bizarre Sofa".  I'm good at pushing people's buttons, but some people have weird buttons.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 07, 2021, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 07, 2021, 01:54:20 PM
So one should not ask about intentions before determining the golden ratio of representation?

Ask who?  The perps?  What are the odds that they will provide an honest answer?  Who knows their intent besides them?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2021, 03:08:29 PM
They will tell the courts that the map was design to favor Republicans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 07, 2021, 03:10:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2021, 03:08:29 PM
They will tell the courts that the map was design to favor Republicans.

I mean if Hispanic and black voters voted Republican, and whites voted Democratic, it is amazing how progressive Republican maps would suddenly become.

The real problem is having politicians draw those districts.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 04:53:28 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 07, 2021, 01:30:11 PM
I think this is a misleading question, as evidenced by DGs marching about with great sound and fury.

The question should be more toward "Were these districts drawn to exclude minorities to an undue degree?" or even "Was there intent to strengthen a position of whites in the formation of these districts?"  A simple cold and analytical question such as yours seeks to withdraw the intent from the debate.

It is not a misleading question because, as DGuller has been pointing out in the face of much abuse, the chart is trying to demonstrate that intent, and in my and his opinion, doing it in a misleading way.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 04:57:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 12:59:14 PM
Numbers are not means to an end.  Numbers are powerful tools.

Numbers are not "tools" they are elements of human language, and human language is pragmatic, flexible and contextual.  If someone says "You look like a million bucks" - they are not presenting the results of a formal valuation report on your outfit.  If someone agrees to give 110% effort it doesn't mean they are Siamese twins each contributing 55.  Not every human conversational interaction that includes a numerical expression is a formal thesis.  In context, it wasn't reasonable to read Zoupa's comments as proposing a precise calculation - indeed the point of the comments was a disclaim mathematic precision but to make an emphatic expression that there is real impact here.  And he's right, there is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 05:11:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 04:57:02 PM
indeed the point of the comments was a disclaim mathematic precision but to make an emphatic expression that there is real impact here.  And he's right, there is.

Are you talking about Zoupa's comment or the MSNBC table?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 05:18:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 04:53:28 PM
the chart is trying to demonstrate that intent, and in my and his opinion, doing it in a misleading way.

Before making that point, one would have a clear idea of what the chart is saying.  I don't know what they mean by associating "control" of seats in reference to race.

If "control" means the percentage of districts in which persons of the indicated race are a majority within that district, it is arguably misleading - but not for the reasons being argued.  It is misleading because in our two party system, where both Blacks and (so far . . .) most Hispanic groups lean Democrat, the relevant measure is probably the Black+Hispanic vote in the district. 

But putting that aside, what the chart does presumably shows is that the white and Hispanic population are virtually identical in Texas but that whites form the majorities in 60% of districts and Hispanics 18%.  It is extremely difficult to conceive how such a result could occur without very significant and deliberate manipulation.  It is mathematically possible to imagine such a result occurring randomly based on some set of facts known to be untrue?  Yes - but why on earth should we care about that theoretical point?

The chart is a classic case of where there's smoke there's fire.  Those numbers are billowing black smoke coming out the the building. And when we go out in the street and also see people fleeing the building with burns, and masses of fire trucks converging on the scene, and the cops making arson arrests  - - sure it's possible that one doesn't have absolute 100% positive proof of fire.  But it's a pretty silly point to make, no?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 05:19:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 05:11:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 04:57:02 PM
indeed the point of the comments was a disclaim mathematic precision but to make an emphatic expression that there is real impact here.  And he's right, there is.

Are you talking about Zoupa's comment or the MSNBC table?

zoupa.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 06:08:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 05:18:45 PM
But putting that aside, what the chart does presumably shows is that the white and Hispanic population are virtually identical in Texas but that whites form the majorities in 60% of districts and Hispanics 18%.  It is extremely difficult to conceive how such a result could occur without very significant and deliberate manipulation.  It is mathematically possible to imagine such a result occurring randomly based on some set of facts known to be untrue?  Yes - but why on earth should we care about that theoretical point?

Conceded.

However I think you will agree that the number for blacks is much more problematic for the good guys.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 06:27:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 06:08:04 PM
However I think you will agree that the number for blacks is much more problematic for the good guys.

Taken on its own sure.  Because if Black neighborhoods are (e.g.) near Hispanic neighborhoods (like West and East Harlem in NYC) then it might be difficult to draw districts where Blacks are an absolute majority.  But one would expect to see a good number of Black + Hispanic majority districts.  Unfortunately the chart doesn't report that, and in that sense it can be argued to be misleading.  We know the total can't be more than 40% (because white majority districts are at 60 - again, assuming that's the proper interpretation of the chart) but the picture would look different if the total were 20 as opposed to 40.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 06:36:14 PM
I realize this won't matter at all, but I decided to get the data myself and see what I can gleam from it.  Luckily Texas makes the census data easily available.

I haven't gone far with it yet, but I'm already seeing a one bad sign for the intellectual honesty of the people who created that table.  I could indeed exactly replicate the figures in the first column, they appear to be taken from the P002* columns on the census data.  The problem?  That's total population.  Yes, Hispanics had a much higher growth rate than other races, but that means that a lot of them are under 18 for now.  If you switch over to the more appropriate P004* counts of 18+ population, the split is now 43% white, 36% Hispanic, and 12% Black.

Does it make a radical difference whether the gap is 1% or 7% between whites and Hispanics?  I don't know yet.  I wish things were as obvious to me as they are to Minsky, but I guess I've just seen too many counterintuitive things in my field to jump to conclusions as readily as he does.  Sometimes small difference in the averages can make for big differences in truncated tail quantities, and the second column appears to be such a quantity.  It seems like the second column is defined as "percent of counties with the given race making up more than 50% of the population", which is definitely the kind of quantity where small differences can get accentuated.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on December 07, 2021, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 04:53:28 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 07, 2021, 01:30:11 PM
I think this is a misleading question, as evidenced by DGs marching about with great sound and fury.

The question should be more toward "Were these districts drawn to exclude minorities to an undue degree?" or even "Was there intent to strengthen a position of whites in the formation of these districts?"  A simple cold and analytical question such as yours seeks to withdraw the intent from the debate.

It is not a misleading question because, as DGuller has been pointing out in the face of much abuse, the chart is trying to demonstrate that intent, and in my and his opinion, doing it in a misleading way.

Was the "much abuse" needed?  Recently I have caught the whiff of victimhood here by people who feel some sort of existential dread.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 06:48:04 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 07, 2021, 06:41:40 PM
Was the "much abuse" needed?  Recently I have caught the whiff of victimhood here by people who feel some sort of existential dread.

Was "marching with great sound and fury" needed?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 07:06:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 06:36:14 PM
I realize this won't matter at all, but I decided to get the data myself and see what I can gleam from it.  Luckily Texas makes the census data easily available.

I haven't gone far with it yet, but I'm already seeing a one bad sign for the intellectual honesty of the people who created that table.  I could indeed exactly replicate the figures in the first column, they appear to be taken from the P002* columns on the census data.  The problem?  That's total population.  Yes, Hispanics had a much higher growth rate than other races, but that means that a lot of them are under 18 for now.  If you switch over to the more appropriate P004* counts of 18+ population, the split is now 43% white, 36% Hispanic, and 12% Black.

Does it make a radical difference whether the gap is 1% or 7% between whites and Hispanics?  I don't know yet.  I wish things were as obvious to me as they are to Minsky, but I guess I've just seen too many counterintuitive things in my field to jump to conclusions as readily as he does.  Sometimes small difference in the averages can make for big differences in truncated tail quantities, and the second column appears to be such a quantity.  It seems like the second column is defined as "percent of counties with the given race making up more than 50% of the population", which is definitely the kind of quantity where small differences can get accentuated.
Actually, I'm going to hold on this conclusion for now.  The second column appears to be the percentage of US Congress seats where the race is 50%+ of the district.  If that's the case, then I think it should aim to split the total population evenly, not the voter population.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 07:46:05 PM
One factor that works against Hispanics specifically (but not black people) is that they're naturally gerrymandered much like the urban population.  If you look at census tracts, which are purely statistical area definitions unlike congressional districts, Hispanics are much more all-or-nothing than whites.  Out of all the census tracts, 12% have Hispanics making up 80%+ of their entire population, but only 3% of census tracts have whites making up 80%+ of their population. 

Here is another interesting result:  if you look at it by counties, of which there are 254 in Texas, 58% of them are majority white, and 27% of them are majority Hispanic.  That is despite whites and Hispanics being essentially tied on total population.  Now, I'm not going to suggest that this is a fair comparison to Congressional districts, because counties can be much smaller than congressional districts, which makes it easier for them to get lopsided, and Congressional districts are supposed to be equal on population whereas counties can be hugely unequal.  I'm just putting this figure out there to show why one has to be really careful with potential counterintuitive effects; no one defined countries to be gerrymandered by race, and yet they happened to gerrymander themselves almost as much as the Congressional districts.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on December 07, 2021, 08:37:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 06:48:04 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 07, 2021, 06:41:40 PM
Was the "much abuse" needed?  Recently I have caught the whiff of victimhood here by people who feel some sort of existential dread.

Was "marching with great sound and fury" needed?

Of course it was, I am not as foul mouthed as Seedy, but I do sometimes like to stir the fire.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 09:33:17 PM
There is nothing counterintuitive about there being far more white majority counties in most states than the percentage of total white pops in the state because whites in the 21st century are over represented in rural areas (which make up a disproportionate number of counties).   But that should not hold for equal pop Congressional districts unless some funny business is afoot.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 09:57:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 09:33:17 PM
But that should not hold for equal pop Congressional districts unless some funny business is afoot.
Is this a precise statement or a figurative one?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 11:04:27 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 07, 2021, 08:37:02 PM
Of course it was, I am not as foul mouthed as Seedy, but I do sometimes like to stir the fire.

So you like to throw shit then object when people point out that you're throwing shit.

The battle between truth and being on the right side is a recurring theme on Languish, particularly when it comes to identity politics.

And the people who support the right side often feel the need to denigrate those who are more interested in truth.

I have noticed this is not symmetrical.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 11:20:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 09:57:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 09:33:17 PM
But that should not hold for equal pop Congressional districts unless some funny business is afoot.
Is this a precise statement or a figurative one?

It's a literal statement about a comedy related enterpise located on my feet.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:28:19 PM
I was trying to clarify in order to know whether it was worthwhile to disprove that statement of yours.  I guess if it was meant to be a joke, then it's not falsifiable.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 08, 2021, 06:11:00 AM
In other news, somehow related to the comment somebody (Valmy?) made a couple of pages back about the power of GOP at the local level in school districts and state assemblies:

Quote'Woke,' 'multiculturalism,' 'equity': Wisconsin GOP proposes banning words from schools

The Wisconsin Assembly passed legislation on a party-line vote Tuesday that would bar public schools from teaching critical race theory, the latest Republican-controlled legislative chamber to take action on a culture war issue that erupted in school board meetings around the country this summer.

The measure mirrors efforts in other states to block teachers from instructing students on concepts of racial injustice or inherent bias. 

But in testimony before a Wisconsin Assembly committee considering the bill in August, one of the measure's lead authors went farther than in other states, spelling out specific words that would be barred from the classroom.

"It has come to our attention, and to some of the people who traveled here to Madison today, that a growing number of school districts are teaching material that attempts to redress the injustice of racism and sexism by employing racism and sexism, as well as promoting psychological distress in students based on these immutable characteristics," state Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R) said of his bill. "No one should have to undergo the humiliation of being told that they are inferior to someone else. We are all members of the human race."

Wichgers, who represents Muskego in the legislature, attached an addendum to his legislation that included a list of "terms and concepts" that would violate the bill if it became law.

Among those words: "Woke," "whiteness," "White supremacy," "structural bias," "structural racism," "systemic bias" and "systemic racism." The bill would also bar "abolitionist teaching," in a state that sent more than 91,000 soldiers to fight with the Union Army in the Civil War.

The list of barred words or concepts includes "equity," "inclusivity education," "multiculturalism" and "patriarchy," as well as "social justice" and "cultural awareness."

The measure would apply to both instruction provided to students in the classroom as well as training provided to school employees.

It would also require school boards to post curricula to its own websites, and to specific school websites if a school has one. School districts that do not comply would lose 10 percent of their share of state funding. Parents or guardians of students in a school that violates the bill by teaching critical race theory or its related concepts would be allowed to sue in state circuit court.

The proposal has virtually no chance of becoming law: It passed the Assembly on a party line vote, and even if it clears the Senate, it would almost certainly be vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers (D), himself a former superintendent of public instruction.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on December 08, 2021, 06:18:48 AM
Equity? That seems rather broad.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 08, 2021, 06:20:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2021, 06:18:48 AM
Equity? That seems rather broad.

I saw the full list of proposed banned words on Twitter and it was absurdly long.  :wacko:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on December 08, 2021, 06:25:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2021, 06:18:48 AM
Equity? That seems rather broad.
Law students of the world unite to ban equity.

Edit: Also I don't know how you'd teach classic high school English texts like, say, To Kill A Mockingbird or Mrs Dalloway etc without some of those concepts.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 08, 2021, 08:26:27 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2021, 06:25:47 AM
Edit: Also I don't know how you'd teach classic high school English texts like, say, To Kill A Mockingbird or Mrs Dalloway etc without some of those concepts.

Why would the culture warriors worry about that?  The poorer a person's education, the more likely they are to buy into the culture warfare mentality.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 08, 2021, 09:08:14 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:28:19 PM
I was trying to clarify in order to know whether it was worthwhile to disprove that statement of yours.  I guess if it was meant to be a joke, then it's not falsifiable.

To be clear, for all future purposes, virtually nothing I post here that contains a conclusion, opinion or judgment is intended to be taken as the result of a careful, rigorous. methodologically sound, and meticulously proofed analysis. Assume unless it is specifically said otherwise it is quick take based on incomplete information and ad hoc judgment.

I assumed that was a given considering the nature of the platform and forum but I suppose one should never assume.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on December 08, 2021, 09:08:35 AM
:)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 08, 2021, 09:10:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2021, 06:18:48 AM
Equity? That seems rather broad.

Anyone paying attention the last four years would know the GOP is pro debt.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 08, 2021, 09:25:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 08, 2021, 09:08:14 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:28:19 PM
I was trying to clarify in order to know whether it was worthwhile to disprove that statement of yours.  I guess if it was meant to be a joke, then it's not falsifiable.

To be clear, for all future purposes, virtually nothing I post here that contains a conclusion, opinion or judgment is intended to be taken as the result of a careful, rigorous. methodologically sound, and meticulously proofed analysis. Assume unless it is specifically said otherwise it is quick take based on incomplete information and ad hoc judgment.

I assumed that was a given considering the nature of the platform and forum but I suppose one should never assume.
Okay, that's fine, but that's not the issue.  I don't begrudge people for doing quick takes on matters that are not within their expertise.  I definitely do not begrudge them if they get something wrong in their quick take, even after 15+ years of experience I do that sometimes as well.

What I do begrudge are certain kinds of reactions when I point out that their quick takes are wrong or at least materially incomplete.  Instead of going "oh, I never thought about it that way" or, "I find it hard to believe, can you expound on why that is", they dig in and double down on their wrong quick take, probably because that conclusion is useful to them.  That's contemptible behavior for anyone, expert or not.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 08, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
The list of bad words is much more extensive BTW: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/hearing_testimony_and_materials/2021/ab411/ab0411_2021_08_11.pdf, and it includes "racial prejudice".    It also includes "hegemony" so teachers be real careful if you are talking about the the Peloponnesian War
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on December 08, 2021, 04:59:27 PM
I hope "double plus good" is still okay with them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on December 08, 2021, 05:09:53 PM
Just for fun. here's a recent story from the CBC about 18 words you "may want to think twice about using".

A couple make sense to me, like "gypped".  But most are pretty stupid like "grandfathered in", "first world problems", "brainstorm", or "lame".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/words-and-phrases-commonly-used-offensive-english-language-1.6252274
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on December 08, 2021, 05:26:53 PM
QuoteUsing the term brainstorm could also be insensitive to those who have brain injuries or are neurodiverse, added Cashman.

"More important is the stigma that it will effectuate about ...  disorders [like] epilepsy for example," said Kalra.

:lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on December 08, 2021, 05:49:05 PM
Can you still say barnstorming?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 08, 2021, 06:56:37 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 08, 2021, 05:26:53 PM
QuoteUsing the term brainstorm could also be insensitive to those who have brain injuries or are neurodiverse, added Cashman.

"More important is the stigma that it will effectuate about ...  disorders [like] epilepsy for example," said Kalra.

:lol:

I'm neuro diverse.  It's a disease not a badge of honor.  Yeah, sometimes it has a rare upside, but it's like being born with flippers instead of legs.  Sure, you can swim better but that's not much consolation if you aren't a fish.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on December 09, 2021, 04:14:10 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:18:42 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:13:48 AM
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.
Well, you kind of have to, if you're going to make a statement that 18% number is too low.  I'm sure Zoupa didn't realize the issue was far less obvious than he assumed, which is why I replied to him to begin with.

Oh you're sure are you? What an insufferable condescending asshole you are.

What I said is that 51% of the state should have more than 18% of representation. "AcsHuaLlY ThAt'S a FaLSE AsSumPtiOn!!111!!!".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 09, 2021, 08:44:07 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 09, 2021, 04:14:10 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 11:18:42 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 07, 2021, 11:13:48 AM
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we're only discussing the topic, we don't have to provide an alternative districting map.
Well, you kind of have to, if you're going to make a statement that 18% number is too low.  I'm sure Zoupa didn't realize the issue was far less obvious than he assumed, which is why I replied to him to begin with.

Oh you're sure are you? What an insufferable condescending asshole you are.

What I said is that 51% of the state should have more than 18% of representation. "AcsHuaLlY ThAt'S a FaLSE AsSumPtiOn!!111!!!".
If you're going to combine Hispanics and blacks into a single category, then they together probably already have more than 18% representation in the proposed map.  We can't tell with 100% certainty, but there are 22% of the districts unaccounted for in the second column, and most of those are likely cases where there is a three-way split inside the district with none of the three individually being over 50%.  If you take two of those three categories and combine them, then the merged category may clear the 50% threshold.

This is why I said that the math in this one little table is far less obvious than it seems.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2021, 10:06:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 08, 2021, 05:09:53 PM
Just for fun. here's a recent story from the CBC about 18 words you "may want to think twice about using".

A couple make sense to me, like "gypped".  But most are pretty stupid like "grandfathered in", "first world problems", "brainstorm", or "lame".

Seems like this is a first world problem.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 09, 2021, 01:58:29 PM
The list is lame because it has no legs.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2021, 02:19:58 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 09, 2021, 01:58:29 PM
The list is lame because it has no legs.


I only used that as an example.  I have legs not flippers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on December 09, 2021, 02:47:14 PM
There is, IMO, a significant difference between an article saying "here are some words you may want to think twice about using, for these reasons..." (even of some of those reasons seem a bit spurious) and "here's a list of words that we - in our capacity as officials - are banning in the school system."

And to be clear, I think the second one is significantly worse.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 09, 2021, 06:29:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2021, 04:57:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2021, 12:59:14 PM
Numbers are not means to an end.  Numbers are powerful tools.

Numbers are not "tools" they are elements of human language, and human language is pragmatic, flexible and contextual.  If someone says "You look like a million bucks" - they are not presenting the results of a formal valuation report on your outfit.  If someone agrees to give 110% effort it doesn't mean they are Siamese twins each contributing 55.  Not every human conversational interaction that includes a numerical expression is a formal thesis.  In context, it wasn't reasonable to read Zoupa's comments as proposing a precise calculation - indeed the point of the comments was a disclaim mathematic precision but to make an emphatic expression that there is real impact here.  And he's right, there is.

Which isn't proven or even demonstrated by his point.

We have a first past the post system. If a state is 51% democratic voters and 49% republican, what percent of the house representatives should be democratic? If every district is drawn to have a equal partisan skew, the answer is obvious: 100% democratic.

32.5% of Massachusetts voters went for Trump. My understanding is that it would be difficult to draw a map where Trump voters were a majority in a Massachusetts house district. Indeed every house seat in Massachusetts is controlled by Democrats. That isn't nefarious; it is math.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2021, 06:40:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2021, 02:47:14 PM
There is, IMO, a significant difference between an article saying "here are some words you may want to think twice about using, for these reasons..." (even of some of those reasons seem a bit spurious) and "here's a list of words that we - in our capacity as officials - are banning in the school system."

And to be clear, I think the second one is significantly worse.


You could lose your job in both situations.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on December 09, 2021, 06:54:13 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2021, 02:47:14 PM
There is, IMO, a significant difference between an article saying "here are some words you may want to think twice about using, for these reasons..." (even of some of those reasons seem a bit spurious) and "here's a list of words that we - in our capacity as officials - are banning in the school system."

And to be clear, I think the second one is significantly worse.
it starts with the first, though.
US Republicans complained about insensitive words for years, now Texas has a list of words teachers can't use in class.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2021, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 09, 2021, 06:29:21 PM
32.5% of Massachusetts voters went for Trump. My understanding is that it would be difficult to draw a map where Trump voters were a majority in a Massachusetts house district.

What does that have to do with the price of bagels?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2021, 10:51:32 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2021, 06:54:13 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2021, 02:47:14 PM
There is, IMO, a significant difference between an article saying "here are some words you may want to think twice about using, for these reasons..." (even of some of those reasons seem a bit spurious) and "here's a list of words that we - in our capacity as officials - are banning in the school system."

And to be clear, I think the second one is significantly worse.
it starts with the first, though.
US Republicans complained about insensitive words for years, now Texas has a list of words teachers can't use in class.

"sigh"
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on December 10, 2021, 12:02:29 AM
Georgia Republicans purge Black Democrats from county election boards

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-republicans-purge-black-democrats-county-election-boards-2021-12-09/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 10, 2021, 05:59:40 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2021, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 09, 2021, 06:29:21 PM
32.5% of Massachusetts voters went for Trump. My understanding is that it would be difficult to draw a map where Trump voters were a majority in a Massachusetts house district.

What does that have to do with the price of bagels?

Maybe Trump voters have less demand for bagels, so in places with more of them the price goes down?  :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 10, 2021, 07:52:40 AM
QuoteTRUMP'S NEXT COUP HAS ALREADY BEGUN
January 6 was practice. Donald Trump's GOP is much better positioned to subvert the next election.

By Barton Gellman

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/)

Interesting/terrifying read.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on December 10, 2021, 09:42:38 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 06, 2021, 05:38:25 PM
This is my routine reminder that you need to get involved ASAP in local politics. As well as prepare mentally for what you will do when the Republicans overthrow election results. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 10, 2021, 10:28:41 AM
To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on December 10, 2021, 10:55:44 AM
The road to fascism will be well-paved.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 10, 2021, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2021, 10:28:41 AM
To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.

Either we overestimate the danger or Democratic leadership underestimates it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on December 10, 2021, 12:05:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2021, 10:28:41 AM
To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.
I think it depends. I think a big driver of Trump is the perception that politics as normal has failed and can no longer get things done.

Especially when you compare it to Obama, I think there's a case that the best argument you can make for the system and for a Democratic President is getting things done that actually have an impact on people's lives. And I think there is every chance that in four years time we may be in a Biden boom with visible improvements to communities which supports re-election, plus a focus on local government (and I think the thing I find baffling is why - 10 years on from the catastropher of 2010 I still get the sense that Democrats aren't as focused on state races). If your goal is to defend the current democratic system then I think there's an argument the best way to do that is by showing it can work - and ultimately procedure or a finely balanced constitution is never going to be enough to save a democracy if it stops working or one side opts out.

I think the Voting Rights Act should absolutely be a priority, but aside from that fiddling with procedures on the rules of how your democracy functions is stuff that voters normally don't care about and is largely seen as self-indulgent. That's why big constitution writing or reforming tend to happen in "constitutional moments" like a revolution, post-occupation etc rather than in normal years when it all functions and legislation is passed etc. The challenge for America always comes back to the core issue that both sides occupy different realities but think there's an existential risk - for Republicans it's the (false) risk of elections being stolen, for Democrats it's the (valid) risk of valid elections being nullified.

On the state thing I find it baffling - it's a bit like I read that Democrat consultants are advising to not put abortion/the Supreme Court as big issues because they don't think it works because Virginia. I think the reason Republicans are in the position they're in is because of relentless focus on the court, on states, on judges - and these consultants sound like they're not even on the same pitch and wondering why they keep losing to a party that is, at the minute, at best winning about 46% of the vote :bleeding:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 10, 2021, 12:10:26 PM
I mean the Republicans are pretty well positioned to win the election legit in 2022. It seems a bit crazy for them to launch some big coup at this point. But hey some of their leaders are pretty detached from reality, I guess it is possible they really do believe the Democrats have been going around stealing elections with their voting machines and ballots shipped in from China and shit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 10, 2021, 12:13:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2021, 10:28:41 AM
To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.

I mean if they don't do the infrastructure bill, and all the other legislation, then what the fuck are they even doing up there? Besides can they protect democracy using a reconciliation bill? It seems like some big voting rights bill will just get filibustered anyway.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 10, 2021, 02:15:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2021, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 09, 2021, 06:29:21 PM
32.5% of Massachusetts voters went for Trump. My understanding is that it would be difficult to draw a map where Trump voters were a majority in a Massachusetts house district.

What does that have to do with the price of bagels?

I was talking about minority population groups and their control of districts in first past the post electoral systems. That doesn't have anything to do with the price of bagels.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2021, 03:40:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 10, 2021, 02:15:20 PM
I was talking about minority population groups and their control of districts in first past the post electoral systems. That doesn't have anything to do with the price of bagels.

I thought we were taking about districting in Texas; you brought Massachusetts to a gunfight.

Although it's true Edlbridge Gerry himself hailed from the Bay State, in the 21st century Mass has had pretty clean districts that follow rational geography, as opposed to the recent abstract art production of the GOP in Texas.  Because partisanship does not vary extremely across the Mass - only the counties around Springfield and a bunch near RI went for Trump in 2020 and even then not by much (mid 50s).  It would still be possible to get a GOP safe House district out of Mass even on the 2020 voting pattern but at this moment in history it would require creative drawing.

The one exception to generally clean districting in Mass is the 7th - a salamander-style district deliberately carved to generate a majority-minority district - i.e. the opposite of what Texas was doing.  Thus, even though Mass is a very white state - the non-Hispanic white pop of Mass is over 70% compared to ~40% for Texas - Ayanna Pressley was elected out of the 7th.

This is not rocket science and the math is not that complicated - any set of reasonably diligent college graduates on a state legislative staff can go through maps and census data and screw around with districts to either make minority candidates more viable than a neutral apportionment would permit, less viable, or the same.  Mass went one way, Texas the other.  You can quibble about measuring the magnitude of the effects, you can't reasonably contest the intent and directionality.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 10, 2021, 03:53:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2021, 03:40:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 10, 2021, 02:15:20 PM
I was talking about minority population groups and their control of districts in first past the post electoral systems. That doesn't have anything to do with the price of bagels.

I thought we were taking about districting in Texas; you brought Massachusetts to a gunfight.

Although it's true Edlbridge Gerry himself hailed from the Bay State, in the 21st century Mass has had pretty clean districts that follow rational geography, as opposed to the recent abstract art production of the GOP in Texas.  Because partisanship does not vary extremely across the Mass - only the counties around Springfield and a bunch near RI went for Trump in 2020 and even then not by much (mid 50s).  It would still be possible to get a GOP safe House district out of Mass even on the 2020 voting pattern but at this moment in history it would require creative drawing.

The one exception to generally clean districting in Mass is the 7th - a salamander-style district deliberately carved to generate a majority-minority district - i.e. the opposite of what Texas was doing.  Thus, even though Mass is a very white state - the non-Hispanic white pop of Mass is over 70% compared to ~40% for Texas - Ayanna Pressley was elected out of the 7th.

This is not rocket science and the math is not that complicated - any set of reasonably diligent college graduates on a state legislative staff can go through maps and census data and screw around with districts to either make minority candidates more viable than a neutral apportionment would permit, less viable, or the same.  Mass went one way, Texas the other.  You can quibble about measuring the magnitude of the effects, you can't reasonably contest the intent and directionality.

I was discussing the point below, which is dumb.

Quote from: Zoupa on December 07, 2021, 06:21:46 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
It's not apparent to me what percentage of districts *should* be controlled by groups that constitute 39 and 12% of the population.
More than 18%, for a start.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2021, 05:09:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2021, 03:40:36 PM
You can quibble about measuring the magnitude of the effects, you can't reasonably contest the intent and directionality.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on December 10, 2021, 10:04:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2021, 10:28:41 AM
To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.

The House did pass a bill to protect voting rights, but the Republicans in the Senate fillibustered it (or have said they will, so either way it needs 60 votes). Manchin, however, refuses to vote to change the Senate rules to remove the fillibuster in order to pass this, saying he wants a bill that has bipartisan support. Manchin's own attempt at a bipartisan bill failed, but maybe we can still find 10 Senate Republicans willing to protect democracy. :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on December 10, 2021, 10:05:27 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 10, 2021, 09:42:38 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 06, 2021, 05:38:25 PM
This is my routine reminder that you need to get involved ASAP in local politics. As well as prepare mentally for what you will do when the Republicans overthrow election results. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/

Worth posting again at regular intervals.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 10, 2021, 10:10:55 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 10, 2021, 10:04:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2021, 10:28:41 AM
To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.

The House did pass a bill to protect voting rights, but the Republicans in the Senate fillibustered it (or have said they will, so either way it needs 60 votes). Manchin, however, refuses to vote to change the Senate rules to remove the fillibuster in order to pass this, saying he wants a bill that has bipartisan support. Manchin's own attempt at a bipartisan bill failed, but maybe we can still find 10 Senate Republicans willing to protect democracy. :)
Yeah, Manchin was going to be an obstacle to anything, that's why Democrats had to be intelligent in picking the battle with him.  I think infrastructure was a really irrelevant battle in the big scheme of things.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on December 10, 2021, 10:21:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2021, 10:10:55 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 10, 2021, 10:04:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2021, 10:28:41 AM
To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.

The House did pass a bill to protect voting rights, but the Republicans in the Senate fillibustered it (or have said they will, so either way it needs 60 votes). Manchin, however, refuses to vote to change the Senate rules to remove the fillibuster in order to pass this, saying he wants a bill that has bipartisan support. Manchin's own attempt at a bipartisan bill failed, but maybe we can still find 10 Senate Republicans willing to protect democracy. :)
Yeah, Manchin was going to be an obstacle to anything, that's why Democrats had to be intelligent in picking the battle with him.  I think infrastructure was a really irrelevant battle in the big scheme of things.

On the other hands, voters have expectations that Biden will actually deliver on things the Dems campaigned on, and a lot of the infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better plan are parts of that. It won't work to safeguard voting rights only for Dem-leaning voters to not turn out because the Democrats didn't deliver.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 10, 2021, 11:30:07 PM
Passing the infrastructure bill was absolutely essential.

Next up: decriminalize pot on a federal level. Make all those Republicans vote against it. That is one cultural issue among the white people that the Democrats have the advantage.

Then if the economy rebounds next year and they have some achievements to point to then maybe we have a chance...at least to hold the senate. What we cannot have is some 1994/2010 repeat.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 10, 2021, 11:34:12 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 10, 2021, 10:04:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2021, 10:28:41 AM
To me it seemed like a blunder to focus so much on the infrastructure bill instead of protecting democracy.  So much political capital expended on a policy that ultimately won't matter if democracy falls.

The House did pass a bill to protect voting rights, but the Republicans in the Senate fillibustered it (or have said they will, so either way it needs 60 votes). Manchin, however, refuses to vote to change the Senate rules to remove the fillibuster in order to pass this, saying he wants a bill that has bipartisan support. Manchin's own attempt at a bipartisan bill failed, but maybe we can still find 10 Senate Republicans willing to protect democracy. :)


I'm all for Bipartisanship but the other side has to play ball.  Manchin wants to save himself next year but that is probably impossible.  The only way he could survive is to declare himself a Republican and get Trump's endorsement, something he may be trying to do...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 12, 2021, 08:10:53 PM
I decided to try my hand at Texas redistricting.  You never know what skills might come in handy one of these days.  I tried to create 38 districts with only geographical compactness as the criteria, as well as making sure that all of them have between 700,000 and 800,000 people.  I haven't figured out how to post images on the forum, however.  :blush:

One thing that I discovered is that apparently redistricting algorithmically is very hard computationally, NP-hard to be precise.  You can get a map that works, but it may not be optimal, or you won't be able to prove that it is optimal.  I imagine that the algorithms used in practice are all heuristic in nature, and give good enough solution rather than provably optimal ones.  It may not matter if you're still packing and cracking Democrats well enough to get the job done, but I wonder what the implications are for gerrymandering reforms that rely on some objective standard of compactness.  If you can't mathematically prove that given some criteria, your map is the most fair one, then is it viable prescribe how the districts are to be formed algorithmically?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: frunk on December 12, 2021, 08:45:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2021, 08:10:53 PM
If you can't mathematically prove that given some criteria, your map is the most fair one, then is it viable prescribe how the districts are to be formed algorithmically?

I don't think most efforts at more fair redistricting focus on being the most fair.  Rather they are trying to reduce or at least limit how unfair they can be.  That's much easier to prove, particularly when you see the maps that completely ignore geographical compactness.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 13, 2021, 06:59:10 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2021, 08:10:53 PM
I decided to try my hand at Texas redistricting.  You never know what skills might come in handy one of these days.  I tried to create 38 districts with only geographical compactness as the criteria, as well as making sure that all of them have between 700,000 and 800,000 people.  I haven't figured out how to post images on the forum, however.  :blush:

One thing that I discovered is that apparently redistricting algorithmically is very hard computationally, NP-hard to be precise.  You can get a map that works, but it may not be optimal, or you won't be able to prove that it is optimal.  I imagine that the algorithms used in practice are all heuristic in nature, and give good enough solution rather than provably optimal ones.  It may not matter if you're still packing and cracking Democrats well enough to get the job done, but I wonder what the implications are for gerrymandering reforms that rely on some objective standard of compactness.  If you can't mathematically prove that given some criteria, your map is the most fair one, then is it viable prescribe how the districts are to be formed algorithmically?

A massive hurdle is that there is no universally accepted metric of fairness.

If you mathematically proven that a given map is the most "compact", it may leave no one happy because the absence of compactness isn't the source of discontent.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 09:50:26 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 13, 2021, 06:59:10 AM
A massive hurdle is that there is no universally accepted metric of fairness.

If you mathematically proven that a given map is the most "compact", it may leave no one happy because the absence of compactness isn't the source of discontent.
Obviously there is no accepted metric, but that's something that can be negotiated.  The problem that I see, which may not be important, is that even given the accepted metrics, you may not have a single answer as to what map complies with them the best.  I guess if you flip the question as frunk stated, and instead declare that a map is invalid if certain conditions are not satisfied, then it's not an issue.  There is still going to be room to gerrymander within the acceptable parameters, however, so you have to make sure the metrics are not too lax.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 13, 2021, 11:13:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 09:50:26 AM

Obviously there is no accepted metric, but that's something that can be negotiated. 

I doubt it. There aren't universally accepted negotiators, and even if there were, people are smart enough to look forward to the effect of any metric and aren't going to agree to something that conflicts with their agenda.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on December 13, 2021, 01:54:13 PM
What's best practice? How do other countries deal with this problem?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 13, 2021, 02:04:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2021, 01:54:13 PM
What's best practice? How do other countries deal with this problem?

Proportional representation?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on December 13, 2021, 02:05:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 13, 2021, 02:04:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2021, 01:54:13 PM
What's best practice? How do other countries deal with this problem?

Proportional representation?

There you go then.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 02:17:25 PM
That actually sounds like a really good idea.  I'll write a letter to my Congressman with that proposal.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on December 13, 2021, 02:19:11 PM
Which country needs fixing next?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 03:20:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2021, 08:10:53 PM
I decided to try my hand at Texas redistricting.  You never know what skills might come in handy one of these days.  I tried to create 38 districts with only geographical compactness as the criteria, as well as making sure that all of them have between 700,000 and 800,000 people.  I haven't figured out how to post images on the forum, however.  :blush:
Looking at preliminary results, I think my computer is racist. :unsure:  :(  My computer is giving Hispanics 16% of the districts instead of 18% that Texas GOP does.  It definitely doesn't pass the most obvious of tests suggested by Zoupa and Minsky, despite focusing merely on creating tight clusters of roughly equal populations.  I must be missing something, Minsky assured me that the math here is simple.  :hmm:

If there is a funny business afoot, it's with the percentage of White districts.  Texas GOP has it at 60%, while my algorithm so far has it at 37%. 

So far my conclusion is that it is indeed possible for even purely geographic districting algorithm to start with equal populations, more or less, and result in vastly unequal numbers of majority districts.  Therefore, it pays to be careful like Yi was, and ask oneself the question of what should reasonable numbers be in a fair process, instead of assuming that you know what they can and can't be without funny business.  The gap between 37% and 16% is still pretty unintuitive, given that whites and Hispanics are equal in population at around 40% each.  "How come Hispanics have less than half the districts their population entitles them to, when whites are at parity?"

Obviously we know that Texas proposed districts are packed and cracked to the max to benefit the Republicans, and so by proxy they probably benefit whites as well.  That doesn't mean that every argument in support of that notion is automatically valid and complete.  Not examining arguments that lead to a conclusion you're very sure is right is a road to hell, and it doesn't matter that it's paved with good intentions.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2021, 03:25:46 PM
Who is getting the other 47%?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 03:33:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2021, 03:25:46 PM
Who is getting the other 47%?
Same people who get the other 22% of districts in the original picture, I imagine.  60% + 18% doesn't add up to 100% either. 

The other 47% of the districts have no majority.  They're probably 3-way splits, but it doesn't have to be just a 3-way split, there are other categories not included in Whites, Hispanics, or Blacks.  I'm ignoring them because the original exhibit is ignoring them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 13, 2021, 03:33:59 PM
See, this is why we had laws against witchcraft.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2021, 04:22:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 03:33:02 PM
The other 47% of the districts have no majority.  They're probably 3-way splits, but it doesn't have to be just a 3-way split, there are other categories not included in Whites, Hispanics, or Blacks.  I'm ignoring them because the original exhibit is ignoring them.

What do the numbers look like in these districts you are ignoring?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2021, 04:37:10 PM
To be clear - assuming we accept DG's map as a fair or at least neutral one, and we continue the interpret the other map as before (and we assume no other ethnicity has a majority of a District), then gong from DG to the GOP map has the effect of reducing the number of no ethnic majority districts from 47% to 22% (i.e. the number of such districts are but more than half). 

Putting concrete numbers based on 38 house districts, that means the GOP plan has 8 no majority districts as compared to 18 on the DG plan, or a swing of 10 districts (or 9 depending on the exact nos and the rounding errors). Of those 10 districts, 1 becomes majority Hispanic (after rounding) and 9 become majority white on the GOP plan.

Seems to me this exercise confirms the problem, even before we investigate what is going on in the no absolute majority districts.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 04:59:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2021, 04:22:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 03:33:02 PM
The other 47% of the districts have no majority.  They're probably 3-way splits, but it doesn't have to be just a 3-way split, there are other categories not included in Whites, Hispanics, or Blacks.  I'm ignoring them because the original exhibit is ignoring them.

What do the numbers look like in these districts you are ignoring?
I'm not ignoring any districts, and for that matter I'm not ignoring any people.  All of 29 million Texans are being assigned, it's just that I'm counting the numbers of districts where one of the three mentioned groups have 50%+ majority.  In GOP scheme, 78% of districts have such a majority, whereas in my scheme 53% of districts have such a majority.  It's all just mirroring the choices made in the exhibit, it's not necessarily my preferred choice of going about it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 05:16:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2021, 04:37:10 PM
To be clear - assuming we accept DG's map as a fair or at least neutral one, and we continue the interpret the other map as before (and we assume no other ethnicity has a majority of a District), then gong from DG to the GOP map has the effect of reducing the number of no ethnic majority districts from 47% to 22% (i.e. the number of such districts are but more than half). 

Putting concrete numbers based on 38 house districts, that means the GOP plan has 8 no majority districts as compared to 18 on the DG plan, or a swing of 10 districts (or 9 depending on the exact nos and the rounding errors). Of those 10 districts, 1 becomes majority Hispanic (after rounding) and 9 become majority white on the GOP plan.

Seems to me this exercise confirms the problem, even before we investigate what is going on in the no absolute majority districts.
I agree that an existence of a problem is confirmed.  It's just that the problem wasn't what seemed obvious.  It seemed obvious to some that the 18% number was the damning one, but actually it's the 60% number that's revealing.  The point that I was trying to make is that we have to be careful and thoughtful, I wasn't claiming that a careful analysis would validate GOP's numbers.

As far as what goes on in no-majority districts, many of them do become Hispanic+Black majority if you merge the two.  Here are my latest numbers (slightly different from earlier due to the algorithm still churning):  39% of districts are majority white, 16% of districts are majority Hispanic, and 0% of districts are majority Black.  If you merge the last two, 47% of districts are majority Hispanic+Black.  Yes, 16% + 0% = 47% here, math is fun sometimes.

What's the percentage of Hispanic+Black districts in the GOP map?  We don't know, we can't tell from the original exhibit, but obviously it can't be greater than 40% given that Whites have 60% of them locked up.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 13, 2021, 05:20:12 PM
5.5% of Texans are Asian-Americans as well.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 14, 2021, 01:42:18 AM
Thanks DG and apologies for the less than charitable comment above.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 07:05:37 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 14, 2021, 01:42:18 AM
Thanks DG and apologies for the less than charitable comment above.
:hug:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 12:14:34 PM
So after all that condescension and algorithm and whatever number crunching giving you a semi, you conclude that my initial statement of "more than 18%" is accurate.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, a statement is just a statement,and playing devil's advocate is pointless.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 12:21:21 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 12:14:34 PM
So after all that condescension and algorithm and whatever number crunching giving you a semi, you conclude that my initial statement of "more than 18%" is accurate.
I don't think that is my conclusion at all, I don't think you were reading my posts carefully.  In fact I believe m conclusion was the opposite.  I also don't think discussing the status of my penis is adding anything to the conversation.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 01:48:34 PM
Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 01:48:34 PM
Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?
To rephrase what I already posted, an impartial geographical model returns 16% majority Hispanic districts and 0% majority black districts, which is even a slightly worse outcome than what you objected to.  If your definition of an accurate representation of demographics is a race-blind geographic clustering of census tracts, then yes, it is an accurate representation.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 01:48:34 PM
Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?
To rephrase what I already posted, an impartial geographical model returns 16% majority Hispanic districts and 0% majority black districts, which is even a slightly worse outcome than what you objected to.  If your definition of an accurate representation of demographics is a race-blind geographic clustering of census tracts, then yes, it is an accurate representation.

And with this new model you worked on, can you predict, using previous party votes and affiliations, how the Republican & Democratic parties would fare in the next election?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:21:49 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 01:48:34 PM
Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?
To rephrase what I already posted, an impartial geographical model returns 16% majority Hispanic districts and 0% majority black districts, which is even a slightly worse outcome than what you objected to.  If your definition of an accurate representation of demographics is a race-blind geographic clustering of census tracts, then yes, it is an accurate representation.

And with this new model you worked on, can you predict, using previous party votes and affiliations, how the Republican & Democratic parties would fare in the next election?
No, that information is not included in the US census data files.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:21:49 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 01:48:34 PM
Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?
To rephrase what I already posted, an impartial geographical model returns 16% majority Hispanic districts and 0% majority black districts, which is even a slightly worse outcome than what you objected to.  If your definition of an accurate representation of demographics is a race-blind geographic clustering of census tracts, then yes, it is an accurate representation.

And with this new model you worked on, can you predict, using previous party votes and affiliations, how the Republican & Democratic parties would fare in the next election?
No, that information is not included in the US census data files.

I'm asking you for a prediction. What do YOU think would happen?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on December 14, 2021, 02:25:01 PM
:huh:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:30:39 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:21:49 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 01:48:34 PM
Let me rephrase to try and bypass your obtuse road block:

Do you feel 18% of districts in Texas being majority black or Latino is an accurate representation of the state's demographics in 2021? Could this number be brought more in line through an impartial, geographic density model instead of what's currently being used to define district borders?
To rephrase what I already posted, an impartial geographical model returns 16% majority Hispanic districts and 0% majority black districts, which is even a slightly worse outcome than what you objected to.  If your definition of an accurate representation of demographics is a race-blind geographic clustering of census tracts, then yes, it is an accurate representation.

And with this new model you worked on, can you predict, using previous party votes and affiliations, how the Republican & Democratic parties would fare in the next election?
No, that information is not included in the US census data files.

I'm asking you for a prediction. What do YOU think would happen?
I cannot use the information I do not have to predict things, so no, I cannot predict what would happen in Congressional elections (which is what I presume you're asking about).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 02:32:19 PM
 :lol:

Ok then. I hope you use that same burden of proof for any and all statements you make going forward. No opinions or thoughts from you please. Only post things when you have a solid database to rely on.

Deal?

Okthnxbai.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:36:04 PM
If you have election results from any year mapped to 2020 Census definitions of tracts, by all means send them my way, then it's a trivial exercise to run the numbers.  Without those numbers, I don't have anything to go on.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

Well I mean we were pretty cool with gerrymandering in general until relatively recently as more scientific computer aided gerrymandering means it is starting to get pretty ridiculous.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:48:06 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 02:32:19 PM
:lol:

Ok then. I hope you use that same burden of proof for any and all statements you make going forward. No opinions or thoughts from you please. Only post things when you have a solid database to rely on.

Deal?

Okthnxbai.
As I already said multiple times, the issue is not with giving quick takes, the issue is with digging in when they're being challenged.  My opinion initially was also a quick take, I knew from experience that the issue wasn't as simple as it looked.  I went into my own analysis only because I wanted to go beyond quick takes for myself.

If I post a quick take on some legal question, and then Minsky opines on it with his legal expertise that challenges my lay opinion, should I insult him repeatedly and remind him that this forum is not the Supreme Court?  I don't think so.  I'm also not going to stop commenting on legal matters, I know that I can get things very wrong there, and somehow that doesn't make me go apeshit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on December 14, 2021, 02:52:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

There has been a long historical justification for all sorts of electoral districts to represent not simply demographics, but communities - which have been variously interpreted to mean class, provinces, ethnic identities, racial identities, etc. Conservatives initially favored the representation of communities, especially as it protected their rural/white bases of power, while Liberals favored representation of urban communities, where their constituents dwelled. The politics of ethnic patronage aligned well with the geographic concentration of various groups. What has largely changed now is the extent to which districts can be known, their composition, tied to fine-grained predictions of voting patterns, and the capacity to change map to reflect such knowledge.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 02:54:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

Well I mean we were pretty cool with gerrymandering in general until relatively recently as more scientific computer aided gerrymandering means it is starting to get pretty ridiculous.

How dare you. Where's the data that proves this statement????????
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:55:20 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 14, 2021, 02:52:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

There has been a long historical justification for all sorts of electoral districts to represent not simply demographics, but communities - which have been variously interpreted to mean class, provinces, ethnic identities, racial identities, etc. Conservatives initially favored the representation of communities, especially as it protected their rural/white bases of power, while Liberals favored representation of urban communities, where their constituents dwelled. The politics of ethnic patronage aligned well with the geographic concentration of various groups. What has largely changed now is the extent to which districts can be known, their composition, tied to fine-grained predictions of voting patterns, and the capacity to change map to reflect such knowledge.

Yeah modern gerrymandering goes a bit beyond what was generally accepted. It is one thing to guestimate how to benefit X group or X interest...it is another to scientifically draw a district to consistently get 51% of the vote every time.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 03:00:31 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 02:48:06 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 14, 2021, 02:32:19 PM
:lol:

Ok then. I hope you use that same burden of proof for any and all statements you make going forward. No opinions or thoughts from you please. Only post things when you have a solid database to rely on.

Deal?

Okthnxbai.
As I already said multiple times, the issue is not with giving quick takes, the issue is with digging in when they're being challenged.  My opinion initially was also a quick take, I knew from experience that the issue wasn't as simple as it looked.  I went into my own analysis only because I wanted to go beyond quick takes for myself.

If I post a quick take on some legal question, and then Minsky opines on it with his legal expertise that challenges my lay opinion, should I insult him repeatedly and remind him that this forum is not the Supreme Court?  I don't think so.  I'm also not going to stop commenting on legal matters, I know that I can get things very wrong there, and somehow that doesn't make me go apeshit.

Sure.  :console:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 03:04:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:55:20 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 14, 2021, 02:52:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

There has been a long historical justification for all sorts of electoral districts to represent not simply demographics, but communities - which have been variously interpreted to mean class, provinces, ethnic identities, racial identities, etc. Conservatives initially favored the representation of communities, especially as it protected their rural/white bases of power, while Liberals favored representation of urban communities, where their constituents dwelled. The politics of ethnic patronage aligned well with the geographic concentration of various groups. What has largely changed now is the extent to which districts can be known, their composition, tied to fine-grained predictions of voting patterns, and the capacity to change map to reflect such knowledge.

Yeah modern gerrymandering goes a bit beyond what was generally accepted. It is one thing to guestimate how to benefit X group or X interest...it is another to scientifically draw a district to consistently get 51% of the vote every time.
I think science is part of it, and just like with electronic surveillance, technology itself changes the issue.  However, I think another part of the problem is the predictability of the voters.  It's harder to gerrymander precisely if voters can shift from one party to another, and there is a lot less of that now than before.  You have to give yourself bigger margins, and with bigger margins comes less potential gain from packing and cracking.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on December 14, 2021, 03:05:05 PM
I avoid careful analysis like the plague. I just post whatever random BS I happen to think about.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on December 14, 2021, 03:05:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

Well I mean we were pretty cool with gerrymandering in general until relatively recently as more scientific computer aided gerrymandering means it is starting to get pretty ridiculous.

Is there any political will to contract out drawing the borders of electoral districts to some sort of non-political administrative board, as it is done here in Canada?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2021, 03:05:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

Well I mean we were pretty cool with gerrymandering in general until relatively recently as more scientific computer aided gerrymandering means it is starting to get pretty ridiculous.

Is there any political will to contract out drawing the borders of electoral districts to some sort of non-political administrative board, as it is done here in Canada?

Yes...but as with everything we do it is a state by state thing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 03:09:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2021, 03:05:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

Well I mean we were pretty cool with gerrymandering in general until relatively recently as more scientific computer aided gerrymandering means it is starting to get pretty ridiculous.

Is there any political will to contract out drawing the borders of electoral districts to some sort of non-political administrative board, as it is done here in Canada?
In some Democratic states, yes.  The practical outcome is that Democrats are unilaterally disarming by giving up seats in their own states without making GOP give up seats in their states.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on December 14, 2021, 03:10:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:55:20 PM
Yeah modern gerrymandering goes a bit beyond what was generally accepted. It is one thing to guestimate how to benefit X group or X interest...it is another to scientifically draw a district to consistently get 51% of the vote every time.

Yes. I am quite convinced that democracy, much like justice, requires a healthy dose of unknowability to function properly.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 03:14:24 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 14, 2021, 03:10:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:55:20 PM
Yeah modern gerrymandering goes a bit beyond what was generally accepted. It is one thing to guestimate how to benefit X group or X interest...it is another to scientifically draw a district to consistently get 51% of the vote every time.

Yes. I am quite convinced that democracy, much like justice, requires a healthy dose of unknowability to function properly.

I feel like voters have just gotten a lot more "hardened" compared to generations past.  You couldn't finely-tune your gerrymander because you couldn't predict voters well enough.  Or Reagan's 1984 49-state win has hardly the result of the electoral college map.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 14, 2021, 03:59:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 03:14:24 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 14, 2021, 03:10:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:55:20 PM
Yeah modern gerrymandering goes a bit beyond what was generally accepted. It is one thing to guestimate how to benefit X group or X interest...it is another to scientifically draw a district to consistently get 51% of the vote every time.

Yes. I am quite convinced that democracy, much like justice, requires a healthy dose of unknowability to function properly.

I feel like voters have just gotten a lot more "hardened" compared to generations past.  You couldn't finely-tune your gerrymander because you couldn't predict voters well enough.  Or Reagan's 1984 49-state win has hardly the result of the electoral college map.


Things started go off the rails in the late 80's and early 90's.  By some strange coincidence it corresponds with end of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right-wing radio.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 04:04:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2021, 03:59:17 PM
Things started go off the rails in the late 80's and early 90's.  By some strange coincidence it corresponds with end of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right-wing radio.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 14, 2021, 05:14:27 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 14, 2021, 02:52:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

There has been a long historical justification for all sorts of electoral districts to represent not simply demographics, but communities - which have been variously interpreted to mean class, provinces, ethnic identities, racial identities, etc. Conservatives initially favored the representation of communities, especially as it protected their rural/white bases of power, while Liberals favored representation of urban communities, where their constituents dwelled. The politics of ethnic patronage aligned well with the geographic concentration of various groups. What has largely changed now is the extent to which districts can be known, their composition, tied to fine-grained predictions of voting patterns, and the capacity to change map to reflect such knowledge.

This is why it is an intractable problem that won't be solved. There is no universally agreed on standard.

DGuller is thinking about a mathematical solution that is objective: a provably maximally compact districts with equal populations. That will probably generate a lot of support among mathmeticians. But other "anti-gerrymander" advocates will want other stuff prioritized: I read a redistricting proposal to require the partisan skew of the median district to be equal to the partisan skew of the state - that has merits. The community approach above also has long standing support. A lot of people think that the outcome should somehow mimic proportional representation: Zoupa seems leaning in this direction. Others think each district should be roughly representative of the whole. Some want majority minority districts to ensure elected people aren't all white. Other people tend to think there should be carryforward of previous districts and you don't start from scratch every redistricting process. Probably most people haven't thought through the implications of any of these and on the surface support some combination.

You can game theory all of these scenarios out and support the version that best supports your team. Yeah you can get a nonpartisan commission to implement them but then the game just shifts to the marching orders you give them.

Obviously, there are sections of the country that have zero institutional commitment to anything other than drawing district lines to cement the control of the group in power, and there are two centuries of that practice being in place on an almost uninterrupted basis.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on December 14, 2021, 05:40:48 PM
There is actually a lot of work already being done in exploring those answers, including on Texas, by generating ensemble through thousands of alternate redistricting maps. The work of Moon Duchin, at Tufts, is worth keeping an eye on. https://mggg.org/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 06:19:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 14, 2021, 05:14:27 PM
This is why it is an intractable problem that won't be solved. There is no universally agreed on standard.

Those seem like different statements. Sure there is no universally agreed upon standard but since when must something be perfect or universally agreed upon? Very few issues have that going for them. But just because the perfect does not exist doesn't mean there can be no solution or that it is impossible to solve. The same technology and analytics that are currently make the drawing of the districts so corrupt can also be used to improve them, given a reasonably agreed upon set of principles.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2021, 07:25:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 04:04:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2021, 03:59:17 PM
Things started go off the rails in the late 80's and early 90's.  By some strange coincidence it corresponds with end of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right-wing radio.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Raz is 100% correct. The rise of alternate reality right wing media has violently radicalized the Republican party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 14, 2021, 09:56:57 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2021, 07:25:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 04:04:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2021, 03:59:17 PM
Things started go off the rails in the late 80's and early 90's.  By some strange coincidence it corresponds with end of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right-wing radio.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Raz is 100% correct. The rise of alternate reality right wing media has violently radicalized the Republican party.

That's the result of the vast growth of cable news, which was never subject to the Fairness Doctrine.  It could also be noted that the vote to abolish the fairness Doctrine was supported by the Democratic members of the FCC and was unanimous.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on December 14, 2021, 10:47:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 14, 2021, 05:14:27 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 14, 2021, 02:52:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:22:15 PM
I always thought it was weird how the US is so cool about explicitly gerrymandering black-majority districts.  The Democrats like it because it "guarantees" some seats for black congresspeople.  Republicans like it because it has the effect of packing likely democratic voters into districts which then dilutes those votes elsewhere.

There has been a long historical justification for all sorts of electoral districts to represent not simply demographics, but communities - which have been variously interpreted to mean class, provinces, ethnic identities, racial identities, etc. Conservatives initially favored the representation of communities, especially as it protected their rural/white bases of power, while Liberals favored representation of urban communities, where their constituents dwelled. The politics of ethnic patronage aligned well with the geographic concentration of various groups. What has largely changed now is the extent to which districts can be known, their composition, tied to fine-grained predictions of voting patterns, and the capacity to change map to reflect such knowledge.

This is why it is an intractable problem that won't be solved. There is no universally agreed on standard.

DGuller is thinking about a mathematical solution that is objective: a provably maximally compact districts with equal populations. That will probably generate a lot of support among mathmeticians. But other "anti-gerrymander" advocates will want other stuff prioritized: I read a redistricting proposal to require the partisan skew of the median district to be equal to the partisan skew of the state - that has merits. The community approach above also has long standing support. A lot of people think that the outcome should somehow mimic proportional representation: Zoupa seems leaning in this direction. Others think each district should be roughly representative of the whole. Some want majority minority districts to ensure elected people aren't all white. Other people tend to think there should be carryforward of previous districts and you don't start from scratch every redistricting process. Probably most people haven't thought through the implications of any of these and on the surface support some combination.

You can game theory all of these scenarios out and support the version that best supports your team. Yeah you can get a nonpartisan commission to implement them but then the game just shifts to the marching orders you give them.

Obviously, there are sections of the country that have zero institutional commitment to anything other than drawing district lines to cement the control of the group in power, and there are two centuries of that practice being in place on an almost uninterrupted basis.

It just seems a much lesser issue here, which leads me to believe that the problem is not insoluble - using a separate commission is simply a better process.

I mean, if it can be done, universally.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 14, 2021, 11:03:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 14, 2021, 03:05:05 PM
I avoid careful analysis like the plague. I just post whatever random BS I happen to think about.

One of your finest qualities. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on December 14, 2021, 11:53:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2021, 10:47:20 PM
It just seems a much lesser issue here, which leads me to believe that the problem is not insoluble - using a separate commission is simply a better process.

I mean, if it can be done, universally.

Nah.  You have to choose what is your primary goal first, and that's a fundamentally political (in the most broad goal of garnering general support for a path forward) approach.

Look at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hating-gerrymandering-is-easy-fixing-it-is-harder/ for 5-7 different approaches that could be considered "fair".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 06:15:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 06:19:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 14, 2021, 05:14:27 PM
This is why it is an intractable problem that won't be solved. There is no universally agreed on standard.

Those seem like different statements. Sure there is no universally agreed upon standard but since when must something be perfect or universally agreed upon? Very few issues have that going for them. But just because the perfect does not exist doesn't mean there can be no solution or that it is impossible to solve.

Sometimes an imperfect fix is much worse than an unaddressed problem.

There is a partisan skew in concern regarding gerrymandering. Democratic states have been much more proactive in implementing reforms vs. republican states. The result is that it appears likely the republicans are going to take control of the house in 2022 through the redistricting process alone - even if the same people show up to the polls as in 2020 and vote the same way as in 2020.

[/quote]The same technology and analytics that are currently make the drawing of the districts so corrupt can also be used to improve them, given a reasonably agreed upon set of principles.[/quote]

But there aren't a reasonably agreed upon set of principles. That is my point.

Politicians setting up "neutral" redistricting have a variety of principles they can choose between. Current technology and analytics make it very easy to see what the outcome of those principles will be. You've just moved the gerrymandering process from the explicit drawing of lines to the selection of the program principles to draw them.

A lot of redistricting proposals have 2 components:
1) most take into account prior maps (which practically makes sense, because most districts have roots going back over 100 years, and starting from scratch seems a bit radical)
2) they are part of state constitutions: this is necessary to shift the power from elected representatives

But together, to the extent the current map is gerrymandered, constitutionally mandate the continuation to some extent the previous regime, with limited ability of future legislatures to revise.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on December 15, 2021, 10:14:51 AM
Quote from: ulmont on December 14, 2021, 11:53:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2021, 10:47:20 PM
It just seems a much lesser issue here, which leads me to believe that the problem is not insoluble - using a separate commission is simply a better process.

I mean, if it can be done, universally.

Nah.  You have to choose what is your primary goal first, and that's a fundamentally political (in the most broad goal of garnering general support for a path forward) approach.

Look at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hating-gerrymandering-is-easy-fixing-it-is-harder/ for 5-7 different approaches that could be considered "fair".

Disagree. The fact that there are different ways of creating "fair" borders is not an excuse for doing nothing to change the current system which is openly and obviously unfair. That seems absurd. It's like arguing that you could use either a knife or scissors to cut the rope strangling you, and you can't decide which, so you might as well go on strangling?

Again, why the resistance to using a solution that has been shown to work elsewhere? I get that it is politically and even constitutionally difficult, as pointed out here:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/4/15/5604284/us-elections-are-rigged-but-canada-knows-how-to-fix-them

... but that's not the debate.

Canada had the exact same problem as the US and has mostly solved it. If it were possible (and I understand why it may not be), why not copy and paste (and adapt as necessary)?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on December 15, 2021, 10:17:26 AM
Other countries exist? :huh:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 15, 2021, 10:48:23 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2021, 10:14:51 AM
Canada had the exact same problem as the US and has mostly solved it. If it were possible (and I understand why it may not be), why not copy and paste (and adapt as necessary)?

Indeed.  I've been advocating looking at various proven solutions to the health care problem, as well.  The problem is that there are many powerful stakeholders in the present system.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 15, 2021, 11:16:24 AM
I think gerrymandering and healthcare are both problems which are entirely solvable if only the country were united in political will to do so, as the highest priority.  It also goes for a lot of other things as well, like police reform.  Institutional barriers and resistance are real, but they're far more effective when they know that one of the parties can always get on their side to spite the other party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2021, 11:25:15 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 15, 2021, 11:16:24 AM
I think gerrymandering and healthcare are both problems which are entirely solvable if only the country were united in political will to do so, as the highest priority.  It also goes for a lot of other things as well, like police reform.  Institutional barriers and resistance are real, but they're far more effective when they know that one of the parties can always get on their side to spite the other party.

What would be the easy fix for police reform?

As for gerrymandering, obviously if no one wanted to gerrymander any more then gerrymandering would not be a problem.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 15, 2021, 11:36:49 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2021, 11:25:15 AM
What would be the easy fix for police reform?
A good start would be federal standards for training anyone who would be entitled to shoot someone while wearing a badge.  Citizens have constitutional rights regardless of whether they're interacting with a Bumfuck County deputy Sheriff, New Jersey State Police trooper, or FBI special agent.  My understanding is that in Europe, you have to train for years to become a police officers in some countries, whereas in US you training may take weeks.
QuoteAs for gerrymandering, obviously if no one wanted to gerrymander any more then gerrymandering would not be a problem.
That's one obvious solution, but it's not the most realistic one.  Another obvious solution would be imposing standards that are agreed upon as fair enough.  If such an agreement would lead to an immediate disadvantage to one party or the other, then trade some other horse somewhere else, with the understanding by everyone that there is a positive-sum gain from eliminating something which is anti-democratic, and that sometimes SALT treaties are the way to go.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on December 15, 2021, 11:41:17 AM
In Sweden police training is 2.5 years. :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2021, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2021, 11:25:15 AM

As for gerrymandering, obviously if no one wanted to gerrymander any more then gerrymandering would not be a problem.

Is it? Things can be incredibly unpopular with almost universal dislike for them and persist for decades.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 11:51:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2021, 10:14:51 AM

Disagree. The fact that there are different ways of creating "fair" borders is not an excuse for doing nothing to change the current system which is openly and obviously unfair. That seems absurd. It's like arguing that you could use either a knife or scissors to cut the rope strangling you, and you can't decide which, so you might as well go on strangling?

In 20+ years of languish, can you identify anyone who has advocated for gerrymandering, or that it is an awesome system?

QuoteAgain, why the resistance to using a solution that has been shown to work elsewhere? I get that it is politically and even constitutionally difficult, as pointed out here:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/4/15/5604284/us-elections-are-rigged-but-canada-knows-how-to-fix-them

... but that's not the debate.

Canada had the exact same problem as the US and has mostly solved it. If it were possible (and I understand why it may not be), why not copy and paste (and adapt as necessary)?

It simply won't happen. It just isn't a high priority issue for voters and the vested interests are massive. I don't see why anyone would look at the US political system and think there is a way to fix this in the reasonably foreseeable future (say before the 2040 redistricting cycle).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 15, 2021, 11:52:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2021, 11:41:17 AM
In Sweden police training is 2.5 years. :)
And they can't even shoot people properly after all that training.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on December 15, 2021, 11:56:09 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 15, 2021, 11:52:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2021, 11:41:17 AM
In Sweden police training is 2.5 years. :)
And they can't even shoot people properly after all that training.

:(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2021, 12:17:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2021, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2021, 11:25:15 AM

As for gerrymandering, obviously if no one wanted to gerrymander any more then gerrymandering would not be a problem.

Is it? Things can be incredibly unpopular with almost universal dislike for them and persist for decades.

My statement was pretty tautological.  If GOP legislators didn't want to gerrymander any more they would stop doing it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on December 15, 2021, 01:06:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 11:51:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2021, 10:14:51 AM

Disagree. The fact that there are different ways of creating "fair" borders is not an excuse for doing nothing to change the current system which is openly and obviously unfair. That seems absurd. It's like arguing that you could use either a knife or scissors to cut the rope strangling you, and you can't decide which, so you might as well go on strangling?

In 20+ years of languish, can you identify anyone who has advocated for gerrymandering, or that it is an awesome system?

This question confuses me. What did I say that indicated I thought people on Languish thought gerrymandering was awesome?

My point was that the fact there are many possible solutions isn't a good reason not to make a change when everyone agrees the current system that allows gerrymandering is bad.

QuoteAgain, why the resistance to using a solution that has been shown to work elsewhere? I get that it is politically and even constitutionally difficult, as pointed out here:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/4/15/5604284/us-elections-are-rigged-but-canada-knows-how-to-fix-them

... but that's not the debate.

Canada had the exact same problem as the US and has mostly solved it. If it were possible (and I understand why it may not be), why not copy and paste (and adapt as necessary)?

Quote

It simply won't happen. It just isn't a high priority issue for voters and the vested interests are massive. I don't see why anyone would look at the US political system and think there is a way to fix this in the reasonably foreseeable future (say before the 2040 redistricting cycle).

As I already said, there are many practical and legal challenges. That wasn't the argument though - the argument was that even if these could be addressed, adopting a solution was inherently too difficult.

My argument was that if other nations could do it, clearly it is not inherently too difficult.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 01:21:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2021, 01:06:11 PM

As I already said, there are many practical and legal challenges. That wasn't the argument though - the argument was that even if these could be addressed, adopting a solution was inherently too difficult.

My argument was that if other nations could do it, clearly it is not inherently too difficult.

I'm definitely unconvinced. I think there is a profound bias on this forum to assuming that problems have solutions that can be implemented. Canada of the 1960s is not the US of today.

For many reasons, I think we are all aware that it is unlikely that the democrats take possession of the white house, senate, and house, plus have a filibuster proof majority in the senate. But that actually happened in the US in the first Obama term. And Obama put everything into health care reform. And the result is...well an improvement but I still think US healthcare is well outside of international health care norms for first world countries and in a profoundly negative way.

I do think health care is a topic that the US can address, but for a lot of reasons it is far more exceedingly difficult than we tend to give it credit for, and for many structural reasons, I think it is a much more likely problem to be comprehensively addressed than gerrymandering.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on December 15, 2021, 01:31:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2021, 10:14:51 AM
Disagree. The fact that there are different ways of creating "fair" borders is not an excuse for doing nothing to change the current system which is openly and obviously unfair. That seems absurd. It's like arguing that you could use either a knife or scissors to cut the rope strangling you, and you can't decide which, so you might as well go on strangling?

Again, why the resistance to using a solution that has been shown to work elsewhere? I get that it is politically and even constitutionally difficult, as pointed out here:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/4/15/5604284/us-elections-are-rigged-but-canada-knows-how-to-fix-them


Okay, so Canada probably does districting better than the US.  I really never head of it as a major issue.

But I wanted to point out that the two sources linked to in this article are A: a Manitoba Law Journal from 2006 and B: JJ McCullough.

Now I went to school at the University of Manitoba and did a little bit of work on the Manitoba Law Journal.  It's fine as far as it goes but it's hardly some paragon of academic writing.  It generally has a readership in the dozens.

JJ McCullough is an interesting fellow.  I subscribe to his Youtube channel - but that just makes the point he's a Youtuber.  He mostly makes videos "explaining" different aspects of Canada to foreign audiences.  Somehow he has a once per week column in the Washington Post.  He's also a cartoonist.  He's a gay man who usually takes a fairly conservative view of things (he's critical of Erin O'Toole for being too similar to the Liberals, for example).

So the sourcing on this Vox article is weird.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Malthus on December 15, 2021, 01:49:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 15, 2021, 01:31:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2021, 10:14:51 AM
Disagree. The fact that there are different ways of creating "fair" borders is not an excuse for doing nothing to change the current system which is openly and obviously unfair. That seems absurd. It's like arguing that you could use either a knife or scissors to cut the rope strangling you, and you can't decide which, so you might as well go on strangling?

Again, why the resistance to using a solution that has been shown to work elsewhere? I get that it is politically and even constitutionally difficult, as pointed out here:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/4/15/5604284/us-elections-are-rigged-but-canada-knows-how-to-fix-them


Okay, so Canada probably does districting better than the US.  I really never head of it as a major issue.

But I wanted to point out that the two sources linked to in this article are A: a Manitoba Law Journal from 2006 and B: JJ McCullough.

Now I went to school at the University of Manitoba and did a little bit of work on the Manitoba Law Journal.  It's fine as far as it goes but it's hardly some paragon of academic writing.  It generally has a readership in the dozens.

JJ McCullough is an interesting fellow.  I subscribe to his Youtube channel - but that just makes the point he's a Youtuber.  He mostly makes videos "explaining" different aspects of Canada to foreign audiences.  Somehow he has a once per week column in the Washington Post.  He's also a cartoonist.  He's a gay man who usually takes a fairly conservative view of things (he's critical of Erin O'Toole for being too similar to the Liberals, for example).

So the sourcing on this Vox article is weird.

I would never have dreamed of dissing the University of Manitoba.

;)

But seriously - I don't think the issue is all that controversial: Canada once had a concern over gerrymandering, and that concern was mostly addressed. Though challenges remain, as the current process is criticized by some as the provincial commissions having too much discretion and being inconsistent with one another ... but this hasn't been driven by institutional capture by a political party.

Here's an article from a real law school (  ;) ) on that topic:

https://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/article/the-fractured-right-to-vote-democracy-discretion-and-designing-electoral-districts/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on December 15, 2021, 02:17:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2021, 01:49:34 PM
I would never have dreamed of dissing the University of Manitoba.

;)

:grr:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2021, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 01:21:41 PM
I'm definitely unconvinced. I think there is a profound bias on this forum to assuming that problems have solutions that can be implemented.

I don't believe there is such bias; there is a belief that certain problems have responses to them that are superior to simply accepting the status quo.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 04:52:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2021, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 01:21:41 PM
I'm definitely unconvinced. I think there is a profound bias on this forum to assuming that problems have solutions that can be implemented.

I don't believe there is such bias; there is a belief that certain problems have responses to them that are superior to simply accepting the status quo.

If you want to disagree with my assertion of a bias that is cool, but the portion of your sentence after the semi colon is not my assertion and something of a non sequitor.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 15, 2021, 05:16:31 PM
I'd say that the bias on the forum is towards solutions that cannot be implemented but are nonetheless interesting.

There is that minority bias towards mere contrarianism, but that's just added spice.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on December 15, 2021, 05:37:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2021, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 01:21:41 PM
I'm definitely unconvinced. I think there is a profound bias on this forum to assuming that problems have solutions that can be implemented.

I don't believe there is such bias; there is a belief that certain problems have responses to them that are superior to simply accepting the status quo.
I think that bias does exist. I think there is a bit of a view that there are answers and solutions that are correct as opposed to just different choices and options based on your own ideological preferences (some of which can be very, very bad). But I also think there can be a bit of hand-waveyness about actual politics and the operation of different interests as if it is only lack of common sense or bad faith that stops solutions from being implemented, as opposed to different political agendas or material interests to protect.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on December 16, 2021, 11:07:17 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 01:21:41 PM
I'm definitely unconvinced. I think there is a profound bias on this forum to assuming that problems have solutions that can be implemented. Canada of the 1960s is not the US of today.

I do not think this at all. We are unlikely to have solutions for anything on some kind of perfect solutions that will solve things on some permanent basis. Human nature and the struggle for political power are constants and are impossible to overcome with some system. But I mean we have 50 states just for the purpose of trying to find better ways of doing things. We do currently have states that are implementing gerrymandering reforms. Maybe one of them is better than what what we currently have. The issues is that while petty corruption and all that was an issue in the past it was something we could overcome because voters were more flexible and we didn't have scientific computer aided redistricting that just allow the electorate to be more controlled than before. I think we need to look for reforms and solutions to make it less shitty, not that I think there is some magic bullet for this or any other issue. Reasonably good enough is the best we can ever really hope for. I mean the Constitution says we are forming a more perfect Union, not a perfect one.

QuoteFor many reasons, I think we are all aware that it is unlikely that the democrats take possession of the white house, senate, and house, plus have a filibuster proof majority in the senate. But that actually happened in the US in the first Obama term. And Obama put everything into health care reform. And the result is...well an improvement but I still think US healthcare is well outside of international health care norms for first world countries and in a profoundly negative way.

I do think health care is a topic that the US can address, but for a lot of reasons it is far more exceedingly difficult than we tend to give it credit for, and for many structural reasons, I think it is a much more likely problem to be comprehensively addressed than gerrymandering.

Well if any problem ever gets comprehensibly addressed I will be very happy. It seems so slow and difficult for our government to do even the most simple and popular reforms. I keep mentioning federal decimalization of weed, this is a hugely popular issue on both sides of the cultural divide but somehow the wheels turn so slowly while so many rot in prison. I know some have said WAD but it seems like it it is a dangerous situation to the long time health of our way of government. I kind of envy those parliamentary systems where the government can just do things, theoretically anyway, if they win an election. Here you can sweep into power with a majority with a big popular mandate and still nothing gets done.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on December 16, 2021, 12:37:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2021, 11:07:17 AM

I do not think this at all. We are unlikely to have solutions for anything on some kind of perfect solutions that will solve things on some permanent basis. Human nature and the struggle for political power are constants and are impossible to overcome with some system. But I mean we have 50 states just for the purpose of trying to find better ways of doing things. We do currently have states that are implementing gerrymandering reforms. Maybe one of them is better than what what we currently have. The issues is that while petty corruption and all that was an issue in the past it was something we could overcome because voters were more flexible and we didn't have scientific computer aided redistricting that just allow the electorate to be more controlled than before. I think we need to look for reforms and solutions to make it less shitty, not that I think there is some magic bullet for this or any other issue. Reasonably good enough is the best we can ever really hope for. I mean the Constitution says we are forming a more perfect Union, not a perfect one.


I think the existence of 50 states makes this far more difficult to solve than easier. You have extremely divergent trends in the parties on democratic thought: left of center voters generally want expanded voter access and gerrymandering reform, right of center voters are focused on "we were intended to be a republic not a democracy" and maximal gerrymanders.

Earlier the Brain and I concluded that proportional representation would be a better system. Massachusetts has 9 house seats. Democrats carried Massachusetts by roughly 33% last November and control all 9 house seats. If they implement proportional representation, their +9 advantage shrinks to +3.

In North Carolina, meanwhile, Trump won by 1%. It has a democrat as governor. It is basically a toss up state. But because of a notoriously gerrymandered legislative map, republicans control the legislature and have famously been using that to strip the democratic governor of powers. They drew a map that would have 10 republicans, 3 democrats, and 1 uncertain congressional district. A 50-50 state is basically set to return a 7 delegate majority for republicans.

If you put the two states together, they voted for biden by over 1 net million votes. Without reform in Massachusetts, democrats have a house of represetnative lead of +2. If they go to proportional representation in Massachusetts, that becomes a republican lead of +4. Theoretically they could both decide to get rid of gerrymanders and live happily ever after, but there is no chance at all of that happening in North Carolina. The republican party is dependent on gerrymandering for their more or less permanent control of the legislature.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 16, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 04:52:03 PM
If you want to disagree with my assertion of a bias that is cool, but the portion of your sentence after the semi colon is not my assertion and something of a non sequitor.

In that case I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 16, 2021, 02:16:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 16, 2021, 12:41:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 15, 2021, 04:52:03 PM
If you want to disagree with my assertion of a bias that is cool, but the portion of your sentence after the semi colon is not my assertion and something of a non sequitor.

In that case I'm not sure what you were trying to say.


:console:  none of do.  Ever.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on December 23, 2021, 01:08:52 PM
Madison Cawthorn on the shooting range. I ... uhm ... would not want to be around him and a gun.

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1474074603903463435
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on December 23, 2021, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 23, 2021, 01:08:52 PM
Madison Cawthorn on the shooting range. I ... uhm ... would not want to be around him and a gun.

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1474074603903463435 (https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1474074603903463435)


You're German.  You're one of the few people who would be safe.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2021, 01:55:07 PM
His girl friend is real First Lady material.  :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 23, 2021, 02:46:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2021, 01:55:07 PM
His girl friend is real First Lady material.  :D

The crossfitter? That's his wife, they married earlier this year (he'sapparently an advocate for people to get married young), although they just announced they're getting divorced already.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 06, 2022, 02:05:03 PM
I can't believe it has been a year.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 06, 2022, 02:08:11 PM
"At least it served as a wake up call for the GOP who have since taken great steps towards reforming and shedding themselves of the radical elements and those among them who supported the storming of the Capitol."


... is what I would write if we were living in a better timeline.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 06, 2022, 03:56:46 PM
They know they need the radical elements to win. Got to love the two party system.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on January 06, 2022, 05:03:39 PM
Trump was going to give a speech today but canceled it.  Not surprisingly, everyone told him it was a terrible fucking idea.  Trump blamed his cancelation on the House Select Committee which he calls the "Unselect committee" something he probably thinks is very clever.  I get the impression that Trump is very, very scared of the committee and is demanding that everyone in the GOP do everything they can to impede it or else.  Or else he start a new party and send the whole of the GOP crashing into a fiery pit.

I think there is a real chance to two things happening.  Donald Trump being subpoenaed and finding himself at the mercy of people who hate him.  And 2, Donald Trump is prosecuted for attempting to disrupt congress.

Stuff like this doesn't look good for Former President Trump.

Trump did not want to tweet 'stay peaceful' during January 6 riot, key former aide says

Quote(CNN)A former Trump White House official said then-President Donald Trump initially refused to tweet the words "stay peaceful" as the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, was escalating.

As a violent pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and sent lawmakers scrambling for their lives, Trump tweeted at 2:38 p.m. ET that day: "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" The tweet came 20 minutes after Trump supporters were smashing through windows and evacuations of lawmakers had begun.
The former official, who was working in the West Wing and was close to White House messaging during the insurrection, said Trump did not want to include the words "stay peaceful" and was "very reluctant to put out anything when it was unfolding." Trump was "letting it play out," the official said of the violence at the Capitol.
Top Trump aides -- including the then-President's daughter, Ivanka, and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows -- were pleading with Trump to call off the mob, the ex-aide said. Those officials eventually convinced Trump to include the "stay peaceful" message in the tweet about the Capitol Police, the former aide added.
A Trump spokesperson denied that Trump resisted including the "stay peaceful" message in the tweet.
The former staffer's account that Trump was resisting the "stay peaceful" portion of the tweet runs counter to excuses given by Trump allies that the then-President was urging his supporters to avoid violent acts in their protest of the January 6 certification of Joe Biden's victory. Trump's reluctance to issue a forceful message was an indication he understood the impact that his Twitter account had on his supporters, the ex-aide said.

The former official, who relayed the account to the House select committee investigating January 6,, says congressional investigators are requesting specific information from Trump staffers who are cooperating with the probe.
Aides are being asked about the days leading up to the insurrection at the Capitol, conversations among key officials, and minute-by-minute details about what was happening behind closed doors at the White House, the ex-official added.
The former official, who declined to be named out of fear of retaliation, described January 6 as "one of the darkest days in our nation's history."
Other Trump staffers described the then-President as enjoying the mob violence as he watched live TV coverage of the insurrection at the Capitol. Trump was "loving" it, a separate former senior White House official said.
Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, who was working as the chief of staff to the first lady on January 6, 2021, told CNN Thursday that Trump was "gleefully" watching television coverage of the riot.

Trump's actions and inactions during the Capitol attack have become a major line of inquiry for the January 6 select committee.
Rep. Liz Cheney, the committee's top Republican, has said the panel already has obtained testimony establishing that senior Trump aides attempted to prod the then-President to do more.
"He could have told them to stand down. He could have told them to go home, and he failed to do so," Cheney said of Trump.
"We have firsthand testimony that his daughter Ivanka went in at least twice to ask him to please stop this violence," she continued.
That "stay peaceful" tweet was posted 14 minutes following a separate Trump tweet assailing then-Vice President Mike Pence for refusing to overturn the 2020 election results.
"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" Trump tweeted from his @realDonaldTrump account, which has since been permanently suspended by Twitter.

He may kill Democracy but at least Democracy will kill him.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on January 07, 2022, 05:50:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2022, 05:03:39 PM
I think there is a real chance to two things happening.  Donald Trump being subpoenaed and finding himself at the mercy of people who hate him.  And 2, Donald Trump is prosecuted for attempting to disrupt congress.

You are assuming that the Republican-dominated Congress will do these things.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on January 07, 2022, 08:18:58 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 07, 2022, 05:50:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2022, 05:03:39 PM
I think there is a real chance to two things happening.  Donald Trump being subpoenaed and finding himself at the mercy of people who hate him.  And 2, Donald Trump is prosecuted for attempting to disrupt congress.

You are assuming that the Republican-dominated Congress will do these things.


Well, one thing is will have to happen this year and second is beyond the power of Congress.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on January 18, 2022, 07:41:33 PM
GOP becoming majority party (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/18/are-republicans-becoming-countrys-majority-party/)

Quote
[...]
That's what makes the Gallup data so potentially Earth-shattering. Gallup found that partisan identification has shifted by a massive 14 points since early 2021. In the first quarter of 2021, 49 percent of Americans said they were Democrats — defined as solid partisans and Democratic-leaning independents — compared with only 40 percent who said they were Republicans. That lead shrunk in each quarter of the year. By the fourth quarter, the lead shifted to the GOP. As President Biden's job approval dropped into the low 40s, 47 percent of Americans said they were Republicans compared with 42 percent who said they were Democrats.

Gallup notes that the most recent time the GOP led in partisan affiliation by five points was in the first quarter of 1995, right after Republicans secured their first House majority in more than 40 years. The only time the GOP has led by more than five points was right after the stunningly quick victory in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when President George H.W. Bush's approval ratings soared to as high as 89 percent.

The Gallup poll is only one poll, so Republicans should curb their enthusiasm. But after examining it together with Pew Research Center data, I think it's worth noting that these numbers echo previous increases in GOP affiliation. The Democratic Party lost its lead only four times. Two instances followed a successful war in the Middle East led by a Republican president (1991, 2001-2003). The other two occurred because of the collapse a Democratic president's popularity when his party completely controlled Washington — under Bill Clinton in 1994-1995 and Barack Obama in 2010-2011.
[...]
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2022, 08:20:12 PM
Christ
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 18, 2022, 08:21:41 PM
Routine reminder to get involved. Now. Not just at the elections.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on January 18, 2022, 10:42:28 PM
It would probably help if the Democrats could deliver on literally anything.
Honestly, it might have been better if the GOP still retained the Senate, because at least then Dem voters would be going into this election with the idea that if we can just win a few more seats, we'll be able to get change. Instead, we got a slim majority and we can't even get protection for voting rights. "Vote for us because we're not authoritarian and we won't make things worse, but we also won't do anything to help or to stop the erosion of democracy" is not a stirring message.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 18, 2022, 11:05:13 PM
As long as the Democrats think they need to do the least amount of waves anywhere, they'll be scared to propose anything remotely salient everywhere. Pressure needs to be applied to local Democrats, if only to strengthen their resolve - whether on prosecuting ASAP the January 6th insurrection, purging Republican appointees on key positions, putting pressure on Democrat leadership to stop being so fucking deferential to processes and colleagues who will sell them out about 60 seconds into a Trump presidency. Local, small "d" democrats should also get involved as local election personnel / oversight. There will be a lot of tiny fights that will need to be fought and won.  At the very least, you need to start preparing to entrench whatever form of institutional resistance for what may very well come.

Don't succumb to resignation. Don't shrug your shoulders. Don't postpone whatever involvement you think you ought to do.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 01:33:50 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 18, 2022, 08:21:41 PM
Routine reminder to get involved. Now. Not just at the elections.

I've been told by reliable sources that everything is fine - nothing to worry about.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2022, 01:40:30 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 18, 2022, 11:05:13 PM
As long as the Democrats think they need to do the least amount of waves anywhere, they'll be scared to propose anything remotely salient everywhere.

What are you talking about?  Biden proposed over three trillion dollars in new spending.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 19, 2022, 02:28:10 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 18, 2022, 10:42:28 PM
It would probably help if the Democrats could deliver on literally anything.
Honestly, it might have been better if the GOP still retained the Senate, because at least then Dem voters would be going into this election with the idea that if we can just win a few more seats, we'll be able to get change. Instead, we got a slim majority and we can't even get protection for voting rights. "Vote for us because we're not authoritarian and we won't make things worse, but we also won't do anything to help or to stop the erosion of democracy" is not a stirring message.

I guess it is too hard to recall what the GOP did when they were in charge. Nor the role Republicans play in our current quagmire.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 08:39:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2022, 02:28:10 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 18, 2022, 10:42:28 PM
It would probably help if the Democrats could deliver on literally anything.
Honestly, it might have been better if the GOP still retained the Senate, because at least then Dem voters would be going into this election with the idea that if we can just win a few more seats, we'll be able to get change. Instead, we got a slim majority and we can't even get protection for voting rights. "Vote for us because we're not authoritarian and we won't make things worse, but we also won't do anything to help or to stop the erosion of democracy" is not a stirring message.

I guess it is too hard to recall what the GOP did when they were in charge. Nor the role Republicans play in our current quagmire.

It really is fucking depressing as hell.

If the outcome of the last 10 years of public understanding of politics is that the GOP is growing, then all this bitching and arguing I am doing with Shelf and CC and other left wing progressives....I might as well just not bother.

Humanity is fucking doomed if *any* appreciable number of people can look at the last decade or so and say "Yep, gotta go GOP....". No amount of arguing, spin, messaging, or basic fucking common sense could possibly matter.

I saw a George Carlin interview once where he said something like "I started to enjoy life a lot more, and I think became more funny, when I stopped being invested in the outcome of the human experience". I think I am getting there.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 08:40:17 AM
I probably won't get any more amusing though....
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 19, 2022, 08:58:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 08:39:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2022, 02:28:10 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 18, 2022, 10:42:28 PM
It would probably help if the Democrats could deliver on literally anything.
Honestly, it might have been better if the GOP still retained the Senate, because at least then Dem voters would be going into this election with the idea that if we can just win a few more seats, we'll be able to get change. Instead, we got a slim majority and we can't even get protection for voting rights. "Vote for us because we're not authoritarian and we won't make things worse, but we also won't do anything to help or to stop the erosion of democracy" is not a stirring message.

I guess it is too hard to recall what the GOP did when they were in charge. Nor the role Republicans play in our current quagmire.

It really is fucking depressing as hell.

If the outcome of the last 10 years of public understanding of politics is that the GOP is growing, then all this bitching and arguing I am doing with Shelf and CC and other left wing progressives....I might as well just not bother.

Humanity is fucking doomed if *any* appreciable number of people can look at the last decade or so and say "Yep, gotta go GOP....". No amount of arguing, spin, messaging, or basic fucking common sense could possibly matter.

I saw a George Carlin interview once where he said something like "I started to enjoy life a lot more, and I think became more funny, when I stopped being invested in the outcome of the human experience". I think I am getting there.

It does feel like increasingly the only option open to Dems is to join in with telling complete fabrications to win.

On taking a little solace, it is only a trend on the last two quarters of this year as gallup's news brief highlights:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx

QuoteDemocrats Usually Hold an Advantage, and Did So in 2021
When all the 2021 shifts are netted out, the Democrats' average three-point advantage for the entirety of the year is only slightly smaller than they had in recent years. Democrats held five- or six-point advantages in party affiliation each year between 2016 and 2020, and three-point edges in 2014 and 2015.

Gallup began regularly measuring party leaning in 1991, and in most years, significantly more Americans have identified as Democrats or as independents who lean Democratic than as Republicans or Republican leaners. The major exception was 1991, when Republicans held a 48% to 44% advantage in party identification and leaning. From 2001 through 2003 and in 2010 and 2011, the parties had roughly equal levels of support.

And it is really movement among independents who perhaps are just being swayed by their feelings about COVID and Biden's policies currently. Perhaps there is still a large swath under the misapprenhension of balancing out the parties / feeling like both are equally okay options as surely if one was truly terrible, it'd gone away by now, no?

I also saw this clutching at straws opinion piece: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/18/biden-poll-comeback-527339
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on January 19, 2022, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2022, 01:40:30 AM
What are you talking about?

Mancin and the other one, in fragile places.

But it seems a lot of rank&file Dems disagreed with Biden's spending bill and are closer to Mancin's point of view than AOC&co.  Oex is gunning for those moderates.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 19, 2022, 09:50:30 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2022, 01:40:30 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 18, 2022, 11:05:13 PM
As long as the Democrats think they need to do the least amount of waves anywhere, they'll be scared to propose anything remotely salient everywhere.

What are you talking about?  Biden proposed over three trillion dollars in new spending.

Yes. And what was the story about? About fucking Manchin and Sinema and their objections, and about the price tag. The result: BBB is "really expensive" and "Democrats are divided / impotent".  ​I get that Democrats are remarkably inept at national news messaging, but that means you need to a lot more work on the grounds to fight these perceptions. I don't see that happening at all. What I see is a lot of Democrats who would rather be seen as gravely nodding at the fact that, yes, it is expensive (because this is what sensible, responsible people do), but it is for a good cause, than to  actually go out there, explain the *why* of it. This is really fighting the current war, with the last war's tactics and weapon. And it's clearly not going well.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 19, 2022, 10:12:17 AM
Explain the why to whom? Manchin and Sinema's voters?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 10:35:09 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 19, 2022, 09:50:30 AMYes. And what was the story about? About fucking Manchin and Sinema and their objections, and about the price tag. The result: BBB is "really expensive" and "Democrats are divided / impotent".  ​I get that Democrats are remarkably inept at national news messaging, but that means you need to a lot more work on the grounds to fight these perceptions. I don't see that happening at all. What I see is a lot of Democrats who would rather be seen as gravely nodding at the fact that, yes, it is expensive (because this is what sensible, responsible people do), but it is for a good cause, than to  actually go out there, explain the *why* of it. This is really fighting the current war, with the last war's tactics and weapon. And it's clearly not going well.
Also I feel like lots of Democratic politicians (including Biden) and pundits and commentators - so no doubt reflecting voters and supporters of the Democrats - are basically consensus politicians. They are really into and care about policy and wonkishness. I think they'd be great in the EU or in Germany or another consensus-driven political system where you have 60% of legislators supporting a broad principle and the art of politics is finessing the policy options to get the maximum votes on board. That seems to be the stuff that Democrats like talking about. I don't think that's the way US politics is operating - and perhaps it was when Schumer and Biden were young and making deals. But I don't think it's just generational - you look at the Ezra Klein/Vox stuff and you get the feeling that actually a lot of Democrats just don't understand that they're dealing with people who oppose what they want to do and instead think they just need it "explained" to them. I half blame Aaron Sorkin and the West Wing <_<

What I think they're less good at is making a moral or political case for what they want to do at all. I keep mentioning it because it blew my mind - but I keep coming back to the Politico article about about Democratic consultants saying that, following the Virginia election, they don't think there's any benefit to Democrats running hard on Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court; instead they should focus on practical issues like childcare tax credits. It seems wrong to me on a gut level - if you are not for fighting to win back the Supreme Court and to defend Roe v Wade, then I'm not sure what the point of the Democrats is. But also look at the Republicans who have transformed the court because that's precisely the argument they've been making for the last forty years. They attach it to other stuff but they don't get into the weeds about the exact way they're going to cut taxes.

I also think - which is something all parties of the left need to watch for as they increasingly become parties of graduates - that the Democrats have been captured by grads and post-grads. I always think this when I see politicians talking about equity. I get what the concept means with all the explanations, I know there is a body of academic thinking around it. I'm fairly sure that most voters have no idea what it means and when they hear it just think "they're not talking to us". Just say "fairness" - people know what that means. I don't know if it's the same in the US but it's similar with "privilege" here - not many people know what it means, the ones who do don't like that phrase. But the vast majority of people in polls agree that white people have it easier than people who aren't white and that it's wrong and not fair - so talk about that not privilege, because then you're talking to voters and not each other.

To take BBB as an example - I think the key is to prove that Democrats and the US system can do something. From what I understand a lot of what Manchin had issues with were to do with the climate provisions. I'd strip them out - because if they can do something, they can win more seats at the next election and then Manchin doesn't matter. I'd make it as pure an infrastucture bill as he wanted, I'd make it as big as possible, I'd get Biden in a hard hat and a hi-viz jacket opening new projects every week. I'd also absolutely be hammering Trump on this - I'd be saying that it's now 4 years since Donald Trump's infrastructure week and after four years of Republican failure, we're delivering. And I'd absolutely go populist - I'd have a ban on attending or presiding over multi-billionaire weddings. I'd go after the Sacklers and change the law if that was necessary but find criminal laws to pursue them. Ban insider trading for Congressmen and Senators - and launch investigations etc.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 10:35:09 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 19, 2022, 09:50:30 AMYes. And what was the story about? About fucking Manchin and Sinema and their objections, and about the price tag. The result: BBB is "really expensive" and "Democrats are divided / impotent".  ​I get that Democrats are remarkably inept at national news messaging, but that means you need to a lot more work on the grounds to fight these perceptions. I don't see that happening at all. What I see is a lot of Democrats who would rather be seen as gravely nodding at the fact that, yes, it is expensive (because this is what sensible, responsible people do), but it is for a good cause, than to  actually go out there, explain the *why* of it. This is really fighting the current war, with the last war's tactics and weapon. And it's clearly not going well.
Also I feel like lots of Democratic politicians (including Biden) and pundits and commentators - so no doubt reflecting voters and supporters of the Democrats - are basically consensus politicians. They are really into and care about policy and wonkishness. I think they'd be great in the EU or in Germany or another consensus-driven political system where you have 60% of legislators supporting a broad principle and the art of politics is finessing the policy options to get the maximum votes on board. That seems to be the stuff that Democrats like talking about. I don't think that's the way US politics is operating - and perhaps it was when Schumer and Biden were young and making deals. But I don't think it's just generational - you look at the Ezra Klein/Vox stuff and you get the feeling that actually a lot of Democrats just don't understand that they're dealing with people who oppose what they want to do and instead think they just need it "explained" to them. I half blame Aaron Sorkin and the West Wing <_<

What I think they're less good at is making a moral or political case for what they want to do at all. I keep mentioning it because it blew my mind - but I keep coming back to the Politico article about about Democratic consultants saying that, following the Virginia election, they don't think there's any benefit to Democrats running hard on Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court; instead they should focus on practical issues like childcare tax credits. It seems wrong to me on a gut level - if you are not for fighting to win back the Supreme Court and to defend Roe v Wade, then I'm not sure what the point of the Democrats is. But also look at the Republicans who have transformed the court because that's precisely the argument they've been making for the last forty years. They attach it to other stuff but they don't get into the weeds about the exact way they're going to cut taxes.

I also think - which is something all parties of the left need to watch for as they increasingly become parties of graduates - that the Democrats have been captured by grads and post-grads. I always think this when I see politicians talking about equity. I get what the concept means with all the explanations, I know there is a body of academic thinking around it. I'm fairly sure that most voters have no idea what it means and when they hear it just think "they're not talking to us". Just say "fairness" - people know what that means. I don't know if it's the same in the US but it's similar with "privilege" here - not many people know what it means, the ones who do don't like that phrase. But the vast majority of people in polls agree that white people have it easier than people who aren't white and that it's wrong and not fair - so talk about that not privilege, because then you're talking to voters and not each other.

To take BBB as an example - I think the key is to prove that Democrats and the US system can do something. From what I understand a lot of what Manchin had issues with were to do with the climate provisions. I'd strip them out - because if they can do something, they can win more seats at the next election and then Manchin doesn't matter. I'd make it as pure an infrastucture bill as he wanted, I'd make it as big as possible, I'd get Biden in a hard hat and a hi-viz jacket opening new projects every week. I'd also absolutely be hammering Trump on this - I'd be saying that it's now 4 years since Donald Trump's infrastructure week and after four years of Republican failure, we're delivering. And I'd absolutely go populist - I'd have a ban on attending or presiding over multi-billionaire weddings. I'd go after the Sacklers and change the law if that was necessary but find criminal laws to pursue them. Ban insider trading for Congressmen and Senators - and launch investigations etc.

If Manchin has a veto, I don't see why he wasn't brought in behind closed doors right from the start, and hammer out proposal that he would support.

Sure, the ultra left would howl...but they howled anyway.

Instead they tried a shitty compromise bill that nobody liked enough to actually back.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 12:16:20 PM
Yeah - I struggle more with Sinema because I can't work out her motivations.

But it's clear Manchin is a key vote so all you should be doing is focusing on things that Manchin is willing to support - and pave the roads of West Virginia with gold if that's what it takes to get him on-side.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on January 19, 2022, 12:44:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 10:35:09 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 19, 2022, 09:50:30 AMYes. And what was the story about? About fucking Manchin and Sinema and their objections, and about the price tag. The result: BBB is "really expensive" and "Democrats are divided / impotent".  ​I get that Democrats are remarkably inept at national news messaging, but that means you need to a lot more work on the grounds to fight these perceptions. I don't see that happening at all. What I see is a lot of Democrats who would rather be seen as gravely nodding at the fact that, yes, it is expensive (because this is what sensible, responsible people do), but it is for a good cause, than to  actually go out there, explain the *why* of it. This is really fighting the current war, with the last war's tactics and weapon. And it's clearly not going well.
Also I feel like lots of Democratic politicians (including Biden) and pundits and commentators - so no doubt reflecting voters and supporters of the Democrats - are basically consensus politicians. They are really into and care about policy and wonkishness. I think they'd be great in the EU or in Germany or another consensus-driven political system where you have 60% of legislators supporting a broad principle and the art of politics is finessing the policy options to get the maximum votes on board. That seems to be the stuff that Democrats like talking about. I don't think that's the way US politics is operating - and perhaps it was when Schumer and Biden were young and making deals. But I don't think it's just generational - you look at the Ezra Klein/Vox stuff and you get the feeling that actually a lot of Democrats just don't understand that they're dealing with people who oppose what they want to do and instead think they just need it "explained" to them. I half blame Aaron Sorkin and the West Wing <_<

What I think they're less good at is making a moral or political case for what they want to do at all. I keep mentioning it because it blew my mind - but I keep coming back to the Politico article about about Democratic consultants saying that, following the Virginia election, they don't think there's any benefit to Democrats running hard on Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court; instead they should focus on practical issues like childcare tax credits. It seems wrong to me on a gut level - if you are not for fighting to win back the Supreme Court and to defend Roe v Wade, then I'm not sure what the point of the Democrats is. But also look at the Republicans who have transformed the court because that's precisely the argument they've been making for the last forty years. They attach it to other stuff but they don't get into the weeds about the exact way they're going to cut taxes.

I also think - which is something all parties of the left need to watch for as they increasingly become parties of graduates - that the Democrats have been captured by grads and post-grads. I always think this when I see politicians talking about equity. I get what the concept means with all the explanations, I know there is a body of academic thinking around it. I'm fairly sure that most voters have no idea what it means and when they hear it just think "they're not talking to us". Just say "fairness" - people know what that means. I don't know if it's the same in the US but it's similar with "privilege" here - not many people know what it means, the ones who do don't like that phrase. But the vast majority of people in polls agree that white people have it easier than people who aren't white and that it's wrong and not fair - so talk about that not privilege, because then you're talking to voters and not each other.

To take BBB as an example - I think the key is to prove that Democrats and the US system can do something. From what I understand a lot of what Manchin had issues with were to do with the climate provisions. I'd strip them out - because if they can do something, they can win more seats at the next election and then Manchin doesn't matter. I'd make it as pure an infrastucture bill as he wanted, I'd make it as big as possible, I'd get Biden in a hard hat and a hi-viz jacket opening new projects every week. I'd also absolutely be hammering Trump on this - I'd be saying that it's now 4 years since Donald Trump's infrastructure week and after four years of Republican failure, we're delivering. And I'd absolutely go populist - I'd have a ban on attending or presiding over multi-billionaire weddings. I'd go after the Sacklers and change the law if that was necessary but find criminal laws to pursue them. Ban insider trading for Congressmen and Senators - and launch investigations etc.

If Manchin has a veto, I don't see why he wasn't brought in behind closed doors right from the start, and hammer out proposal that he would support.

Sure, the ultra left would howl...but they howled anyway.

Instead they tried a shitty compromise bill that nobody liked enough to actually back.

Manchin was meeting with the White House frequently last summer and fall to discuss the bill, his objections, and where they might compromise. The most recent big sticking point was the Child Tax Credit, which Manchin reportedly wanted to remove and Biden refused to remove. Nothing in any of the reporting indicates that this is an issue of the uncompromising ultra-left refusing to budge or compromise with Manchin.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 02:48:20 PM
Why are we worried about the ultra-left? They may blab on social media but ultimately they always will come around, they even vote for Trump's bills.

The entire right wing, whether ultra or not, will just intractably refuse to compromise on any point what-so-ever, and if any one of their politicians do they get hammered as traitors.

Yet somehow the ultra left are the nuts? I mean they say stupid shit on social media but ultimately they are not a big problem legislatively at all. The right from the old establishment to capital hill insurrectionists are all far more radical than AOC as least in how they vote.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 03:31:23 PM
The ultra left are a problem because they scare some people into voting for the right, which is what leaves us with Manchin and Sinema as kingmakers in the first place.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 03:36:12 PM
But that feels unhinged to me.

The right tried to storm the capital to disrupt a democratic presidential election. They're now trying to change the voting rules and how states tally their electors. That's happened with the support of a sitting (and future) President, plus the entire House party (except for one) and the vast majority of the party in the Senate and Governor's mansions too.

The ultra left are doing Tik Toks and maybe causing issues in negotiations. We're not talking about street violence and the edge of communist insurrection here. Whatever they're doing it's in the realm of democratic politics however annoying it might be.

It just seems disproportionate to not like AOC to basically go "well, fuck it, I'm going to go vote for the party defending the Qanon shaman".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on January 19, 2022, 03:37:16 PM
Maybe you missed it but many voters are unhinged.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 03:58:10 PM
Sadly you have to convince a bunch of people who actually are NOT aware of how ridiculous the entire thing is, and don't know how bad it is on the right these days because they actually aren't paying that much attention.

They aren't unhinged so much as they are oblivious.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on January 19, 2022, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 03:31:23 PM
The ultra left are a problem because they scare some people into voting for the right, which is what leaves us with Manchin and Sinema as kingmakers in the first place.

The ultra left politicians like Pelosi and Hillary Clinton?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 19, 2022, 03:59:12 PM
It's apparently very important to blame now the ultra left for the coming defeat.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 19, 2022, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 19, 2022, 03:59:12 PM
It's apparently very important to blame now the ultra left for the coming defeat.

Very important, no? But the ultra left should see their role in it too. Expounding on policies that scare people to the Republicans certainly doesn't help.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 04:30:25 PM
It's always the same story. The left is blamed, even pre-emptively, for voters (who somehow, have no agency) going to the fascists.

I mean the big push these days is on voting rights. Somehow, democrats are suppose to sit on their ass and not make waves while the other side dismantle the semblance of a fair playing field?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:30:53 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 19, 2022, 03:59:12 PM
It's apparently very important to blame now the ultra left for the coming defeat.

Well to be fair I don't really understand the weird electoral swings. It seems to me that the Democrats are going to get crushed because they didn't go far enough, but others are very convinced that whatever they have done goes too far....so what to do? It seems like unless they deliver something that nobody can define they are failures.

I mean the Democratic Party has long been trying to court big business for donations while trying to hold onto labor and working class votes while also doing the leftwing culture war thing. It is a weird kind of coalition. It just may be that the whole thing is too dysfunctional to govern effectively. But just going with one or the other is also too small of a base to win elections.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 04:30:25 PM
It's always the same story. The left is blamed, even pre-emptively, for voters (who somehow, have no agency) going to the fascists.

I mean the big push these days is on voting rights. Somehow, democrats are suppose to sit on their ass and not make waves while the other side dismantle the semblance of a fair playing field?

I mean yeah that is the tension. Are they too radical and thus we should vote for Republicans or are they not radical enough so therefore why support them? It is both of those reasons that tend to lead to these big 1994 and 2010 ass kickings. At least in 1994 they did a tax hike so it kind of made sense. Why everybody was panicking in 2010 will always be a mystery to me.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
Why everybody was panicking in 2010 will always be a mystery to me.

Really? Because it's the same reason the goptards are restricting voting in certain states. Gotta keep whitey in charge.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 04:38:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:30:53 PMWell to be fair I don't really understand the weird electoral swings. It seems to me that the Democrats are going to get crushed because they didn't go far enough, but others are very convinced that whatever they have done goes too far....so what to do? It seems like unless they deliver something that nobody can define they are failures.
I mean they've just not done very well, have they?

And I think part of this flows from Biden. Partly because I think his whole project has been restorationism - which I think is difficult with urgency to save the system. But also I think he, personally, situates himself at the middle of where the Democrats are and I'm not convinced that produces a coherent strategy - it just floats.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:39:55 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
Why everybody was panicking in 2010 will always be a mystery to me.

Really? Because it's the same reason the goptards are restricting voting in certain states. Gotta keep whitey in charge.

But a huge historic swing to Republican support at every single level of government? If it was just about that why did the Democrats have success in 2008 and besides that was the second time it happened. So far both times the Democrats have won control of the House, Senate, and Presidency since 1980 they have gotten historically killed the following election and it kind of looks like we might see a repeat. Though the whys and hows seem really misdiagnosed each time. It gets presented like radical reforms are unpopular but the Democrats barely seemed to accomplished much and what they did accomplish tends to be weirdly popular and hang around for a long time despite big gains by the Republicans.

I don't get it. But hey it is not the Republicans also don't get big losses after they take power, just nothing so decisive as what we saw in 1994 and 2010 and it really makes no sense how local, city, and state officials get pulverized just because of something that happened in DC they have nothing to do with.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:41:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 04:38:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:30:53 PMWell to be fair I don't really understand the weird electoral swings. It seems to me that the Democrats are going to get crushed because they didn't go far enough, but others are very convinced that whatever they have done goes too far....so what to do? It seems like unless they deliver something that nobody can define they are failures.
I mean they've just not done very well, have they?

And I think part of this flows from Biden. Partly because I think his whole project has been restorationism - which I think is difficult with urgency to save the system. But also I think he, personally, situates himself at the middle of where the Democrats are and I'm not convinced that produces a coherent strategy - it just floats.

Yes they haven't done well, but how have they not done well? You point out that Biden is restorationist, trying to save and restore the old system...which I basically agree but I have a feeling the message will be his radicalism went too far like with Clinton and Obama.

As for coherent strategy...I mean there were coherent policy objectives and some of them were even achieved. I am not sure what you are talking about by coherent strategy but that might just be because I have never seen coherent strategy as an American Citizen before.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:41:58 PMYes they haven't done well, but how have they not done well? You point out that Biden is restorationist, trying to save and restore the old system...which I basically agree but I have a feeling the message will be his radicalism went too far like with Clinton and Obama.
Isn't "radicalism gone too far" always the midterms message of the party have the White House? Surely their pitch is always basically that they'll act as a break and a counter-measure - and maybe, for the naive idiots in the crowd, you'll be able to work with the President and restore bipartisanship. That doesn't work if you're not pitching the other side as radical.

QuoteAs for coherent strategy...I mean there were coherent policy objectives and some of them were even achieved. I am not sure what you are talking about by coherent strategy but that might just be because I have never seen coherent strategy as an American Citizen before.
Policy does not matter - most people don't care, fewer understand and rightly so because it's complicated and contested. Policy is just the details. The strategy is what's your wider message and story that explains and ties those policies together.

I don't know if you can do that necessarily if your political position is basically reactive and relational to the rest of your party. It's different on foreign policy where I think Biden has strong views and has a strategy. But domestically it feels like he's basically just "generic Democrat" and I don't know where that takes you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 04:52:32 PM
Democrats need to run on basic messages, since people are dumb. "Medicare for all. The vote is for everybody. Clean air, clean water".

Just hammer that shit, nothing else, billboards everywhere etc. The alternative is using the gqp playbook and just lying and abusing power, which no democrat seems to be ready to do (yet).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on January 19, 2022, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 04:52:32 PM
Democrats need to run on basic messages, since people are dumb. "Medicare for all. The vote is for everybody. Clean air, clean water".

Just hammer that shit, nothing else, billboards everywhere etc. The alternative is using the gqp playbook and just lying and abusing power, which no democrat seems to be ready to do (yet).

It would also help to actually deliver on these things too.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 05:09:47 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 03:36:12 PM
But that feels unhinged to me.
We don't exclude the votes of unhinged voters from the tally, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.  Voters need to be considered as they are, not as we want them to be.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 05:12:24 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 19, 2022, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 03:31:23 PM
The ultra left are a problem because they scare some people into voting for the right, which is what leaves us with Manchin and Sinema as kingmakers in the first place.

The ultra left politicians like Pelosi and Hillary Clinton?
I didn't say anything about politicians.  Most of the "defund the police" idiots who made the left own the very real decrease in the feeling of physical safety are not politicians.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 05:16:53 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 04:52:32 PM
Democrats need to run on basic messages, since people are dumb. "Medicare for all. The vote is for everybody. Clean air, clean water".

Just hammer that shit, nothing else, billboards everywhere etc. The alternative is using the gqp playbook and just lying and abusing power, which no democrat seems to be ready to do (yet).

I think this is right.

Keep it simple, for the stupids.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 06:07:16 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 19, 2022, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 04:52:32 PM
Democrats need to run on basic messages, since people are dumb. "Medicare for all. The vote is for everybody. Clean air, clean water".

Just hammer that shit, nothing else, billboards everywhere etc. The alternative is using the gqp playbook and just lying and abusing power, which no democrat seems to be ready to do (yet).

It would also help to actually deliver on these things too.

You need a working majority for that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on January 19, 2022, 11:59:42 PM
Voting rights cloture motion fails.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-brace-for-likely-defeat-of-voting-rights-push-due-to-gop-filibuster/2022/01/19/2f9a734c-792d-11ec-bf97-6eac6f77fba2_story.html

Sinema and Manchin join the GOP in opposing voting rights.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 20, 2022, 12:05:03 AM
So why does Sinema want to lose? That's weird. She is not exactly winning tons of Democratic support here and if she thinks the GOP is going to not try to replace her she has another thing coming. SIs there some big constituency among Arizona Democrats for things like low wages and GOP voting policies? Who is going to vote for Sinema in the next election? I get where Manchin is coming from but I don't get her politically.

Oh well. I don't get politics. Sheilbh will come in and probably explain how it is a genius move.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 20, 2022, 06:25:13 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 04:52:32 PM
Democrats need to run on basic messages, since people are dumb. "Medicare for all. The vote is for everybody. Clean air, clean water".

Just hammer that shit, nothing else, billboards everywhere etc. The alternative is using the gqp playbook and just lying and abusing power, which no democrat seems to be ready to do (yet).
Yeah.

It's that old line that because the vast majority of people don't pay attention to politics most of the time (because they're normal, well-adjusted, thriving) a line is only starting to cut through to the general public when the political obsessives are making it a meme/making jokes about how they constantly hear it.

Quote
Oh well. I don't get politics. Sheilbh will come in and probably explain how it is a genius move.
:P

As I say I've no idea what's motivating Sinema it seems very weird - apart from the inherent untrustworthiness and duplicity of the Greens, America's Lib Dems.

But I think there is an element with Sinema of empty formalism - of repeating the forms but with the meaning removed. So I understand she was close to McCain and a huge admirer of McCain. I think to an extent she is playing the role of ornery, diffficult Arizona Senator who bucks their party/makes life difficult for Majority Leader. But there's no content or ideology there driving that, as there was with McCain. It's just performance.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on January 20, 2022, 10:20:15 AM
I don't think it is at all hard to explain Sinema, whether she sees a long term future in the senate or not.

If she just wants to win reelection, she is from a state that went to Biden by 0.3%. Virginia and New Jersey indicated about a 10-12% shift to republicans since then, and polling appears to back that up. 2024 is a lifetime away but it isn't hard to imagine she anticipates a risk of a shift to republicans versus 2020, and in this environment her chances of winning a general election in Arizona would be miniscule. Yes she is inviting a primary challenge, but in the 400 or so senate elections since 2000, i'm not sure there has ever been a primary challenger that beat an incumbent senator and won the seat. If there really is a shift to republicans in 2024, a democratic strategy of replacing Sinema with a challenger to her left is doomed. They might be able to beat Sinema in the primary but a challenger to the left is almost certainly going to lose in an Arizona general.

bottom line, Sinema may assess that she is from a swing state and history shows that her main risk is in the general, and assuming some risk in a primary is worth it for insurance in the general.

On the other hand, if she doesn't want a long term senate career, could anything set her up better for a fox news gig, or even better as a lobbyist? She will have a record as a centrist democrat, progressive on more social issues, but conservative on more corporate type issues.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 10:54:01 AM
Or, she's bought and paid for.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on January 20, 2022, 11:00:58 AM
It does get kind of hard to find innocent explanations for those two (not that we should let off the hook the other 50 who vote in tandem and make these two the kingmakers).  By this point the talk of those two idiots about the need to work together with Republicans is sounding less genuine than Russian claims about needing to protect itself from Ukraine.  Do they really expect their election prospects to get better with a more rigged system?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 20, 2022, 11:34:40 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 20, 2022, 10:20:15 AMIf she just wants to win reelection, she is from a state that went to Biden by 0.3%. Virginia and New Jersey indicated about a 10-12% shift to republicans since then, and polling appears to back that up. 2024 is a lifetime away but it isn't hard to imagine she anticipates a risk of a shift to republicans versus 2020, and in this environment her chances of winning a general election in Arizona would be miniscule. Yes she is inviting a primary challenge, but in the 400 or so senate elections since 2000, i'm not sure there has ever been a primary challenger that beat an incumbent senator and won the seat. If there really is a shift to republicans in 2024, a democratic strategy of replacing Sinema with a challenger to her left is doomed. They might be able to beat Sinema in the primary but a challenger to the left is almost certainly going to lose in an Arizona general.

bottom line, Sinema may assess that she is from a swing state and history shows that her main risk is in the general, and assuming some risk in a primary is worth it for insurance in the general.
But from what I understand her polling is worse than Mark Kelly who's just being a "generic Dem", so I don't see that approach working. Especially given that in recent elections the trend has been that what matters most is getting out your party's vote.

Plus from a distance it looks like the US is becoming more national and maybe parliamentary (just without the upside of always being able to pass legislation), where national swing between the parties is what matters and there are increasingly few hold-outs where their personal vote is so large they can resist uniform swing one way or the other. Manchin is one, I'm not sure I've seen anything that makes me think Sinema is or that it's the type of state where that approach works (as opposed to, say, a West Virginia Democrat or a New England Republican).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on January 20, 2022, 12:09:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2022, 11:00:58 AM
It does get kind of hard to find innocent explanations for those two (not that we should let off the hook the other 50 who vote in tandem and make these two the kingmakers).  By this point the talk of those two idiots about the need to work together with Republicans is sounding less genuine than Russian claims about needing to protect itself from Ukraine.  Do they really expect their election prospects to get better with a more rigged system?

Democrats ran a candidate in West Virginia that has constantly talked about dealing with republicans, not being a liberal, generally against abortion rights, and did stuff like take a shotgun and shoot a copy of a cap and trade bill in a campaign ad. At a certain point, isn't he who he always said he is?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on January 20, 2022, 12:23:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 20, 2022, 12:09:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2022, 11:00:58 AM
It does get kind of hard to find innocent explanations for those two (not that we should let off the hook the other 50 who vote in tandem and make these two the kingmakers).  By this point the talk of those two idiots about the need to work together with Republicans is sounding less genuine than Russian claims about needing to protect itself from Ukraine.  Do they really expect their election prospects to get better with a more rigged system?

Democrats ran a candidate in West Virginia that has constantly talked about dealing with republicans, not being a liberal, generally against abortion rights, and did stuff like take a shotgun and shoot a copy of a cap and trade bill in a campaign ad. At a certain point, isn't he who he always said he is?

Well, he always said that he was a Democrat, but he has always really been a Republican.  That works for him in West Virginia, but works against Democrats nationally because he confuses the public on the actual vote balance in the Senate.

I frankly don't understand his popularity in WV.  He's generally been against things that would help the average West Virginian, and only favored those policies that hurt the people but help the coal industry.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on January 20, 2022, 12:25:34 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2022, 11:34:40 AM

But from what I understand her polling is worse than Mark Kelly who's just being a "generic Dem", so I don't see that approach working.

I don't think that is true. Her polling is in line with Mark Kelly overall, but probably much better for a general election. The reason being that while a large percentage of democrats don't like her, they are likely to favor her in a general election anyway, and she is doing better among most other voters.

QuoteEspecially given that in recent elections the trend has been that what matters most is getting out your party's vote.

Sorry Sheilbh but this is really silly. I'm not sure that it is ever true, but her next reelection is in 2024 in a presidential year (and the following election is 2030). I doubt people are going to decline to show up to vote in an election with the president on the ballot because sinema doesn't support reforming the filibuster or whatever.

It is the same shit that Minsky Moment was trying to argue a year ago with Warnock in 2022. That he has to keep his base fired up to get reelected. It was so dumb I just can't get it out of my head. Stacey Abrams is running for governor in 2022. Anyone who ever wanted to show up to vote in a non presidential year is going to show up in Georgia in 2022. People downballot from the primary race don't have to motivate people to turn out: they just have to maximize the number of votes that they get from the people that are showing up.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on January 20, 2022, 12:29:06 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 10:54:01 AM
Or, she's bought and paid for.
Of course. No one in his right mind would ever be a centrist without being bought.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 20, 2022, 12:35:50 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 19, 2022, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 04:52:32 PM
Democrats need to run on basic messages, since people are dumb. "Medicare for all. The vote is for everybody. Clean air, clean water".

Just hammer that shit, nothing else, billboards everywhere etc. The alternative is using the gqp playbook and just lying and abusing power, which no democrat seems to be ready to do (yet).

It would also help to actually deliver on these things too.

What was the last major federal GOP legislation that positively affected the average American, or a significant portion of Americans long term? (Genuine question, I don't know.)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 02:06:21 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 20, 2022, 12:29:06 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 10:54:01 AM
Or, she's bought and paid for.
Of course. No one in his right mind would ever be a centrist without being bought.

This was a non-filibuster vote specifically for the voting rights bill. I struggle to see what's centrist about upholding the filibuster anyway. The other party, right down to Collins, Murkowski and Romney voted 100% to make it harder to vote. There is no "center".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on January 20, 2022, 03:05:15 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 02:06:21 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 20, 2022, 12:29:06 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 10:54:01 AM
Or, she's bought and paid for.
Of course. No one in his right mind would ever be a centrist without being bought.

This was a non-filibuster vote specifically for the voting rights bill. I struggle to see what's centrist about upholding the filibuster anyway. The other party, right down to Collins, Murkowski and Romney voted 100% to make it harder to vote. There is no "center".
The filibuster is different matter than voting rights.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 04:27:33 PM
The filibuster is what's preventing voting rights safeguard. So no it's not.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Savonarola on January 20, 2022, 05:03:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:39:55 PM
But a huge historic swing to Republican support at every single level of government? If it was just about that why did the Democrats have success in 2008 and besides that was the second time it happened. So far both times the Democrats have won control of the House, Senate, and Presidency since 1980 they have gotten historically killed the following election and it kind of looks like we might see a repeat. Though the whys and hows seem really misdiagnosed each time. It gets presented like radical reforms are unpopular but the Democrats barely seemed to accomplished much and what they did accomplish tends to be weirdly popular and hang around for a long time despite big gains by the Republicans.

I don't get it. But hey it is not the Republicans also don't get big losses after they take power, just nothing so decisive as what we saw in 1994 and 2010 and it really makes no sense how local, city, and state officials get pulverized just because of something that happened in DC they have nothing to do with.

Both Clinton and Obama had over 250 representatives in the house; Republicans have not had majorities of that size in the house since the 1920s.  One reason why Republicans haven't suffered such historic defeats (in recent history) is that they haven't had as much to lose.  Harding suffered an even larger defeat in 1922 than either Clinton or Obama, but Republicans had 300 congressmen at the time.

While Democrats will almost certainly lose seats in the next election (as the president's party has in almost every election since 1827); it's almost certain that it won't be over 50 seats the way Clinton or Obama had.  There aren't that many competitive districts.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Savonarola on January 20, 2022, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 02:06:21 PM
This was a non-filibuster vote specifically for the voting rights bill. I struggle to see what's centrist about upholding the filibuster anyway.

"Bottom line is very simple: The ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called 'the cooling saucer of democracy' into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. We will not let them. They want, because they can't get their way on every judge, to change the rules in mid-stream, to wash away 200 years of history. They want to make this country into a banana republic, where if you don't get your way, you change the rules. Are we going to let them? It'll be a doomsday for democracy if we do."
-Senator Charles Schumer D, New York

The Filibuster does have broad bi-partisan support; just sequentially rather than simultaneously.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 20, 2022, 07:04:13 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 20, 2022, 12:25:34 PM
I don't think that is true. Her polling is in line with Mark Kelly overall, but probably much better for a general election. The reason being that while a large percentage of democrats don't like her, they are likely to favor her in a general election anyway, and she is doing better among most other voters.
Last poll I saw had Mark Kelly on about 47% approval, Sinema on 37%. Admittedly that was from the summer and it may have changed.

QuoteSorry Sheilbh but this is really silly. I'm not sure that it is ever true, but her next reelection is in 2024 in a presidential year (and the following election is 2030). I doubt people are going to decline to show up to vote in an election with the president on the ballot because sinema doesn't support reforming the filibuster or whatever.
I can't find it but there was a political science paper I posted when talking about this with grumbler. In all democracies including the US winning over voters from other parties matterd more than turning out your base - but the US was the lowest and the trend was towards turning out your base mattered more.

It might not matter much in a presidential year - but I think that just bolsters my point. The US is becoming a country where uniform national swing matters more, generally, than trying to build a brand as an exception to that. I think it might work in states that are normally very hostile to your party, but in a swing state you're just going to be swept away regardless.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 20, 2022, 08:58:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 20, 2022, 12:29:06 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 10:54:01 AM
Or, she's bought and paid for.
Of course. No one in his right mind would ever be a centrist without being bought.


Except she positioned herself as a far left person before. If she was some kind of principled centrist I would be interested in her principles. As I said I just find it confusing.

If what Dorsey is saying is correct and Arizona is going to be big time Republican soon then being a centrist Dem is not going to save her, they will just elect a Republican. There is zero reason I can see to vote against the voting rights bill.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 20, 2022, 09:00:28 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 20, 2022, 05:07:59 PM
The Filibuster does have broad bi-partisan support; just sequentially rather than simultaneously.

Personally I would rather the Republicans have a free hand when they have the majority. If the people really think their ideas are so great that they want to sweep them into power then let me see all these great policies in action. The filibuster seems to me just a reason for politicians to justify blaming their own failures on the boogey man of the opposition.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 20, 2022, 09:02:01 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 20, 2022, 05:03:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 04:39:55 PM
But a huge historic swing to Republican support at every single level of government? If it was just about that why did the Democrats have success in 2008 and besides that was the second time it happened. So far both times the Democrats have won control of the House, Senate, and Presidency since 1980 they have gotten historically killed the following election and it kind of looks like we might see a repeat. Though the whys and hows seem really misdiagnosed each time. It gets presented like radical reforms are unpopular but the Democrats barely seemed to accomplished much and what they did accomplish tends to be weirdly popular and hang around for a long time despite big gains by the Republicans.

I don't get it. But hey it is not the Republicans also don't get big losses after they take power, just nothing so decisive as what we saw in 1994 and 2010 and it really makes no sense how local, city, and state officials get pulverized just because of something that happened in DC they have nothing to do with.

Both Clinton and Obama had over 250 representatives in the house; Republicans have not had majorities of that size in the house since the 1920s.  One reason why Republicans haven't suffered such historic defeats (in recent history) is that they haven't had as much to lose.  Harding suffered an even larger defeat in 1922 than either Clinton or Obama, but Republicans had 300 congressmen at the time.

While Democrats will almost certainly lose seats in the next election (as the president's party has in almost every election since 1827); it's almost certain that it won't be over 50 seats the way Clinton or Obama had.  There aren't that many competitive districts.

Well that is certainly true. The Republicans still hold big leads in the state houses as well and it is not like they are set up to capture Oregon and California or something.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on January 20, 2022, 09:35:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2022, 07:04:13 PM

I can't find it but there was a political science paper I posted when talking about this with grumbler. In all democracies including the US winning over voters from other parties matterd more than turning out your base - but the US was the lowest and the trend was towards turning out your base mattered more.

It might not matter much in a presidential year - but I think that just bolsters my point. The US is becoming a country where uniform national swing matters more, generally, than trying to build a brand as an exception to that. I think it might work in states that are normally very hostile to your party, but in a swing state you're just going to be swept away regardless.

That is the wrong analysis. If we concede your general premise that it is all about turnout, that doesn't mean turnout is a key or even possibility for a non headline candidate. Maybe a reinvigorated Trump will drive turnout in 2024. Maybe people will be excited (or not) to vote for Kamala Harris or Biden. I don't know. But I do know that Arizona voters aren't going to decide, "well i don't care about Trump vs. Harris in 2024 and wasn't going to vote, but I'm going to show up because Sinema supported filibuster reform in 2022."

If Sinema thinks that a republican wave is coming, she isn't going to be able to super duper energize the democratic base enough in Arizona to reverse the wave heading for whatever presidential candidate is dominating nationally. But it is possible to survive as an independent democrat: the numbers are vanishing but there are senators and especially governors that are able to win in states leaning to the other party by being moderate.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on January 20, 2022, 10:02:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2022, 09:00:28 PM
Personally I would rather the Republicans have a free hand when they have the majority.
So, you want Canada, hey? :P

Newsflash: political parties rarely get elected for their ideas.  In the 1990s, the Liberal Party ran twice with the exact same platform, most important of which was to repeal the goods and services tax and scrap the free trade agreement that was sending our jobs south of the border.  The 3rd time, they removed the GST part and instead of repealing the FTA proposed to negotiate a better deal with the US.
They got elected 3 times in a row.
The current LPC has used the same trick, used the same platform 3 times in a row and got elected 3 times in a row.
I think people vote against a particular ideology rather than for something.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 20, 2022, 10:10:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2022, 07:04:13 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 20, 2022, 12:25:34 PM
I don't think that is true. Her polling is in line with Mark Kelly overall, but probably much better for a general election. The reason being that while a large percentage of democrats don't like her, they are likely to favor her in a general election anyway, and she is doing better among most other voters.
Last poll I saw had Mark Kelly on about 47% approval, Sinema on 37%. Admittedly that was from the summer and it may have changed.

https://twitter.com/kerryeleveld/status/1484209026095214593?s=21

As of January 8th "Sinema's favorable rating among AZ Dems at a whopping 8%"

Top donors are demanding a refund

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/donors-threaten-cut-funding-sinema-527413
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 21, 2022, 05:58:49 AM
IIRC, Sinema entered Washington politics as a fairly leftist Democrat (she actually started out in the Green Party), not that far away from the "Squad" of its time, and has been moving rightwards (or centerwards, if you prefer) since then, to the point she's currently at, which has puzzled a lot of observers given how swiftly she's evolved. It's not uncalled for to scratch one's head at that development.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 21, 2022, 06:07:34 AM
She also seems exceedingly reluctant to explain her stances, including answering to her constituents.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 21, 2022, 07:45:38 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 20, 2022, 09:35:06 PMThat is the wrong analysis. If we concede your general premise that it is all about turnout, that doesn't mean turnout is a key or even possibility for a non headline candidate. Maybe a reinvigorated Trump will drive turnout in 2024. Maybe people will be excited (or not) to vote for Kamala Harris or Biden. I don't know. But I do know that Arizona voters aren't going to decide, "well i don't care about Trump vs. Harris in 2024 and wasn't going to vote, but I'm going to show up because Sinema supported filibuster reform in 2022."

If Sinema thinks that a republican wave is coming, she isn't going to be able to super duper energize the democratic base enough in Arizona to reverse the wave heading for whatever presidential candidate is dominating nationally. But it is possible to survive as an independent democrat: the numbers are vanishing but there are senators and especially governors that are able to win in states leaning to the other party by being moderate.
So looking at Syt's point she now has an approval rating of 8% among Democrats and apparently it's only in the low 30s among Republicans.

I think if you are in a swing state - in a Presidential year you will largely win or not based on the national swing and your best bet is to try and boost the presidential candidate's coat-tails. It's not because you'll necessarily have too much impact on turn-out (but you might have a bit) but you just need people to vote Democrat down all the races and not hover or decide not to vote for you and go Green or whatever. It's not that you'll hurt the Presidential campaign but that if you are in a swing state where that's what's motivating people you are best place 100% tying yourself to that - unless it's like a McGovern/Goldwater nominee.

I think the only way the independent candidate does well is if they're in hostile territory because then you'll get your party's vote because it's better than another likely very conservative/liberal Republican/Democrat and you might get enough support from other voters that you're not that bad really. I think the Mancin/Collins model doesn't work if you're in a swing state, because if it's 50/50 the other side are never going to vote for you because they can get one of their own in which is better than an "independent" Dem/Rep, so the key is getting your 50% to turn out. You're better of being a generic, middle of the pack part of your party.

QuoteIIRC, Sinema entered Washington politics as a fairly leftist Democrat (she actually started out in the Green Party), not that far away from the "Squad" of its time, and has been moving rightwards (or centerwards, if you prefer) since then, to the point she's currently at, which has puzzled a lot of observers given how swiftly she's evolved. It's not uncalled for to scratch one's head at that development.
Never trust Greens/Lib Dems/third parties in a FPTP, two-party system because they're just protest voters with no clear views, who are flighty and live for the drama. Their main focus will be running through the halls of Congress shouting about how different they are from everyone else while blocking getting anything do and, more often than not, ending up backing conservative/reactionary forces because their politics is the politics of protest which is always reactionary - their entire motivation is always in opposition to something rather than defined by trying to do something <_<
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on January 21, 2022, 08:14:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2022, 07:45:38 AM

So looking at Syt's point she now has an approval rating of 8% among Democrats and apparently it's only in the low 30s among Republicans.


The polling is all over the place -- I was trying to ignore Syt's point because polling is not going to be that relevant for a legislator several years from an election and at this point a lot of the polling is being done with a partisan intent. That poll was conducted by an online polling group owned by Daily Kos. I could point to polls showing her ahead of Mark Kelly but there is a dearth of polling and super reputable polling outfits aren't doing pubic polls of senators not up for reelection for a couple cycles.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2022, 09:44:30 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 04:27:33 PM
The filibuster is what's preventing voting rights safeguard.

It's not the filibuster, it's the lack of 50 votes in the Senate.  See above.

My opinion is and always has been that the filibuster as it currently exists in Senate - effectively requiring 60 votes to pass legislation - is unconstitutional, or at least in great tension with the Constitution.  The Constitution always specifies whenever a supermajority is required; ordinary legislation requires only a simple majority.  The traditional "talking filibuster" is consistent with the Senate's role as a deliberative body, but the 60 vote "rules filibuster" is not consistent with the constitutional plan.  I've always been against it regardless of the party of power.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on January 21, 2022, 12:16:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2022, 09:44:30 AM
My opinion is and always has been that the filibuster as it currently exists in Senate - effectively requiring 60 votes to pass legislation - is unconstitutional, or at least in great tension with the Constitution.

I'll give you "in great tension", but it's functionally the simple majority implementing it, and they get to decide what they'll pass and what they won't...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 21, 2022, 12:18:48 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2022, 08:14:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2022, 07:45:38 AM

So looking at Syt's point she now has an approval rating of 8% among Democrats and apparently it's only in the low 30s among Republicans.


The polling is all over the place -- I was trying to ignore Syt's point because polling is not going to be that relevant for a legislator several years from an election and at this point a lot of the polling is being done with a partisan intent. That poll was conducted by an online polling group owned by Daily Kos. I could point to polls showing her ahead of Mark Kelly but there is a dearth of polling and super reputable polling outfits aren't doing pubic polls of senators not up for reelection for a couple cycles.

I didn't mention any polls. That was Tim. s
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 21, 2022, 01:35:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 20, 2022, 10:02:27 PM
I think people vote against a particular ideology rather than for something.


Well if the Republicans do something there will be more reasons to vote against them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 21, 2022, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2022, 12:18:48 PM
I didn't mention any polls. That was Tim. s
Soz :blush:

Randomly dragging innocent posters into my chat  :Embarrass:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on January 24, 2022, 09:00:04 AM
So, after arguing that only the state legislature has the power to pass health regulations, Virginia's newly-elected GOPtard governor has directed that schools ignore state law and allow parents to decide whether or not their students mask in school.

The 2023 legislative elections are going to be critical for the chances of retaining sane government in the state.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 25, 2022, 07:09:54 AM
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/23/1075219215/jan-6-panel-is-investigating-a-trump-administration-plan-to-seize-voting-machine?t=1643112452327

QuoteJan. 6 panel is investigating a Trump administration plan to seize voting machines

The House panel looking into last January's attack on the Capitol is investigating a plan that would have directed the secretary of defense to seize voting machines in battleground states, the chairperson of the Jan. 6 committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told Face the Nation on Sunday.

"If you are using the military to potentially seize voting machines ... the public needs to know," Thompson said.

Politico reported Friday that an executive order was drafted in December 2020 citing conspiracy theories about election fraud and foreign ownership of Dominion voting machines.

The order, complete with a dotted line ready for Trump's signature, would have directed the secretary of defense to "seize, collect, retain and analyze all machines, equipment, electronically stored information, and material records required for retention" under a law that relates to preserving election records.

The draft order provided seven days for the secretary of defense to issue an initial assessment, and 60 days for a final assessment, to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It then ordered that the assessment and supporting information be disseminated throughout the executive branch
.

In his comments Sunday, Thompson backed up that reporting.

"We have information that between the Department of Justice, a plan was put forward to potentially seize voting machines in the country and utilize Department of Defense assets to make that happen," he said.

The committee has already had conversations about the draft order with former Attorney General Bill Barr and various Defense Department officials, Thompson said.

Thompson said the committee was also aware of a plan to appoint a new attorney general, who would then tell certain states that the election had been fraudulent and direct them not to produce certified documents.

The committee's job, Thompson said, "is to get to the facts and circumstances of how far did they go" in implementing that plan. The committee plans to have a series of public hearings "showing the use of federal assets, Department of Justice, Department of Defense and other agencies to actually stop the duly election of a president," he said.

Last week, the committee moved its investigation to Trump's inner circle by asking Ivanka Trump, the former president's daughter, to voluntarily cooperate and by requesting phone records for Trump's son Eric Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle, who is engaged to Donald Trump Jr.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 28, 2022, 04:09:55 PM
https://www.newsweek.com/students-slam-school-board-over-book-review-order-say-its-hurting-honor-students-1672973

QuoteStudents Slam School Board Over Book Review Order, Say It's Hurting 'Honor Students'

BY DANIEL VILLARREAL ON 1/25/22 AT 11:11 PM EST

Students have slammed a Texas school board's "book review" order that would allow board members to ban books from district schools without public comment. At least one of the students pointed out that the Granbury Independent School District's (GISD) plan would most hurt "honor students" looking to advance their studies with advanced texts.

The students commented against the policy at a Tuesday meeting of the school board in Granbury, Texas, a town of roughly 11,000 people just southwest of Fort Worth.

"I simply want to emphasize who it is that is upset about this book ban, and it's not just delinquents who want to read smut. It's honor students who want access to the full extent of their education," said a junior who mentioned that she is at the top 3 percent of her class.

"I'm simply going to say that no government—and public school is an extension of government—has ever banned books and banned information from its public and been remembered in history as the good guys," she added.

School library books in Texas have fallen under greater scrutiny during the past several months. Both the Texas House General Investigating Committee led by Republican State Representative Matt Krause and the Texas Education Agency have been directed by Governor Greg Abbott to review all books in the district's schools to prevent children from viewing "pornography or other inappropriate content."

GISD and other state school districts have begun evaluating texts in their libraries to determine their educational value and age appropriateness. However, critics worry that the investigations will go well past "pornography and inappropriate content" and start banning any books that cause discomfort.

Krause published his own list of 850 titles of objectionable books. Krause told school board officials to confirm whether the schools carry any books on his list. If so, he demanded a detailed accounting of where the books reside and how much money was spent on them, NPR reported.

Most of the books on Krause's list were written by women, people of color and LGBTQ writers, The Dallas Morning News reported. Nearly two-thirds of the titles mention LGBTQ people, and about 15 percent provide sexual education information, according to the book news website Book Riot.

Krause's list includes the Amnesty International book We Are All Born Free: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Pictures. At least 11 of the books focus on the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court abortion ruling. Other titles on his list include An African American and Latinx History of the United States, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness and Avoiding Bullies?: Skills to Outsmart and Stop Them.


"Removal of these books can lead to miseducation of teens due to lack of consistent information which could add to mistrust of parents, teachers and other adults in their life," a GISD sophomore said at the meeting.

"This constant need to control youth and their development shows a systematic problem within the school system. So many histories such as those as LGBTQ plus people, Indigenous people, and that of the true history of our country will be erased if this book ban falls through," she added.

The Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) has also denounced the effort to remove the books.

"What does [Krause] need this list for. Is it to burn the books later? Is it to block the books? It's just one step into censorship," said Ovidia Molina, president of the TSTA.

Molina said that Krause's campaign to become Texas' attorney general is likely the motivation behind his investigation.

"It is just something that a representative is using for political gain," Molina said. "They're not thinking about what our students need, they're not thinking about the professionalism of our educators, they're not supporting our public schools. They're just using this to make a name for themselves."

Newsweek contacted Krause's office for comment.


Krause's Index Librorum Prohibitorum: https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/94fee7ff93eff9609f141433e41f8ae1/krausebooklist.pdf
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 28, 2022, 04:48:06 PM
Have they started burning books in public bonfires yet?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on January 28, 2022, 04:55:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2022, 04:48:06 PM
Have they started burning books in public bonfires yet?

He would, but paper is a renewable resource so their against using it as fuel.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on January 28, 2022, 06:03:36 PM
How the hell do they even begin to square this with their wailing about cancel culture.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 28, 2022, 06:20:28 PM
Well, it's not just Texas schoolboards who review what's "appropriate" and not.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/27/1076180329/tennessee-school-district-ban-holocaust-graphic-novel-maus

QuoteA Tennessee school district has voted to ban the Holocaust graphic novel 'Maus'

A Pulitzer-Prize winning graphic novel about the Holocaust has been banned by a Tennessee school district, prompting blowback from critics who say it's essential to teach children about the genocide.

The 10-member McMinn County School Board voted unanimously earlier this month to remove Maus from its curriculum and replace it with an alternative, which hadn't been decided at the time of the vote.

"We are here because some people objected to the words and the graphics used in the book," board member Rob Shamblin said during the meeting, according to the minutes posted on the school board's website.

News of the Jan. 10 meeting trickled out this week as the world was preparing to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which is the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp in 1945.

"Maus has played a vital role in educating about the Holocaust through sharing detailed and personal experiences of victims and survivors," the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum said in a series of tweets. "Teaching about the Holocaust using books like Maus can inspire students to think critically about the past and their own roles and responsibilities today."

Maus tells the story of author Art Spiegelman's relationship with his father, a Holocaust survivor, and it depicts Jews as mice and Nazis as cats. Spiegelman said this week that the school board seemed to have a "myopic" focus on potentially offensive words and limited nudity in the book and that the decision smacked of something more sinister.

"It has the breath of autocracy and fascism about it," Spiegelman said on CNN. "I think of it as a harbinger of things to come."

At issue are "eight curse words" and an image of a nude woman, according to McMinn County Schools director Lee Parkison. The board discussed censoring the language and imagery it deemed inappropriate but ultimately decided to discard the novel outright.

Jonathan Pierce, the board member who initiated the vote to remove Maus from the eighth-grade curriculum, said during the meeting that the Holocaust should be taught in schools, but this is not the book to do it.


"Our children need to know about the Holocaust, they need to understand that there are several pieces of history ... that shows depression or suppression of certain ethnicities. It's not acceptable today," Pierce said, according to the meeting minutes. "[But] the wording in this book is in direct conflict of some of our policies."

There's been growing momentum recently among some Republican leaders to ban certain books in schools, particularly those dealing with issues of race and LGBTQ identity. According to the American Library Association, the number of attempts to ban school library books was 67% higher last September than in the same month the year before.

This isn't the first time Maus has faced a ban. Russia pulled the graphic novel from bookstores in 2015 over the swastika depicted prominently on its cover, because the country was trying eliminate depictions of the symbol as it commemorated the Soviet Union's victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.

Going over the meeting minutes (https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf) it seems "bitch" was one of the objectionable words?


Favorite quote:

QuoteSo, my problem is, it looks like the entire curriculum is developed to normalize sexuality, normalize nudity and normalize vulgar language. If I was trying to indoctrinate somebody's kids, this is how I would do it. You put this stuff just enough on the edges, so the parents don't catch it but the kids, they soak it in.

Yeah, can't treat sexuality as something normal, no siree.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on January 28, 2022, 07:43:50 PM
Sales of Maus have skyrocketed.

Some of the intolerable swear words are "bitch" and "damn."  None of them will be words the students will be encountering for the first time.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 28, 2022, 08:46:14 PM
This is one of the stupidest culture incidents. A bunch of bonds didn't get passed because the culture warriors were heroically out to defend teenagers from "porn". Gregg Abbott was talking about throwing people in prison and all kinds of idiocy. Because we cannot have an honest conversation about anything. Bullshit must dominate.

It isn't about that though, the disingenuousness is hilarious. They are trying to go after left wing books under the guise of "Think of the poor innocent 16 year olds."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 28, 2022, 09:10:13 PM
Is Maus considered a left wing book in Texas?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 28, 2022, 11:33:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 28, 2022, 09:10:13 PM
Is Maus considered a left wing book in Texas?

Well the initial alarms went up because books by Malthus' Auntand some trans person showed up on a reading list from there the stupid train took off.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 29, 2022, 01:21:06 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 28, 2022, 06:03:36 PM
How the hell do they even begin to square this with their wailing about cancel culture.

One is about protecting the malleable minds of innocent children from being indoctrinated by communist sinners, fornicators and deviants and therefore justified, while "canceling" is when those miscreants are trying to shut down those efforts to protect the children. It's not a problem if you think your goals are just and good, and the other side's goals are evil and corrupted.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 29, 2022, 01:57:25 AM
Also, National Butterfly Center (which is very much what it says in the name, it seems), closes over right-wing nutters linking them to illegal border crossings.

https://www.expressnews.com/news/legislature/article/National-Butterfly-Center-closes-for-weekend-16814973.php

QuoteNational Butterfly Center closes for weekend after scrape with GOP candidate hunting for border chaos

The National Butterfly Center on the Rio Grande in Mission, long a target of far-right conspiracy theories, is closing this weekend after receiving "credible threats" against staff.

Marianna Wright, the center's executive director, made the decision after a confrontation last week with a Republican congressional candidate from Virginia. Wright told police that Kimberly Lowe visited the center and demanded to see "illegals crossing on rafts," echoing baseless conspiracy theories linking the butterfly sanctuary to sex trafficking.


Wright said she fears more of the same would occur if she were to keep the center open during this weekend's "We Stand America" rally in neighboring McAllen. The event will "focus on border law enforcement and the direct connection to election integrity from a biblical worldview," with featured speakers including former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was convicted of lying to the FBI.

"The playbook is to incite violence," Wright said Friday. "We simply can't risk our lives or those of our members and visitors, knowing that this hate speech, domestic terrorist organization is planning their national midterm kickoff rally in McAllen."

Wright has fended off conspiracy theorists for years, after the center filed suit against the Homeland Security Department in 2017 over former President Donald Trump's plans to build a border wall through the 100-acre nature preserve.

On any given day, hundreds of species of butterflies flit through the nonprofit sanctuary, which is part of the North American Butterfly Association. Birders from across the country visit the refuge to observe and photograph birds unique to the Rio Grande Valley, and thousands of local schoolchildren take field trips to the center each year.

Meanwhile, since 2019, right-wing social media trolls have falsely claimed there were dead bodies and "rampant sex trade" at the center. Some have threatened Wright.

Doctored images of the center's dock, suggesting it was used to transport migrants, were spread by Brian Kolfage, the head of the "We Build the Wall" fundraising campaign backed by former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. (Both were indicted on charges of fraudulent activity related to the wall funding; Bannon was later pardoned by Trump.)


When Lowe and a friend showed up at the butterfly center Jan. 21, Wright said she believed immediately that they had arrived to "echo and reiterate" the lies. (Lowe said she had never heard the conspiracy theories and was told about the center by a Border Patrol officer.)

Wright was on a conference call when her son, Nicholas, interrupted her to say two women had arrived, refused to pay an entrance fee and demanded to enter the back 70 acres of the property and see the "illegals crossing on rafts." Wright asked for their names and looked up Lowe's Facebook page, where she saw that the candidate had just posted a video of herself driving near the sanctuary and parking in front of a gate with a "no trespassing" sign on it.

Wright recorded herself confronting them: "You are here to promote your agenda, and your agenda is not welcome here."

"So you're not for helping all these poor people in the humanitarian crisis?" Lowe replied. "You're OK with children being sex trafficked and raped and murdered."

Scuffle breaks out

As they prepared to leave, Lowe's friend said a Border Patrol agent told the women that they could access the river through the center's property. She added: "I'm federal, I work for Secret Service, so nothing is off-limits for me."

Wright laughed at the claim. She then noticed that Lowe was using her phone to video record her, narrating: "We're here with a woman who's not a very nice person, who's OK with children —"

Lowe stopped as Wright swiped at her phone. "You did not take my (expletive) phone!" Lowe yelled.

In an affidavit obtained by Hearst Newspapers, Wright said she "panicked" when she saw the phone and grabbed it. Lowe then threw her to the ground, her son told police.

He called 911 and briefly joined the scuffle, as Lowe's friend grabbed Wright's phone.

Lowe ran to her vehicle and started a since-deleted Facebook live video, in which she screamed for the other woman to join her in the car. After giving the phone back to Wright, the friend jumped in the vehicle and Lowe hit the gas.

Nicholas was closing the gates, later explaining that he suspected the women were trying to take off with the phone before police arrived. In an affidavit, he said he had to dive out of the way to avoid being run over.

The women drove off.

Wright said police showed up about an hour later. She would like to press charges, though she said she doubts the police will take action.

'Canceled' by GOP allies

In an email, Lowe denied any wrongdoing, instead saying that Wright "verbally and physically assaulted us, stole my phone, kidnapped us, and tried to keep us from leaving, and filed a false police report, which the police have already found to be untrue."

She added that she did not try to run over Wright's son, saying he "ran to the gate to lock us in and blocked the exit with his arms out."

Lowe said the police looked through footage of the altercation and "cleared me." The Mission Police Department said Friday that it could not confirm any details about the incident, as its public information officer was out for the day.

But Wright said she has audio and video evidence to back her story: "There really is no disputing what went down."

Still, she fears that quarrel won't be the last. The two-day "We Stand America" event is scheduled to culminate Sunday with a rally and a trip to the border.

Wright said she has spent the past week investing in new security measures and coordinating with local authorities — none of which "involves our core mission or routine activities, which are all about environmental conservation and education."

After more than two years of harassment, Wright wonders: "When is this going to stop?"

But for Lowe, the fallout has been swift. As news reports publicize her encounter with Wright, Lowe said organizers for "We Stand America" banned her from attending the weekend's events.

Lowe said she had spent $2,500 on a "diamond VIP" ticket that would have included a private border tour with Flynn and Tom Homan, a former director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"I got canceled by the Republicans :lol: because they believe the hit pieces that went out on me," Lowe said, calling from the road as she started the drive back to Virginia. "I can't believe that the people who are supposed to be on my side of the aisle canceled me."


Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on January 29, 2022, 11:01:04 AM
<boggle>
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on January 30, 2022, 06:08:40 AM
Republicans are scum.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 31, 2022, 11:18:01 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 28, 2022, 04:55:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2022, 04:48:06 PM
Have they started burning books in public bonfires yet?

He would, but paper is a renewable resource so their against using it as fuel.

:lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 31, 2022, 01:47:10 PM
More reasons to be concerned about the integrity of future elections?

QuoteCampaigning to Oversee Elections, While Denying the Last One
Brazenly partisan candidates who insist that Donald Trump won the 2020 election are transforming races for the once-obscure office of secretary of state.

PHOENIX — Nearly two dozen Republicans who have publicly questioned or disputed the results of the 2020 election are running for secretary of state across the country, in some cases after being directly encouraged by allies of former President Donald J. Trump.

Their candidacies are alarming watchdog groups, Democrats and some fellow Republicans, who worry that these Trump supporters, if elected to posts that exist largely to safeguard and administer the democratic process, would weaponize those offices to undermine it — whether by subverting an election outright or by sowing doubts about any local, state or federal elections their party loses.

For decades, secretaries of state worked in relative anonymity, setting regulations and enforcing rules for how elections were administered by local counties and boards. Some held their jobs for many years and viewed themselves not as politicians but as bureaucrats in chief, tending to such arcane responsibilities as keeping the state seal or maintaining custody of state archives.

The aftermath of the 2020 presidential election changed all that.

In the two months between Election Day and Congress's certification of President Biden's victory, Mr. Trump and his allies pressured Republican secretaries of state, election board members and other officials in battleground states to overturn his defeat. In a phone call that is now the subject of an Atlanta grand jury investigation into Mr. Trump's actions in Georgia, the former president urged Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to "find 11,780 votes" — the margin by which Mr. Trump lost the state to Mr. Biden.

That intense focus on a once-obscure state-level office has dramatically transformed its place in American politics — and the pool of candidates it attracts. Campaigns for secretaries of state this year are attracting more money, more attention and more brazenly partisan candidates than ever before.

All told, some 21 candidates who dispute Mr. Biden's victory are running for secretary of state in 18 states, according to States United Action, a nonpartisan group tracking races for secretary of state throughout the country.

"It's like putting arsonists in charge of the Fire Department," said Joanna Lydgate, the group's chief executive. "When we think about the anti-democracy playbook, you change the rules and you change the players so you can change the outcome."

Many of the election deniers are running in solidly red states where it is less likely that their actions could tilt a presidential election. But several others, who have formed a coalition calling itself the America First slate, are running in states won by Mr. Biden in 2020, including in the crucial battleground states of Michigan, Arizona and Nevada.

The coalition's members are coordinating talking points and sharing staff members and fund-raising efforts — an unusual degree of cooperation for down-ballot candidates from different states. They are in strong position to win Republican primaries in those battleground states, as well as in somewhat-bluer Colorado and heavily Democratic California.

Their chances in November, should they succeed in the primaries, could rest heavily on how well Republicans fare in the midterm elections, given voters' tendency to vote for down-ballot candidates such as secretary of state from the same party as their choices for governor or senator.

While local election officials typically oversee the counting of individual ballots, and state legislatures sign off on slates for the Electoral College, secretaries of state often certify elections and set the tone of how elections are run. Their election-management duties generally include distributing voter registration cards, allocating voting machines, educating voters, auditing election results and ordering recounts.

Had secretaries of state taken their cues from Mr. Trump in the last election, they could have put their thumbs on the scales of fair elections by forcing the closure of polling places, removing ballot drop boxes or withholding other resources that could make voting easier in heavily Democratic precincts. Worse, critics say, they could have raised doubts about, or even refused to certify, Mr. Biden's victories.

The powers of secretaries of state to subvert elections vary from state to state and are largely untested in court. Mr. Trump's phone call to Mr. Raffensperger in Georgia raised the specter of out-and-out fraud in the tabulation of a presidential vote. Short of that, in states where secretaries of state have the power to certify elections, the refusal to do so could be a vital step in overturning one. In a presidential election, state legislators and the governor hold the power to approve an alternative set of presidential electors, and refusing to certify could boost such an effort.

In contests for governor or for House or Senate seats, the refusal to certify the result of an election could send states into uncharted legal waters.

Those who say they are alarmed at the possibilities include many current Democratic secretaries of state — and a few Republican ones.

"The narrative that is being promoted by people who are ill-informed and simply trying to promote a political narrative to benefit themselves in a particular candidacy is very dangerous," said John Merrill, the Republican secretary of state in Alabama who is term-limited.

The significance of the America First coalition's parallel efforts can be seen clearly in Arizona, where the slate's candidate is Mark Finchem, a former firefighter and real estate agent who has served in the state House since 2015 and has become the leading Republican contender for secretary of state. He has raised some $663,000 for his campaign, according to state filings, more than the two leading Democratic candidates combined.

Mr. Finchem, who declined to comment for this article, was in Washington on Jan. 6 and attended the Stop the Steal rally that led to the storming of the Capitol. He has publicly acknowledged his affiliation with the Oath Keepers, the far-right militia group whose leader and other members were charged with seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Capitol riot. He championed the Republican-ordered review of the 2020 vote in Maricopa County — though he never endorsed its conclusion that Mr. Biden won — and received a prime speaking spot in Mr. Trump's Jan. 15 rally outside Phoenix.

There, Mr. Finchem told the crowd that the 2020 election had prompted him to run for secretary of state, said he was part of a "nationwide populist movement to regain control over our government" and called for the State Legislature to decertify the presidential result in Arizona, which Mr. Biden carried by nearly 11,000 votes.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we know it and they know it — Donald Trump won," Mr. Finchem said.

The coalition's other candidates include Jim Marchant in Nevada, a former state legislator; Rachel Hamm in California, who contends that Mr. Trump actually won that deep-blue state; and Kristina Karamo in Michigan, who developed a high profile in conservative media after she made uncorroborated claims that she had seen fraudulent ballots being counted in Detroit during the 2020 election, allegations that have been disproved by both local election officials and courts.

Major donors to the coalition include such promoters of election conspiracies as Mike Lindell, the chief executive of My Pillow, and Patrick Byrne, a former executive at Overstock.com, both of whom have also helped fund several election-denial campaigns and lawsuits. Mr. Byrne said he gave the group $15,000.

"​​We would like as many like-minded secretary of state candidates to come forward as we can," Mr. Marchant said at a Las Vegas conference that featured members of the coalition along with speakers who are well-known to followers of QAnon conspiracy theories. "I've got a few that have contacted me. We're working to bring them into the coalition."

In an interview, Mr. Marchant said the group had presented its theories about the 2020 election at three "summits" in different states recently and planned others in Wisconsin, Texas, Colorado and Nevada.

He brushed off concerns about undermining confidence in elections and instead assailed sitting state and local officials for resisting further audits of the 2020 vote. "If they're so confident, wouldn't they gloat and say, 'See, we told you so?'" he said. "They won't. They can't afford to do that."

Tony Daunt, a longtime Michigan Republican official who was appointed last year to the panel that certifies the state's election results, said Ms. Karamo, who has falsely claimed that Mr. Trump won Michigan, was unqualified to be secretary of state because of the "nonsense regarding the stolen election."

But Mr. Daunt and Mr. Merrill, of Alabama, are among very few Republican election officials who have publicly criticized the spreading of lies about the 2020 election. Instead, pro-Trump Republicans are enthusiastic about those candidates, and both the candidates and their supporters say the changes they are pushing for will make it more difficult to commit election fraud, which they portray as a pressing threat.

Mr. Finchem is sponsoring a bill in Arizona that would treat all voters' ballots as public records and make them searchable online. Another of his bills would require all ballots to be counted by hand, although studies show that hand counting introduces more errors. And he has repeatedly called for "currency grade" paper as a countermeasure against fake ballots, though there is no evidence that fake ballots have posed a threat to fair elections.

Nothing and no one has catalyzed Republican enthusiasm for secretary of state contests more than Mr. Trump himself, who has offered three endorsements for Mr. Finchem, Ms. Karamo and United States Representative Jody Hice, who is challenging Mr. Raffensperger in Georgia's Republican primary. Mr. Hice reported more than $575,000 in donations for his secretary of state candidacy in June, twice Mr. Raffensperger's total.

And Mr. Marchant, in Nevada, said he entered the race after being encouraged by allies of Mr. Trump.

While the money being spent on races for secretary of state as yet does not approach the fund-raising by candidates for governor or Senate, they are no longer the low-budget affairs they once were. In Georgia, Michigan and Minnesota, fund-raising is more than double what it was at this point during the 2018 midterms, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Despite their fund-raising struggles in the Arizona contest, Democrats are having some success creating a national support structure for secretary of state candidates.

Jocelyn Benson, the Democratic secretary of state in Michigan who is facing a likely re-election battle against Ms. Karamo, has raised $1.2 million this campaign cycle, more than six times what her Republican predecessor raised by this point in 2014. Nationally, Democratic candidates for secretary of state raised six times as much money in 2021 — and from five times as many donors — as they did in 2017, according to ActBlue, the Democratic donation platform.

Jena Griswold, the secretary of state in Colorado and the chairwoman of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, said she had hired full-time staff for the first time in the association's history. She said the group had set a fund-raising goal of $15 million for this cycle, far surpassing the $1.8 million it raised in 2019 and 2020, and had raised $4.5 million toward that goal so far.

"The stature of the office is different, and the stature of what officeholders are doing is also different," Ms. Griswold said.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on January 31, 2022, 06:15:25 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 31, 2022, 01:47:10 PM
More reasons to be concerned about the integrity of future elections?

Of course. It's been the issue since Trump made it known that he wouldn't concede to Hilary, back in 2016. Since then, the Republican fascist machine has rightly identified control of certifying boards, election surveillance, state rules and regulations governing voting rights as prime target for attack, control, and in many places, intimidate.

Trump had also floated the idea he would pardon all those convicted related to the January 6th putsch attempt.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 03, 2022, 01:29:59 AM
Meanwhile, in Oklahoma:

https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB1470/id/2484266

QuoteSECTION 2. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified
in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 24-159 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. No public school of this state, as defined pursuant to
Section 1-106 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes, shall employ or contract with a person that promotes positions in the classroom or at any function of the public school that is in opposition to closely held religious beliefs of students.

B. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a parent or parents may bring an action as guardian, guardian ad litem, or next friend on behalf of a child against a public school of this state in a court of competent jurisdiction for occurrences when a public school promotes positions in opposition to closely held religious beliefs of the student.

https://www.mic.com/impact/rob-standridge-teachers-religion-oklahoma

QuoteGOP SENATOR WANTS TO PUNISH TEACHERS WHOSE LESSONS DON'T LINE UP WITH STUDENTS' RELIGIONS

The punishment? Up to a $10,000 fine and losing your job.

Even amidst the current surge of conservative driven pro-censorship efforts in school districts across the country, Oklahoma GOP State Sen. Rob Standridge stands apart. Just over a month after introducing a bill to ban books having pretty much anything to do with sex, gender, and identity from public school libraries, Sandridge is back with a new measure to penalize teachers who have the unmitigated gall to teach something that might be slightly divergent from their students' "closely held religious beliefs."

SB 1470, the "Students' Religious Belief Protection Act," is set to be officially introduced into the Education Committee next week. If passed, it will allow parents and guardians to file complaints against individual teachers who "promotes positions in the classroom or at any function of the public school that is in opposition to closely held religious beliefs of students." Standridge, whose campaign website describes him as having been "raised with strong Christian values" doesn't elaborate on which religious beliefs he had in mind while authoring the bill, so I leave it to you, reader, to speculate wildly for yourself.

Crucially, the bill's language is appropriately vague enough as to leave wide open what being "in opposition" actually constitutes. Could, for instance, a Jewish family be able to complain if a teacher were to wish their class "Merry Christmas"? Would a polytheist, or atheist, have grounds to complain at the "one nation under god" line while reciting the pledge of allegiance — which Standridge himself pushed to require in Oklahoma public schools? Is simply raising the fact that abortions exist and are legal (for now anyway) enough to legitimize a complaint by an evangelical christian student? And let's not forget what this means for biology teachers who include lessons on evolution, as outlined in Oklahoma's official Academic Standards for Science.

You start to see the problem...

According to the bill, school employees found guilty of violating Standridge's standards of religious sanctity face a fine of $10,000, and risk losing their job entirely.

Given the seemingly inevitable problems with creating a punitive safe space for anyone worried their religious sensibilities might someday be exposed to teachings "in opposition" thereof, it's worth pointing out too that last year Standridge introduced legislation that would allow Oklahomans to sue social media companies who delete or censor "a user's political speech or religious speech; or uses an algorithm to suppress political speech or religious speech."

Under that bill, a private company that deletes a social media message saying "Jews should be punished for their role in killing Jesus Christ" could be sued by the post's far right-wing Christian extremist author. And under his latest bill, Standridge would theoretically allow that same extremist to sue their local public school if a teacher pushed back on that classic antisemitic canard.

Ultimately, who knows whether Standridge's bill will actually make it into law. But given the deluge of censorious efforts by conservative lawmakers across the country, the fact that it was introduced at all is terrifying enough.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on February 03, 2022, 01:33:28 AM
With the centenary of the Scopes Monkey Trial coming up it will be nice to laugh at how silly and weird people were 100 years ago.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 04, 2022, 03:11:36 PM
QuoteG.O.P. Declares Jan. 6 Attack 'Legitimate Political Discourse'
The Republican National Committee voted to censure Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for participating in the inquiry into the deadly riot at the Capitol.

The Republican Party on Friday officially declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it "legitimate political discourse," and rebuked two lawmakers in the party who have been most outspoken in condemning the deadly riot and the role of Donald J. Trump in spreading the election lies that fueled it.

The Republican National Committee's voice vote to censure Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois at its winter meeting in Salt Lake City culminated more than a year of vacillation, which started with party leaders condemning the Capitol attack and Mr. Trump's conduct, then shifted to downplaying and denying it.

On Friday, the party went further in a resolution slamming Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger for taking part in the House investigation of the assault, saying they were participating in "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."

After the vote, party leaders rushed to clarify that language, saying it was never meant to apply to rioters who violently stormed the Capitol in Mr. Trump's name.

"Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line," Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, said in a statement. "They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol."

But the censure, which was carefully negotiated in private among party members, made no such distinction. It was the latest and most forceful effort by the Republican Party to minimize what happened and the broader attempt by Mr. Trump and his allies to invalidate the results of the 2020 election. In approving it and opting to punish two of its own, Republicans seemed to embrace a position that many of them have only hinted at: that the assault and the actions that preceded it were acceptable. 

It came days after Mr. Trump suggested that, if re-elected in 2024, he would consider pardons for those convicted in the Jan. 6 attack and for the first time described his goal as aiming to "overturn" the election results.

The day's events, which were supposed to be about unity, only served to divide Republicans as their leaders try to focus attention on what they call the failings of the Biden administration.

Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, wrote on Twitter, "Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol. Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost." He did not mention that the party chairwoman who presided over the meeting and orchestrated the censure resolution, Ms. McDaniel, is his niece.

Republican National Committee members defended the measure on Friday, describing people who have received subpoenas from the Jan. 6 committee as victims in a broader Democratic effort to keep focus on the attack at the Capitol.

"The nominal Republicans on the committee provide a pastiche of bipartisanship, but no genuine protection or due process for the ordinary people who did not riot being targeted and terrorized by the committee," said Richard Porter, a committee member from Illinois. "The investigation is a de facto Democrat-only investigation increasingly unmoored from congressional norms."

The party's far-right flank has been agitating to boot Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger out of the House Republican Conference for months, a push that Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, has tried to brush aside. And the formal censure, approved by the state party chairs and committee members who make up the Republican National Committee, is sure to stir up those efforts again.

"We need to move on from that whole discussion and, frankly, move forward and get the House back in 2022," said Representative Mike Garcia, a California Republican facing a difficult re-election campaign in a newly configured district.

Most House Republicans tried to ignore the actions of the party on Friday, refusing to answer questions or saying they had not read the censure resolution. Representative Dan Crenshaw, Republican of Texas, called it "dumb stuff," while Representative Mark Green, Republican of Tennessee, lamented the distraction from "this abysmal administration's record."

Democrats, however, were incensed, especially at the censure resolution's description of the Capitol attack as "ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse," and the ongoing legal investigations of Mr. Trump in New York and Georgia as "Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power."

"The Republican Party is so off the deep end now that they are describing an attempted coup and a deadly insurrection as political expression," said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and a member of the special House committee investigating the Capitol attack. "It is a scandal that historians will be aghast at, to think that a major political party would be denouncing Liz Cheney for standing up for the Constitution and not saying anything about Donald Trump's involvement in the insurrection."

In his own defense, Mr. Kinzinger said, "I have no regrets about my decision to uphold my oath of office and defend the Constitution. I will continue to focus my efforts on standing for truth and working to fight the political matrix that's led us to where we find ourselves today."

The resolution speaks repeatedly of party unity as the goal of censuring the lawmakers, saying the party's ability to focus on the Biden administration was being "sabotaged" by the "actions and words" of Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger which indicate "they support Democrat efforts to destroy President Trump more than they support winning back a Republican majority in 2022."

But some Republicans said the measure reflected a grim transformation of the party they once knew.

"It's a sad day for my party — and the country — when you're punished just for expressing your beliefs, standing on principle, and refusing to tell blatant lies," Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland, a harsh critic of Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.

The resolution will make it easier for the Republican apparatus to abandon Ms. Cheney and throw its weight and money behind her main primary challenger, Harriet Hageman.

It declares that the party "shall immediately cease any and all support of" both lawmakers "as members of the Republican Party for their behavior which has been destructive to the institution of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party and our republic, and is inconsistent with the position of the conference."

Mr. Kinzinger has already announced he won't seek re-election, as have several other House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump for inciting the attack on the Capitol. Ms. Cheney, however, has vowed to stand for re-election.

Earlier this week, the Wyoming delegation to the Republican National Committee submitted a so-called "Rule 11" letter, formalizing party support for Ms. Hageman. The existence of the letter was reported by The Washington Post.

The letter allows the Republican National Committee to send resources to the Wyoming branch of the party to spend on Ms. Hageman's behalf — essentially designating her as the party's presumptive nominee. The designations are common in Republican politics, but typically are used to support incumbents who may be facing token primary challengers.

Ms. Cheney, who faces an uphill battle in her re-election bid against a Republican Party aligned with Mr. Trump, said party leaders "have made themselves willing hostages" to Mr. Trump.

"I do not recognize those in my party who have abandoned the Constitution to embrace Donald Trump," she said. "History will be their judge. I will never stop fighting for our constitutional republic. No matter what."

Ms. Cheney has a commanding financial advantage over Ms. Hageman, according to federal campaign finance reports released earlier this week. Ms. Cheney entered 2022 with nearly $5 million in campaign cash, while Ms. Hageman reported just $380,000.

The censure resolution was watered down from an initial version that called directly for the House Republican Conference to "expel" Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger "without delay." That demand was dropped. However, the language condemning the attack on "legitimate political discourse" was then added.

William J. Palatucci, a Republican National Committee member from New Jersey, said those changes were made "behind closed doors." The final language was officially circulated to committee members early Friday morning. He called it "cancel culture at its worst."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 05, 2022, 12:52:46 PM
I was going to post that to.  Are there enough Americans left who are horrified by this to make a difference during the next Presidential election?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on February 05, 2022, 01:35:09 PM
No.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 05, 2022, 02:21:37 PM
I am afraid not either.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2022, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2022, 12:52:46 PM
I was going to post that to.  Are there enough Americans left who are horrified by this to make a difference during the next Presidential election?

People have been talking like this since 1993. I think it just gets lost in the noise now...also you cannot imagine the immense power of the culture war. You can pretty much justify anything, by any means necessary, with the culture war. It is insane and you have to understand that context to get why rhetoric like this just gets a shrug from lots of voters.

Cops were killed and injured in that riot. I thought police lives mattered.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2022, 05:36:27 PM
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

18 USC 2331
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 05, 2022, 05:47:07 PM
Sure, culture wars.

But the right-wing nuts and fascists think their America is threatened, and they show up. They issue threat. They are present at school board meetings. They harass their officials.

Their opponents know that America is threatened, and they... do what exactly?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2022, 06:16:05 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 05, 2022, 05:47:07 PM
Sure, culture wars.

But the right-wing nuts and fascists think their America is threatened, and they show up. They issue threat. They are present at school board meetings. They harass their officials.

Their opponents know that America is threatened, and they... do what exactly?

I'm not sure how helpful it would be if I started issuing threats or showed up at school board meetings in red states.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 05, 2022, 06:18:34 PM
What would you rather do?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 05, 2022, 06:27:33 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 05, 2022, 06:18:34 PM
What would you rather do?

Recognize that becoming the enemy isn't going to help preserve American democracy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 05, 2022, 06:33:41 PM
Sure. And what does that mean, practically?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: saskganesh on February 05, 2022, 09:34:54 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 05, 2022, 06:33:41 PM
Sure. And what does that mean, practically?

Following process, making fair laws, reading and defending the Constitution. Maintaining a level of civility in discourse and defending civic norms. Positive engagement. Recognise that while the goals of the opposition are crazy, nihilistic and dangerous, many of the grievances are very real and valid and need to be addressed. Work to build a better society for everyone.

It's not sexy and may, in the end, not work out.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 05, 2022, 10:27:41 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on February 05, 2022, 09:34:54 PM
Following process, making fair laws, reading and defending the Constitution. Maintaining a level of civility in discourse and defending civic norms. Positive engagement. Recognise that while the goals of the opposition are crazy, nihilistic and dangerous, many of the grievances are very real and valid and need to be addressed. Work to build a better society for everyone.


I am sorry, but that doesn't mean anything. What is positive engagement? What does garbon reading the Constitution achieve? What does acknowledging grievances actually does in the face of current Republican fascism?

The solutions of civility are wonderful, but you are opposing a practical situation with an ethical stance - and an ethical stance that works well in arenas of respectful engagement and measured settings. This is no longer where the US are. Republican activist are exerting continuous pressure towards all sorts of elected official. They are subverting existing institution, which means that continuous (and somewhat apathetic) deference to them will bite people in the ass when they will be mobilized against political opponents. Reading the Constitution and nodding gravely at legitimate grievances will not do anything to fight this sort of thing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2022, 11:48:04 PM
We need to play hardball when they play hardball. Like with gerrymandering. Redistricting has been going surprisingly well for the Dems so far.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 12:02:53 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2022, 11:48:04 PM
We need to play hardball when they play hardball. Like with gerrymandering. Redistricting has been going surprisingly well for the Dems so far.
I think we have to play hardball sometimes.  Redistricting is a perfect example:  the country would be better off without it, but it would be worst off if only GOP did it and Democrats ceded seats to gain high moral ground.  It's unfortunate fact that many regard lack of willingness to unilaterally disarm as hypocrisy, but we'll just have to live with their stupidity the best we can.

Where we shouldn't play hardball is with nuance.  Yes, destroying nuance worked for GOP, but that's the kind of thing that works for authoritarians and really hurts the non-authoritarians.  That's not choosing ideals over pragmatism, that's just choosing the tactic that fits our mindset.  It's also kind of our reason for existing, otherwise we'll just be defined by what we're opposed to.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 06, 2022, 06:26:51 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 05, 2022, 06:33:41 PM
Sure. And what does that mean, practically?

Isn't it inherently obvious? If we turn to those same mob mentality methods, we may just be complicit in further undermining American democracy. Similar to the people who just want Trump and all his cronies just immediately thrown into prison as if that make a substantative, positive change...rather than just the obverse of 'Lock her up.'

From your question to sask, I thing the below link is a good starting point on things that an individual can work to do to shore up democratic norms.

https://terikanefield.com/things-to-do/

Of course, many of those won't matter locally in a solid blue state beyond I supposed making sure to expunge remaining Republicans  that might be currently elected to the House of Representatives. But even though, high chance that isn't your local rep.

When I first came across that list, I was struck by how important it'll be to not simply adapt the petulant tactics of the Right as effectively doing those things in the places where it'll make a difference necessitates either: a) moving to one of those Red cities/counties/states and/or b) engaging with others living in those areas to drive democratic change. Both routes will require significant effort and so perhaps not as immediately emotionally gratifying as making threats and intimidating elected officials.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 06, 2022, 09:46:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 06:26:51 AMengaging with others living in those areas to drive democratic change. Both routes will require significant effort and so perhaps not as immediately emotionally gratifying as making threats and intimidating elected officials.

I was not suggesting issuing threats. I was simply saying that this is where things are, and that the right has been mobilizing, on the ground, for a long time. There is shockingly very little support, even of the symbolic kind, going towards those who do the right thing. Very few people on the left show up to defend their officials and drown out the crazies, including in places where there is far from unanimity, and very few people have actually engaged, despite four years of Trump, and the promise of more, with a much more sinister bend. Even if you live in a solidly blue state, there are out-of-state volunteers for a variety of tasks, and even in solidly blue states, you don't have far to go to get in places that are Republican, either at the state-level or even at the national level (upstate New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, many counties of California, etc.). There are also many national representatives who are scared, or meek, and would benefit from being told how absolutely paramount certain measures, or investigations, are, that should be dealt with immediately. There are similarly a lot of low-profile national Democrats who need to be reminded that the threat goes beyond their good personal relationships with their Republican colleagues. The list you posted is good, but it moves quickly from the really important, to the quite ethereal.

I think complacency towards the morality of one's own spectator stance, a certain idea that political activism is beneath one, and a certain dose of fatalism are the real "feel-good" gratification.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 06, 2022, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2022, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2022, 12:52:46 PM
I was going to post that to.  Are there enough Americans left who are horrified by this to make a difference during the next Presidential election?

People have been talking like this since 1993. I think it just gets lost in the noise now...also you cannot imagine the immense power of the culture war. You can pretty much justify anything, by any means necessary, with the culture war. It is insane and you have to understand that context to get why rhetoric like this just gets a shrug from lots of voters.

Cops were killed and injured in that riot. I thought police lives mattered.

I understand how there can be strong views on social issues - particularly in a country with deeply held religious views like yours. But that seems a poor explanation for a main political party embracing fascism and rejecting liberal democratic values which recently were celebrated as winning the ideological fight with communism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 06, 2022, 11:44:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 06, 2022, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2022, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2022, 12:52:46 PM
I was going to post that to.  Are there enough Americans left who are horrified by this to make a difference during the next Presidential election?

People have been talking like this since 1993. I think it just gets lost in the noise now...also you cannot imagine the immense power of the culture war. You can pretty much justify anything, by any means necessary, with the culture war. It is insane and you have to understand that context to get why rhetoric like this just gets a shrug from lots of voters.

Cops were killed and injured in that riot. I thought police lives mattered.

I understand how there can be strong views on social issues - particularly in a country with deeply held religious views like yours. But that seems a poor explanation for a main political party embracing fascism and rejecting liberal democratic values which recently were celebrated as winning the ideological fight with communism.

Yeah I would say a pretty recent thing that one side would say its okay for its supporters to attack the capitol.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 02:50:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 11:44:19 AM
Yeah I would say a pretty recent thing that one side would say its okay for its supporters to attack the capitol.

It has been a steady escalation. But it wasn't like terrorist type attacks on things like women's health clinics weren't a thing in the past that got rationalize away by the other side.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 02:52:26 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 05, 2022, 06:33:41 PM
Sure. And what does that mean, practically?

I mean I kind of challenge the notion that leftist nuts and extremists aren't also showing up to meetings and also aren't harassing officials. So far as I know they haven't stormed the capital though.

I think playing hardball and recognizing that right wing politicians and officials are just not going to work with us, even if they wanted to, and acting accordingly is very important. Acting like a nut and being violent is not.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on February 06, 2022, 04:35:26 PM
If we were better at propaganda we could motivate people.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 06:23:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2022, 04:35:26 PM
If we were better at propaganda we could motivate people.

According to them the left has brainwashed the world and controls all media. That's pretty good propaganda.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2022, 04:35:26 PM
If we were better at propaganda we could motivate people.

Work to spread better propaganda?

I find rather than criticizing the propaganda on your side that you think falls short (circular firing squad style), you're better off adding stuff into the mix that you think will help.

Rather than getting mad at the woke left for alienating blue collar workers (or whatever), articulate and propagate arguments for blue collar workers to join your side.

Don't count on the media to help you, the media is in it for the money and right now there's a lot of money going into right wing propaganda and not very much going into anti-fascist propaganda of any sort (including generic centrist propaganda).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 08:37:19 PM
One thing I've taken to doing recently is reaching out to journalists, media organizations, and politicians offering them moral support when they're under pressure.

Yes, it's a miniscule effort - but it's also cheap and easy. And moral support can absolutely matter when you are under attack. And in the US, if you believe low level officials are under attack and under pressure, they could probably use that support also. Where is the GOP machine attacking? Let the people who are being targeted know you're on their side - if you can go there physically, great; if you can support them financially, great (where appropriate, obviously); and where you can let them know directly that you support the, also great.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2022, 09:57:47 PM
Speaking of redistricting, in a 5-4 ruling Supreme's put a hold on a court order to redo the districts in Alabama. A gerrymander so egregious that a three judge panel with two Trump appointees struck it down.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/supreme-court-alabama-racial-gerrymander-roberts-kavanaugh.html
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 10:20:20 PM
A gerrymander so egregious that even Roberts voted against it.  I wonder whether he would've voted against it if it were 4-4, though?  He definitely strikes me as the type to have his cake and eat it too.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 08, 2022, 01:20:09 PM
QuoteGeorgia lawmakers introduce legislation to prohibit ALL vaccine requirements for children including measles, mumps and chickenpox.

WTF. Do they want to go back to XIXth century rates of child mortality?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 08, 2022, 01:30:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 10:20:20 PM
A gerrymander so egregious that even Roberts voted against it.  I wonder whether he would've voted against it if it were 4-4, though?  He definitely strikes me as the type to have his cake and eat it too.
Yeah. I think he's enough of an institutionalist to know that it is bad for the Republican judges to be too nakedly political in institutions that aren't meant to be political. The rest do not care (which is why I find the "defend institutions" point a bit weird on Garbon's list because it seems to me that a big part of where we are is the GOP absolutely using every bit of leverage they can through institutions and relying on Democrats deferring/defending to them because they're not meant to be "politicised") - so there is an element of Roberts facing the consequences of his actions given that he voted against the VRA and is now shocked, shocked to see that without those restrictions more and more wild gerrymanders are being proposed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 08, 2022, 05:55:38 PM
I see McConnell has turned out against the RNC resolution on Jan 6.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2022, 05:58:48 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 08, 2022, 01:20:09 PM
QuoteGeorgia lawmakers introduce legislation to prohibit ALL vaccine requirements for children including measles, mumps and chickenpox.

WTF. Do they want to go back to XIXth century rates of child mortality?

The current anarchist propaganda is that all public health requirements are violations of human rights. FREEEEEEDOOOOOOM!

Get your shots before visiting the US.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 07:43:14 PM
When I saw a "Mitt Romney says he 'exchanged texts' with his niece" in my news feed, I have to say that I made a wrong assumption about what the article would be about.  :blush:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 08, 2022, 08:14:49 PM
Texts, eh?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 21, 2022, 04:52:25 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJxLGVV3/image.png)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 04:53:30 PM
They're happy with Nixon?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: chipwich on February 21, 2022, 04:54:50 PM
Yes Republicans love criminals.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 21, 2022, 04:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 04:53:30 PM
They're happy with Nixon?

Well, the theme is "Republican Presidents and shitposting about the current guy", so ....

Though to be fair, similar posts existed during the Trump era, though I don't know if the Democrat party posted one on their official accounts.

(https://i.redd.it/orn9ykzog9h21.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on February 21, 2022, 04:58:06 PM
Yeah at least Nixon didn't own slaves.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 21, 2022, 04:59:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 21, 2022, 04:58:06 PM
Yeah at least Nixon didn't own slaves.

... as far as we know.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 21, 2022, 05:00:35 PM
How'd they pick Coolidge and Nixon over Teddy? Still upset over 1912?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 21, 2022, 05:00:49 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 04:53:30 PM
They're happy with Nixon?
Who wouldn't have Nixon on their President's Day poster?! :o
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:05:41 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 21, 2022, 04:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 04:53:30 PM
They're happy with Nixon?

Well, the theme is "Republican Presidents and shitposting about the current guy", so ....

Though to be fair, similar posts existed during the Trump era, though I don't know if the Democrat party posted one on their official accounts.

(https://i.redd.it/orn9ykzog9h21.jpg)

But for instance that's a mix of historical, democrat and republican presidents, not a fully partisan roster.


I also wonder about some of their other choices. They start with Lincoln because of course ("The party of Lincoln" seems to be a favourite slogan as of late in order to hide their current miseries), then jump to Coolidge... why exactly? And then ignore Hoover and Ford, so they don't even try to go chronologically in the XXth century.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 21, 2022, 05:11:26 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:05:41 PMBut for instance that's a mix of historical, democrat and republican presidents, not a fully partisan roster.
I know - I don't want to over-extrapolate, but this is why Democrats are bad at winning.

QuoteI also wonder about some of their other choices. They start with Lincoln because of course ("The party of Lincoln" seems to be a favourite slogan as of late in order to hide their current miseries), then jump to Coolidge... why exactly? And then ignore Hoover and Ford, so they don't even try to go chronologically in the XXth century.
Late 19th century isn't chock-full of great Presidents is it? Skipping Teddy is more odd. Calvin Coolidge is a huge deal for small government types.

With Ford maybe it's that they don't want to give Trump's next VP any ideas :ph34r:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on February 21, 2022, 05:12:15 PM
Teddy is on the outs with the current GOP.  Too much of a "Progressive".  Silent Cal signed the immigration act of 1924, a bill that outlawed non-white immigration.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:12:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 21, 2022, 05:00:49 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 04:53:30 PM
They're happy with Nixon?
Who wouldn't have Nixon on their President's Day poster?! :o

I'd be ok with Nixon's head.  :P

(https://i.gifer.com/origin/08/0883b5b1e6f8a55cebe9cde006c43465.gif)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on February 21, 2022, 05:14:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2022, 05:12:15 PM
Silent Cal signed the immigration act of 1924, a bill that outlawed non-white immigration.

Such small. Much freedoms.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:17:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 21, 2022, 05:11:26 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:05:41 PMBut for instance that's a mix of historical, democrat and republican presidents, not a fully partisan roster.
I know - I don't want to over-extrapolate, but this is why Democrats are bad at winning.

Because they're not fully unhinged partisan zealots?  :P

Quote
QuoteI also wonder about some of their other choices. They start with Lincoln because of course ("The party of Lincoln" seems to be a favourite slogan as of late in order to hide their current miseries), then jump to Coolidge... why exactly? And then ignore Hoover and Ford, so they don't even try to go chronologically in the XXth century.
Late 19th century isn't chock-full of great Presidents is it? Skipping Teddy is more odd. Calvin Coolidge is a huge deal for small government types.

Yeah, late XIXth century presidents seem to be rather forgettable to me, both Republican and Democrat alike. It's not until Teddy Roosevelt that you get a memorable character again.

QuoteWith Ford maybe it's that they don't want to give Trump's next VP any ideas :ph34r:

Well, who will want to be Trump's next VP given how he treated Pence?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 21, 2022, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:17:09 PM
Because they're not fully unhinged partisan zealots?  :P
They're a political party - own it :P

It's a day about Presidents - elected politicians. There's two parties and you choose not to celebrate the Presidents from your party :blink: :hmm:

QuoteWell, who will want to be Trump's next VP given how he treated Pence?
I'm not sure Trump wins a primary actually. But I think you're vastly underestimating how many supine Republicans there are wiling to serve :lol: :weep:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:27:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 21, 2022, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:17:09 PM
Because they're not fully unhinged partisan zealots?  :P
They're a political party - own it :P

It's a day about Presidents - elected politicians. There's two parties and you choose not to celebrate the Presidents from your party :blink: :hmm:

Do we know how the Democrats have celebrated it? We only know that the GOP took the opportunity to snipe at Biden.

The image Syt posted was an example of the kind of stuff that was shared during Trump's presidency, not the Dems' official messaging.

Quote
QuoteWell, who will want to be Trump's next VP given how he treated Pence?
I'm not sure Trump wins a primary actually. But I think you're vastly underestimating how many supine Republicans there are wiling to serve :lol: :weep:

If he runs he'll take the primary by storm, nobody will want to face him within the GOP. And yeah, there's never a lack of bootlickers, but they should know what they're getting into.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 21, 2022, 05:32:32 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:27:28 PMDo we know how the Democrats have celebrated it? We only know that the GOP took the opportunity to snipe at Biden.

The image Syt posted was an example of the kind of stuff that was shared during Trump's presidency, not the Dems' official messaging.
Fair - it could be someone from "the Resistance" :bleeding:

QuoteIf he runs he'll take the primary by storm, nobody will want to face him within the GOP. And yeah, there's never a lack of bootlickers, but they should know what they're getting into.
I keep seeing DeSantis sliding up the polls and doing respectably even in hypotheticals with Trump. We're still a few years out and I think he's just one to keep an eye on.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 21, 2022, 05:48:01 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:27:28 PMDo we know how the Democrats have celebrated it? We only know that the GOP took the opportunity to snipe at Biden.

This is all they have on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/1495754434256805894

QuoteThe Democrats
@TheDemocrats

Happy Presidents Day to our commander in chief, President @JoeBiden !

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMH8usoXsAEeP_5?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2022, 07:49:34 PM
Nixon  :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on February 22, 2022, 07:52:20 AM
I blinked and thought I was in the facebook follies thread for a second. Does seem to be mocking.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on February 22, 2022, 08:26:10 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 21, 2022, 05:17:09 PM
Well, who will want to be Trump's next VP given how he treated Pence?

Ivanka.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 24, 2022, 09:06:50 PM
Nothing to say:
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1496937857839153168?s=20&t=5a1235XYNn9Q4dPDC9pDQA
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 24, 2022, 09:14:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2022, 09:06:50 PM
Nothing to say:
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1496937857839153168?s=20&t=5a1235XYNn9Q4dPDC9pDQA

QuoteLauren Elena Witzke (born February 9, 1988) is an American far-right, anti-LGBT political activist, conspiracy theorist, QAnon supporter and former TV show host for TruNews. Witzke was the Republican nominee in the 2020 United States Senate election in Delaware losing to incumbent Democrat Chris Coons.

Jeez, what a jewel.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2022, 09:27:31 PM
Deprogramming camps for all evangelicals.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 25, 2022, 02:06:47 AM
But is she a witch?  :huh:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on February 26, 2022, 01:32:10 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 25, 2022, 02:06:47 AM
But is she a witch?  :huh:
She's Republican.  Close enough.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 26, 2022, 03:03:20 AM
Not that this is a suprise to anyone here, but it deserves highlighting nonetheless:

(https://i.imgur.com/Vf4VuqL.jpeg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 26, 2022, 03:26:02 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/25/how-republicans-moved-reagans-evil-empire-trumps-praise-putin/

QuoteHow Republicans moved from Reagan's 'evil empire' to Trump's praise for Putin

For decades, the Republican Party's stance on Russia's dictators and expansionist tactics was rock-solid: From Dwight D. Eisenhower to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan, Russia — then the Soviet Union — was America's chief enemy, untrustworthy, anti-freedom. It was, in Reagan's famous formulation, the "evil empire."

This week, while many Republicans blasted Russian leader Vladimir Putin's all-out assault on Ukraine, former president Donald Trump and some of his allies urged the United States to stay out of the conflict and praised Putin, even presenting him as a "peacekeeper," as Trump put it.

"Don't look for consistency in Republican policy," said Craig Shirley, a Reagan biographer and longtime Republican political consultant. "The Republican Party right now is a little schizophrenic. Anti-communism and love of freedom used to be the glue that held the party together, but now the attitudes toward Russia have gotten all mixed up with domestic politics."

In Congress, across conservative media and on the social media battlegrounds where so much of right-leaning America thrashes out its differences, Russia's invasion of Ukraine seemed to open a gap between Trump and some of his erstwhile loyal supporters.

On Capitol Hill, GOP senators usually quick to agree with most anything Trump says issued statements that aligned with Republican reactions to Russian aggression through the past seven decades. One of Trump's most vocal allies, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), praised the sanctions that Trump's successor levied against Putin
. "President Biden has now taken positive steps," Cruz said, adding that "much more still needs to be done to deter and counter the threat that Putin poses to our allies in Ukraine and across Europe."

Sen. Todd C. Young (R-Ind.) similarly praised Biden's sanctions and said "Putin is attacking the democratic, rules-based order that has benefited countless Americans and millions around the globe since World War II. The United States must stand with the Ukrainian people by immediately providing additional assistance, including military equipment and lethal aid."

But other Republicans hewed closer to Trump, who on Fox News touted his "good relationship" with Putin and suggested that the Russian president had attacked Ukraine only because of the "weakness" of the Biden administration. In Ohio, Senate candidate and Trump loyalist J.D. Vance said on a podcast that "I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another," and tweeted that "our leaders care more about Ukraine's border than they do our own."

Fox's most popular host, Tucker Carlson, pooh-poohed the idea that Putin is an enemy: "Why do I hate Putin so much?" he said. "Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him?"

"Makes your head spin, doesn't it?" Shirley said. "The party is searching for meaning beyond just anti-Bidenism, and there's no one position."

A chief cause of the Republican splintering on Putin and his invasion of Ukraine is the dramatic shift in rhetoric and policy that Trump introduced into the party's messaging, starting in his 2016 campaign and continuing through his term in the White House and his embittered post-presidency.

With his "America First" rhetoric and his policies of stepping back from NATO and other U.S. alliances with Western democracies, Trump tapped into a long-standing American discomfort with getting involved in other countries' troubles. That attitude traces back to the founders; Thomas Jefferson warned against "entangling alliances."

To varying degrees, that allergy to diving into foreign crises has surged periodically in U.S. history, especially in times of economic disarray and technological dislocation. Especially after the trauma of World War I — another time when a deadly pandemic deeply disrupted American life — isolationism became persistently popular. And it has remained an occasionally recurring bug in both parties, often wrapping in antagonism toward immigrants, minority groups, Wall Street and academia. Republican leaders campaigned for decades on reining in Russia, from Eisenhower's statement that the Soviet Union represented "godless depravity in government" to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's 2012 characterization of Russia as "our number one geopolitical foe."

The country's establishment politicians and policymakers have generally leaned toward America playing an active role in international affairs. The United States is, as Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's secretary of state, said, "the indispensable nation," on trade, certainly, but also on securing peace, curbing extremism and spreading democracy.

But during periods of populist politics — and especially when foreign wars crop up — many Americans embrace politicians who preach a strong, if not total, focus on domestic matters. In 2013, for example, with U.S. forces seemingly bogged down in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, the percentage of Americans telling pollsters that the country should "mind its own business internationally" jumped to 52 percent — the first time a majority expressed that view in half a century, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

That attitude has been particularly popular among Republican voters in recent years, polls indicate.

"I have always been a Republican because of the party's stands for freedom, free markets, limited government and strong defense," said Joe Walsh, a former GOP congressman from Illinois who supported Trump in 2016 but then became sharply critical of him as president. "But then came Trump and his authoritarian approach, which connected with voters who really wanted a strongman to build a wall, keep Brown people out and shut down CNN. Now the party's populist base has been radicalized and it's metastasized beyond Trump himself."

Walsh, now a podcaster who considers himself a man without a party, said the old Republican attitudes toward Russia still exist in the hearts "of many of my former colleagues in the House. They still believe in a Reagan internationalism, in being tough on Russia," he said. "But they don't say anything because they know where the base is: with Trump and Tucker Carlson, saying, 'Putin good, Biden bad, and I don't want my gas prices to go up.'"

The party's division was evident as Russian missiles landed in several Ukrainian cities and Trump defended the Russian leader. "I don't believe he wanted to do this initially," Trump said of Putin on Fox News. A day earlier, on a conservative podcast, Trump called Putin a "genius" for declaring two regions of Ukraine to be independent countries and said "he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper."

Trump's aversion to portraying Russia and Putin as America's enemies was evident from the start of his late-life political career. During the 2016 campaign, he moved to erase from the Republican platform any mention of protecting Ukraine from Putin's designs. And he repeatedly praised Putin throughout his presidency.

But why did so much of the Republican political leadership and the party's voter base so easily flip from traditional anti-communism and suspicion of Russian motives to an acceptance or even an embrace of Putin and his authoritarian ways?

Walsh argues that when he and other young Republicans were attracted to Reagan's candidacies in the 1980s, they were wowed by "the overall idea of strength after the weakness of Jimmy Carter and by his promise to get government out of your lives. Reagan's strong stance against the Soviet Union was never the real draw."

"I voted for Trump in 2016 in part because he was a noninterventionist, f--- the rest of the world guy," Walsh said. "What saddens me most is that I did not sufficiently see this embrace of authoritarianism coming."

But others see the shift in the definition of Republicanism less driven by stances on issues than simply by the power of personalities.

"There's always been an ebb and flow between isolationism and internationalism in the party," said Shirley, who is also the author of "April 1945," a history of World War II's endgame. "It's really based on the personalities of our presidents and the Russian leaders more than on any principles. The current crop of Republicans still says they like Reagan, but they just like his personality. They don't share his consistent internationalist philosophy."

The evolution of attitudes toward Russia in the Republican base has been driven not only by Trump's popularity and the struggles of the U.S. economy, but also by a years-long effort by Russia to influence how Americans of all political stripes view the world, according to disinformation researchers who have traced Russia's hacks, deceptive Internet posts and fake accounts on social media.

From the civil war in Syria to the separatist battles in eastern Ukraine, Russia's intelligence services have sought to shape American views of Putin and his government. In 2016, Russia interfered in the U.S. election by hacking and disseminating sensitive Democratic Party emails, and the Internet Research Agency, run privately by a Putin ally, flooded Facebook, Twitter and other platforms with faked social media posts that helped drive Americans to polarized political positions while also supporting Trump's presidential bid.

Russia has sought to shape American attitudes toward political issues "through a subtle, sophisticated, very long game of influence," said Camille François, a disinformation researcher at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. "It's a full-spectrum campaign with covert and overt elements."

Other experts on disinformation, in contrast, argue that the impact of Russia's efforts to alter Americans' political perspectives is not so clear. Thomas Rid, a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and author of "Active Measures," a history of disinformation, said the role of Russian meddling may not be as powerful as some other domestic forces that have pushed Americans toward views so polarized that members of one party almost automatically take a position opposed to the other party's.

"Your hatred of your own political opponent is so deep that you side with Vladimir Putin as he attacks major population centers in Ukraine, which is extraordinary," Rid said.



I hope I found an appropriate balance of highlighted vs non-highlighted sections. :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on February 26, 2022, 04:05:06 AM
Really highlights that these days the true Conservatives are Democrats.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 26, 2022, 08:26:52 AM
Remember Nick Fuentes and America First from the Louis Theroux video?

Here's a thread about their event: https://twitter.com/BenLorber8/status/1497405274667290625?s=20&t=qfCD0C5rZ8ymK-0kxN0VCg

Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke at their event (apparently Paul Gosar is also a fan?). Fuentes also gives a round of applause for Russia (naming Russia and China as positive counter examples to "diversity").

Sure, it's on the fringe now. But so was the tea party movement, or Trump, once.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 26, 2022, 10:04:43 AM
Apparently the MTG appearance/connection with Fuentes was brokered by Milo :bleeding:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 26, 2022, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2022, 10:04:43 AM
Apparently the MTG appearance/connection with Fuentes was brokered by Milo :bleeding:

I saw your acronym and immediately thought Magic: the Gathering :nerd:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 27, 2022, 07:12:09 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 26, 2022, 08:26:52 AM
Remember Nick Fuentes and America First from the Louis Theroux video?

Here's a thread about their event: https://twitter.com/BenLorber8/status/1497405274667290625?s=20&t=qfCD0C5rZ8ymK-0kxN0VCg

Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke at their event (apparently Paul Gosar is also a fan?). Fuentes also gives a round of applause for Russia (naming Russia and China as positive counter examples to "diversity").

Sure, it's on the fringe now. But so was the tea party movement, or Trump, once.

QuoteRomney: Marjorie Taylor Greene a 'moron' for speaking at white nationalist event
Paul Gosar also spoke at far-right conference, as calls for the censure of the two Republicans ring out again

Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar, members of Congress who spoke at a white nationalist event in Florida this week, are "morons" with no place in the Republican party, Mitt Romney said on Sunday.

"I'm reminded of that old line from the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid movie," the Utah senator and 2012 presidential nominee told CNN's State of the Union.

"One character says, 'Morons. I've got morons on my team.' I have to think anybody that would sit down with white nationalists and speak at their conference was certainly missing a few IQ points."

Greene, from Georgia, and Gosar, from Arizona, spoke at the America First Political Action Conference, or AFPAC, organised by the far-right activist Nick Fuentes. Greene defended her attendance, saying she did not know Fuentes or endorse his views.

Calls for the censure of the two Republicans, familiar from previous instances of extreme behaviour, rang out again on Saturday.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2022, 01:40:20 AM
So how is this "white nationalism is okay" vs "that's finally a bridge too far" schism going to play out in the GOP, do you think?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 01, 2022, 01:42:56 AM
After everything that has happened since 2016, Mitt Romney STILL thinks that the GOP is a better party than the Democrats. In the words of horrible Facebook memes: let that sink in.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 01, 2022, 04:54:56 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2022, 01:40:20 AMSo how is this "white nationalism is okay" vs "that's finally a bridge too far" schism going to play out in the GOP, do you think?

Backtracking like Greene did in the article.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2022, 05:18:02 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/bCEea6x.png)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2022, 05:23:24 PM
I recognize everyone except  :tinfoil:

And no doubt Taylor Greene is two lengths ahead.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 02, 2022, 05:28:15 PM
Flynn?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on March 02, 2022, 05:34:44 PM
Who is banana guy?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2022, 05:35:34 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2022, 05:28:15 PMFlynn?

Flynn's not a carrot top and everyone else is a member of Congress.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2022, 05:36:15 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on March 02, 2022, 05:34:44 PMWho is banana guy?

Tess of T'Uberville I think.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2022, 05:43:31 PM
That's really good art work.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2022, 07:52:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2022, 05:35:34 PMcarrot top

Rand Paul?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2022, 07:55:03 PM
Is Rand Paul's ass that sexy?  :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2022, 07:57:23 PM
Plus Rand doesn't have a buzz cut.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 03, 2022, 01:09:02 AM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/texas-congressman-apologizes-for-affair-with-first-lady-of-isis-and-ends-campaign

QuoteTexas congressman apologizes for affair with 'first lady of ISIS' and ends campaign

Reeling from accusations of an affair with the so-called ISIS bride, Texas Rep. Van Taylor bowed out of his reelection bid Wednesday and apologized to his family.

The Republican lawmaker also confessed to the infidelity — rumors of which dogged him during the final days of his primary campaign. After Tuesday's primary contest, Taylor was facing a runoff after narrowly failing to surpass the 50% threshold needed to win the nomination outright.

"About a year ago, I made a horrible mistake that has caused deep hurt and pain among those I love most in this world," Taylor said. "I had an affair, it was wrong, and it was the greatest failure of my life. I want to apologize for the pain I have caused with my indiscretion, most of all to my wife Anne and our three daughters," he wrote in an email to supporters.

Taylor was the front-runner in the race, finishing Tuesday's primary with about 49% of the vote. About five days before the primary took place, Tania Joya came forward with details of her relationship with Taylor to one of his primary challengers, Suzanne Harp, who finished third, the Dallas Morning News reported. Details of the affair quickly trickled out.

On Monday, Breitbart published a story with screenshots of alleged text messages and bank statements corroborating Joya's account of events. She told the news outlet that the affair transpired between November 2020 and June 2021 and that Taylor paid her $5,000 to keep quiet about their escapade. Joya needed the money to pay off credit card bills.

Media outlets have dubbed Joya the "ISIS bride" and the "first lady of ISIS." She was married to notorious ISIS fighter Yahya al Bahrumi for 12 years, the Times of Israel reported. At one point, Bahrumi was rumored to be the highest-ranking U.S. recruit to ISIS and a leader of its English propaganda campaigns, per the outlet. He is believed to have died in 2017, according to AFP.

Joya has since distanced herself from Islamic extremism. She first met Taylor while working on an initiative to de-radicalize extremists.


Taylor was the incumbent in the race for Texas's 3rd Congressional District. He was first elected to the seat in 2018 and won reelection in 2020. The district has historically been a Republican stronghold — a trend that is expected to continue after redistricting, according to FiveThirtyEight.

Just short of offering an overt endorsement, Taylor mentioned in his email to supporters that he spoke to Keith Shelf, the second-place finisher in the primary with about 26.5% of the vote, and wished him "the best" in his campaign for the seat. He did not mention Harp in that email.

During his tenure in Congress, Taylor drew ire from a faction of his base for voting to certify the 2020 election and establish a nonpartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill, Roll Call reported.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 03, 2022, 01:37:10 AM
Can't trust a ISIS bride to take a bribe in good faith, who would have thought.

Also, you know, cheating politician, but that happens all the time.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2022, 06:34:30 PM
More glory for the great state of Texas I see. My home sweet home.

Ah well. At least I am not Russian.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 04, 2022, 01:13:08 PM
Seeing social media claims that some GOP infrastructure is hosted in Russia - allegedly to keep it beyond the reach of US investigations.

I wonder if it's true, and whether anything will come of it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2022, 01:33:40 PM
What do you mean by GOP infrastructure?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 04, 2022, 02:01:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2022, 01:33:40 PMWhat do you mean by GOP infrastructure?

Mail servers, organizing websites, data centres... that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 05, 2022, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2022, 06:34:30 PMMore glory for the great state of Texas I see. My home sweet home.

Ah well. At least I am not Russian.
Sweet home Texabama?

I suppose not being Russian is a good consolation price :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 10, 2022, 11:56:21 AM
https://www.wral.com/us-rep-madison-cawthorn-calls-zelensky-thug/20180199/

QuoteUS Rep. Madison Cawthorn calls Ukrainian president a 'thug'

RALEIGH, N.C. — U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina told supporters he thought Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a "thug"—a comment that runs counter to the overwhelming share of Republicans with a favorable view of the leader fending off a military invasion from Russia.

"Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug," Cawthorn said in a video obtained by WRAL. "Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies."

The congressman's spokesman, Luke Ball, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the video. It was unclear where the video was taken. Cawthorn had a number of events in the state over the weekend.

Cawthorn, who is running for reelection in the state's westernmost district, faces a string of primary challengers.

One of his 11th Congressional District opponents, Michele Woodhouse, called the comments out of touch and "boorish" and said she considers Zelenskyy "a hero."

Karl Rove, who served as former President George W. Bush's deputy chief of staff, first reported the remarks in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. He wrote that the event took place in Asheville over the weekend and said he thought the remarks "didn't reflect Republican opinion."

Republican state Sen. Chuck Edwards, who is taking up a more ideologically centered lane in his primary bid against Cawthorn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Public opinion polls show Cawthorn's comments are out of step with members of his own party. A national Quinnipiac University survey of U.S. adults released this week found that 64% of American adults have a favorable opinion of Zelenskyy, with 29% saying they haven't heard enough about him and only 6% having an unfavorable opinion.

Among Republicans, 61% reported a favorable opinion of the Ukrainian president, far above the 6% share with an unfavorable view. Thirty-one percent of Republicans said they hadn't heard enough about Zelenskyy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2022, 12:03:10 PM
:lol:
QuoteAmong Republicans, 61% reported a favorable opinion of the Ukrainian president, far above the 6% share with an unfavorable view. Thirty-one percent of Republicans said they hadn't heard enough about Zelenskyy.

Well, that's something.  :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 10, 2022, 01:12:52 PM
31% of Republicans are completely ignorant of what is happening in the world.  That is something.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 10, 2022, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2022, 01:12:52 PM31% of Republicans are completely ignorant of what is happening in the world.  That is something.
Better than I would have expected :ph34r:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 10, 2022, 01:16:33 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2022, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2022, 01:12:52 PM31% of Republicans are completely ignorant of what is happening in the world.  That is something.
Better than I would have expected :ph34r:

Not really, you are much younger than me.  There was a time when the GOP could put forward a foreign affairs strategy that made some sense.  My bet is that most everyone in the GOP could name the Russian leader and probably the majority of the other consequential leaders.

It  shows just how isolationist the US and particularly the US right has become.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 10, 2022, 01:21:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2022, 12:03:10 PM:lol:
QuoteAmong Republicans, 61% reported a favorable opinion of the Ukrainian president, far above the 6% share with an unfavorable view. Thirty-one percent of Republicans said they hadn't heard enough about Zelenskyy.

Well, that's something.  :)

I guess we'll see to what degree a sustained Fox propaganda campaign combined with "grassroots" social media efforts will move those numbers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 10, 2022, 01:31:38 PM
I'm surprised that more Republicans don't have a beef with Zelenskyy over the impeachment thing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 10, 2022, 04:40:52 PM
Cracks forming between the nuts and extreme but not quite insane conservatives?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 10, 2022, 05:01:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2022, 01:31:38 PMI'm surprised that more Republicans don't have a beef with Zelenskyy over the impeachment thing.

Why would they? It was a perfect call.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2022, 05:17:30 PM
Zelensky played that whole situation beautifully. Slow rolled Trump, neither party could get pissed at him.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 17, 2022, 10:59:58 AM
GOP congressional candidate for South Carolina wants to re-instate the House Un-American Activities Committee:

Video: https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1503737569456050180
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 17, 2022, 11:05:46 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 17, 2022, 10:59:58 AMGOP congressional candidate for South Carolina wants to re-instate the House Un-American Activities Committee:

Video: https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1503737569456050180

Common sense I suppose
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 17, 2022, 11:19:19 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 17, 2022, 10:59:58 AMGOP congressional candidate for South Carolina wants to re-instate the House Un-American Activities Committee:

Video: https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1503737569456050180

Nice of Burns to come out that strongly against the GOP.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 17, 2022, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 17, 2022, 10:59:58 AMGOP congressional candidate for South Carolina wants to re-instate the House Un-American Activities Committee:

Video: https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1503737569456050180

Finally someone to take on Q-Anon, Jan 6th seditionists, Putin stooges, those who undermine the electoral process, and so on.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 24, 2022, 02:48:25 PM
Donald Trump sues Hillary Clinton, others, says they tried to rig 2016 U.S. election (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/donald-trump-sues-hillary-clinton-others-says-they-tried-to-rig-2016-us-election/ar-AAVszNk?li=AAggNb9)

QuoteFormer United States president Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others, claiming that they tried to rig the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday, also claims they falsely accused Trump of colluding with Russia. Trump defeated Clinton in the 2016 election to become president.

(about:invalid)(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAVs8jM.img?h=751&w=1123&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f)

The lawsuit, filed Thursday, also claims they falsely accused Trump of colluding with Russia. Trump defeated Clinton in the 2016 election to become president.

"Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty," the former president alleged in the lawsuit filed in a federal court in Florida.

Trump also alleged "racketeering" and a "conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood," among other claims.

Trump's allegations in the lawsuit are undermined by a 966-page report issued by a Republican-led U.S. Senate committee in August 2020. That report concluded that Russia used Republican political operative Paul Manafort and the WikiLeaks website to try to help Trump win the 2016 election.

Trump has sought compensatory and punitive damages in the lawsuit.

He said he was "forced to incur expenses in an amount to be determined at trial, but known to be in excess of twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000) and continuing to accrue, in the form of defense costs, legal fees, and related expenses."

None of Trump's allegations in the lawsuit have been proven in court.

How can even find lawyers who want to go in court with these baseless conspiracy theories?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on March 24, 2022, 02:51:08 PM
Crazy person does crazy things.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 24, 2022, 02:51:48 PM
There are many very stupid lawyers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 24, 2022, 02:57:01 PM
I'm not convinced these are the best lawyers around :ph34r:
https://twitter.com/legalbrains
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCtrJk1XoAM8u2l?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 24, 2022, 03:03:37 PM
They're more graphic designers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 24, 2022, 03:09:31 PM
It's their passion.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 24, 2022, 03:45:30 PM
Does he really want to be forced to give deposition on this?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2022, 03:47:51 PM
Put aside the merits of the allegations.

The case principally asserts a RICO claim.  RICO has a 4 year statute of limitations. You don't need to be a math major to figure out the problem there in a case about the 2016 election.

The next claim is one for "injurious falsehood".  Not clear what this is supposed to be about as the heading cites to the Stored Communications Act, an anti computer hacking law that has no apparent relevance to this case or to "injurious falsehood", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.  I'll be charitable and assume they meant to bring a defamation claim.  SoL - 1 to 3 years depending on the state.

Next is malicious prosecution - didn't check every state but typical SoL is one year. Since the complaint doesn't identify any actual legal proceeding against Trump, I suppose they could argue the limitations period hasn't started yet.  Although for the same exact reason, there is no claim stated.

Next is a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim.  Two year SoL.

Theft of trade secrets. Confusingly the complaint cites the CFAA statute not the federal trade secrets statute. The limitations on CFAA is two years (see above), on trade secrets it would be 3 years.  Since the complaint does not identify any trade secrets it may be that this was intended as a restatement of the CFAA

Stored Communication Act - second time statute was cited.  Does not seem to be applicable - presume CFAA was intended again (?)   Two year limitations period.

"Agency" - this is a legal concept not a cause of action so there is no limitations period.  Impossible to discern from the allegations what was intended here.  Conspiracy maybe??? In that case 3 years.

Next is a series of allegations that various parties are vicariously liable for underlying torts committed by others.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2022, 04:10:44 PM
Some more background on the lawyer behind this case: https://www.thedailybeast.com/alina-habba-the-trump-lawyer-the-rest-of-trumps-legal-team-loathes?msclkid=3e7b9b07abb611ec8809efae31d09142

Choice quotes:

QuoteSome of the Trump lawyers think her work is so bad—so self-interested, pointlessly aggressive, and sloppy—that they think Habba's mere presence on the team increases the likelihood of Trump and his family facing court losses and legal peril

Quote"'What the fuck is she doing?' is probably the most common question we asked about her," one of these lawyers, who still works in the Trump inner sanctum, remarked last week. Habba's professional conduct, decisions, and courtroom theatrics have routinely embarrassed her Trumpworld legal colleagues—to the point that there are multiple group chats of Trump lawyers where much of the discussion is devoted to profusely complaining about Habba or harshly mocking her.

And most damning of all:

Quoteshe has the utmost trust and confidence of Eric Trump

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 24, 2022, 05:05:47 PM
Their website address clearly states they have legal brains.  What's the problem?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on March 25, 2022, 03:45:49 AM
Maybe not a coincidence the timing.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/supreme-court-justice-thomass-wife-urged-trump-white-house-overturn-2020-2022-03-25/

QuoteSupreme Court justice Thomas's wife urged Trump White House to overturn 2020 election

Virginia Thomas, the wife of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, urged former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to work to overturn the results of the 2020 election in a series of text messages, the Washington Post and CBS News reported on Thursday.

The messages, sent in the weeks following the Nov. 3 presidential election, show that Thomas advised Meadows to "make a plan" and "release the Kraken" in a bid to preserve Donald Trump's presidency, the Post and CBS News reported.

Virginia Thomas, a conservative activist and attorney, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Now-President Joe Biden was projected to win the race on Nov. 7, 2020.

"Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down," she said in one of 29 messages shared between the two, according to the Post.

Sidney Powell, who represented Trump's campaign when he sought to overturn the election result, filed lawsuits challenging counts in multiple states in support of Trump's false claims of widespread election fraud. She had previously vowed to "release the Kraken" to expose the alleged fraud, a reference to the sea monster of Scandinavian folklore.

The messages were handed over to the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to the Post and CBS, who said, without elaborating, that they had obtained copies of the messages.

Reuters could not independently verify the reports.

A spokesperson for the Jan. 6 committee declined to comment.

Reuters sought comment from Meadows at the Conservative Partnership Institute, an organization that helps elect conservatives to office where Meadows now serves as partner, but was unable to immediately reach him. An attorney for Meadows did not return a request for comment.

The messages do not directly reference Thomas's husband or the Supreme Court, according to the Post.

Trump's campaign distanced itself from Powell after she claimed without evidence at a Nov. 19, 2020 news conference that electronic voting systems had switched millions of ballots to Biden.

The news comes almost a week after Justice Thomas was admitted to a Washington hospital. The status of Thomas's health was not immediately clear.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 25, 2022, 09:15:28 AM
Health issues seem common for people serving Putin this week.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 22, 2022, 07:22:57 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQ5IofOWYAEUh7J?format=jpg&name=900x900)

 :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on April 22, 2022, 08:44:56 AM
I missed why Disney has become a target for the right
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 22, 2022, 08:50:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2022, 08:44:56 AMI missed why Disney has become a target for the right

Being woke (i.e. more diversity in their media).

EDIT: more background: https://www.vox.com/23036009/disney-culture-war-desantis-florida-dont-say-gay
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on April 22, 2022, 08:51:20 AM
Also vocal opposition to Floridas planned don't say gay laws.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 22, 2022, 09:41:52 AM
As I recall Communism was the system where private business was subordinated to the state and private actors were subject to be punished for expressing views not in accord with the leader.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 24, 2022, 03:24:31 PM
https://www.rawstory.com/desantis-on-disney/

QuoteDeSantis' attack on Disney is just the tip of the iceberg

When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis picked a culture-war fight with the Walt Disney Co., old-school conservatives worried aloud about the precedent it might set.

It's a little late for that.

Defying decades of Republican subservience to America's business elite, the state of Florida has attacked Disney by repealing its "special independent district" status. But it turns out that DeSantis' move is hardly an isolated example among states in this, the faux-populist era of the GOP.

Modeling after Donald Trump's mob-like instinct to punish companies that offended him, politicians running red states have begun boycotting corporations to retaliate for policies aimed at protecting the planet. The once-unthinkable notion of Republicans using their government power to attack big business prompted the conservative Washington Examiner to tout its "alternative coverage" on the subject:

"Republican-led states are pushing back against firms that try to curb use of fossil fuels," the newspaper proclaimed in advance of Earth Day last week. "Pressure has been building on companies to follow environmental, social, and governance standards from both the private sector and the government.

"Because much of that pressure involves businesses' handling of carbon emissions and the fossil fuel industry, policymakers in some oil- and coal-heavy states are actively working against major investors and businesses."

There's no better example than West Virginia, where Treasurer Riley Moore has used his office to punish companies for the sin of trying to decarbonize their investments. Moore, the grandson of the state's late Gov. Arch Moore and nephew of Sen. Shelly Moore Capito, has boldly planted the flag against environmentalism.

"Earth Day should celebrate coal, oil, and natural gas instead of condemning the natural resources God has blessed us with," Moore tweeted last week.

It's no surprise, then, that Riley has led the charge against anti-polluters. Here's more from the Examiner:

"Last year, in response to pressure from the Biden administration for big banks to cut down on their emissions, more than a dozen state treasurers, led by Moore, wrote to presidential climate envoy John Kerry suggesting that they would pull state assets from firms that are trying to decarbonize their investments.

In the letter, the treasurers urged banks and financial institutions "not to give in to pressure from the Biden Administration to refuse to lend to or invest in coal, oil, and natural gas companies."

The trend is not limited to West Virginia. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law last year banning state investments in businesses that cut ties with the oil and gas industry." As industry magazine WorldOil.com reported, "Boycott Texas oil, and Texas will boycott you."

But like West Virginia, Texas has gone beyond defending its industries to launch a broadside attack on companies advocating for green policies. Indeed, both states have targeted investment giant Black Rock for advancing the use of Environmental Social and Governance criteria (ESG).

"BlackRock, a massive $10 trillion investment firm, has led the corporate world in the prioritization of ESG," the Examiner reported. 'Part of the push has been the encouragement of 'net zero' investment strategies, which Moore contends would hurt the fossil fuel industry and, ultimately, residents of the Mountain State who make a living in that industry.

"Moore took action against BlackRock this year, (announcing) that the state would end the use of one of the firm's investment funds. He said the inflows and outflows of that fund were about $1.5 billion."

Moore termed it a "conflict of interest for West Virginia to do business with BlackRock -- "particularly as it relates to their stance on the fossil fuel industry" -- since West Virginia ranks fifth nationally in energy production.

As NPR reported last month, "the goal of pushing companies to a more fossil fuel friendly position – at least publicly – appears to be working.

BlackRock representatives have met with Texas state leaders trying to smooth things over, and highlighting their fossil fuel investments. CEO Fink also wrote a letter this year flatly stating that the firm does not pursue fossil fuel divestment.

"You can already see that they [BlackRock] have now written back to the state and said, 'Hey, hey, hey, don't worry, we love you guys,'" says Amalgamated Bank's Ivan Frishberg. "'We're open for business. Bring us your oil and gas!'"
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on April 28, 2022, 09:05:08 AM
One opinion article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/27/gop-no-longer-a-party-movement-impose-christian-nationalism/
Quote from: Washington PostThe GOP is no longer a party. It's a movement to impose White Christian nationalism.

By Jennifer Rubin

People might be confused about how a Republican Party that once worried about government overreach now seeks to control medical care for transgender children and retaliate against a corporation for objecting to a bill targeting LGBTQ students. And why is it that the most ambitious Republicans are spending more time battling nonexistent critical race theory in schools than on health care or inflation?
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

To explain this, one must acknowledge that the GOP is not a political party anymore. It is a movement dedicated to imposing White Christian nationalism.

The media blandly describes the GOP's obsessions as "culture wars," but that suggests there is another side seeking to impose its views on others. In reality, only one side is repudiating pluralistic democracy — White, Christian and mainly rural Americans who are becoming a minority group and want to maintain their political power.

The result is an alarming pattern: Any moment of social progress is soon followed by reactionary panic and claims of victimhood. It's no mere coincidence that Donald Trump, the leader of the birther movement, succeeded the first African American president. Nor should the anti-critical-race-theory movement surprise anyone given the mass protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020. Understanding his phenomenon is crucial to preserving pluralistic democracy.

Sherrilyn Ifill, former head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, recently recalled the period of protest after Floyd's murder in an engrossing podcast with former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. The movement, Ifill explained, was the first time many Americans collectively empathized with those who had experienced systemic injustice. But "those who are arrayed in opposition to justice and equality have not lost sight of it," she said. "What they saw [in the protests] is part of what undergirds the current movement that you're seeing around the country right now."

Thus, Ifill argued, the MAGA crowd is frantically maneuvering to halt education "about the truth of the history of racism and white supremacy, of the struggle for justice in this country." The goal is to stymie the development of children's empathy and awareness of racial injustice.

In a real sense, the MAGA response is an effort to conserve power and to counteract the sense of a shared fate with Americans who historically have been marginalized. The right now defines itself not with policies but with its angry tone, its malicious labeling and insults (e.g., "groomer," "woke"), and its targeting of LGBTQ youths and dehumanization of immigrants. Right-wingers' attempt to cast their opponents as sick, dangerous and — above all — not "real Americans" is as critical to securing power as voter suppression.


The indignation of MAGA personalities when presented with the reality of systematic racism is telling and very much in line with White evangelical Christian views. As Robert P. Jones, the head of the Public Religion Research Institute who has written extensively on the evangelical movement, explained in an interview with Governing:

    What we saw in the 20th century was that edifice of white supremacy that got built with the support of white Christian leaders and pastors and churches. Once it was built, the best way to protect it was to make it invisible, to create a kind of theology that was so inward focused that Christianity was only about personal piety. It was disconnected from social justice, politics, the world. It led white Christians to be fairly narcissistic and indifferent to injustice all around them. Martin Luther King Jr. had that line in Letter from Birmingham Jail where he's in dismay not about racist Christians, but about so-called moderates in Birmingham, the "more cautious than courageous" white Christians who "remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows."

Indeed, rarely has King's admonition been more appropriate: "I have watched white churches stand on the sidelines and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, 'Those are social issues which the gospel has nothing to do with.' "

Today, those who argue that America is a White, Christian nation simultaneously insist they are devoid of bigotry. The MAGA crowd is offended by any attempt to identify the ongoing reality of systemic racism (evident, for example, in the criminal justice system, maternal health care, housing discrimination and gerrymandering to reduce minority voting power). The notion that institutions they refuse to reform perpetuate racism is a sort of moral challenge to their claim to be "colorblind." Perhaps it is simply self-interested blindness.

No one should be surprised that the "big lie" has become gospel in White evangelical churches. The New York Times reports: "In the 17 months since the presidential election, pastors at these churches have preached about fraudulent votes and vague claims of election meddling. ... For these church leaders, Mr. Trump's narrative of the 2020 election has become a prominent strain in an apocalyptic vision of the left running amok."

If anti-critical-race-theory crusades are the response to racial empathy, then laws designed to make voting harder or to subvert elections are the answer to the GOP's defeat in 2020, which the right still refuses to concede. The election has been transformed into a plot against right-wingers that must be rectified by further marginalizing those outside their movement.

Our political problems are significant, but they are minor compared with the moral confusion that is afflicting the millions of White Christian Americans who consider themselves victims. Left unaddressed, this will smother calls for empathy, tolerance and justice.



And one local article, but still very revealing of where the GOP is now and the direction they continue to move in. I've bolded what I consider to be the critical sections.

Quote from: Washington PostYoungkin prevails on vetoes but draws Democrats' fire in heated session

RICHMOND — Democrats in the House of Delegates accused Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) of illegal overreach and compared him to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday as a session to consider vetoes and bill amendments turned ugly over the governor's attempt to force new elections for the Loudoun County School Board.

Republicans who control the House approved a Youngkin amendment targeting Loudoun, with one GOP delegate proclaiming that the governor was right to punish the school board for its role in handling a student sexual assault case and its conflict with conservative parents over teaching "critical race theory."

The issue became moot a short time later, though, when the Democratic-controlled Senate killed the same amendments after a supercharged debate of its own.

Youngkin otherwise turned in a mixed record in his first veto session as governor, with the General Assembly sustaining all 26 of his vetoes and approving many of his amendments to more than 100 bills that had passed earlier this year.

One notable failure: The Senate nixed Youngkin's attempt to create a new class of criminal misdemeanor for possessing more than two ounces of marijuana. Youngkin had proposed the change in an amendment to a bill related to legalization; he also proposed amendments that would limit what hemp products can be sold. The Senate sent the amendments to a committee, effectively killing them for the year.

The Senate also handed Youngkin a defeat on his proposal to suspend the state's 26-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax for three months. One Republican joined all Democrats in killing the proposal in a Senate committee meeting Wednesday morning. Senators have argued that suspending the tax would provide little actual relief to drivers and would deprive the state's transportation accounts of needed money.

Late Wednesday night, Youngkin issued a statement thanking the General Assembly for its work.

"I'm pleased with the progress made in the general assembly today. An overwhelming majority of our recommendations were adopted in the assembly and all of the vetoes were sustained," he said, adding that the body "must reach a compromise on the budget." House and Senate negotiators have not yet worked out differences on the two-year spending plan.

The House debate on the Loudoun bill marked one of the harshest partisan eruptions since Youngkin took office in January — his victory fueled, in part, by tapping into a national movement of conservative parental grievance against school boards, displayed most explosively in Loudoun.

"This amendment is not only appalling, it's offensive," Del. Candi Mundon King (D-Prince William) said. She and other delegates said the governor was meddling in local elections — effectively cutting short the terms of several school board members because he dislikes their policies.

Del. Christopher T. Head (R-Botetourt) thundered that that was exactly what the governor and the General Assembly were trying to do. "Should a local governing body go completely off the rails, then it's up to us to set things right," Head said. "This school board is using powers delegated to them by this legislature and they're misusing them terribly, so it's up to us to fix it."


That provoked a vehement response from Del. Marcus B. Simon (D-Fairfax), who said the scenario described by Head "is exactly the scenario the Virginia Constitution forbids." If elected officials are displaying malfeasance, there is a recall process, Simon said, adding: "Vladimir Putin can dissolve a city council and have a new mayor elected, but that's not how we do it in democracies."

The amendments were approved on a party-line vote of 51 to 48.

That moved the matter over to the Senate, which erupted over it as well — a departure from an otherwise drama-free day. While Senate Democrats argued the move would undermine the will of Loudoun voters who elected the board to a four-year term, most Republicans said the school board deserved to be ousted over its handling of the sexual assault situation.

"Why does anybody think they're entitled to a term? I don't give a damn about their terms," roared Sen. Richard H. Stuart (R-King George), usually one of the Senate's more soft-spoken members. "Why would these people be entitled to anything?"


The Senate rejected the amendment 18 to 22, with Sen. David R. Suetterlein (R-Roanoke) joining Democrats. Suetterlein said he was no fan of the school board and he hoped Loudoun voters would clean house in 2023, but he still found the amendment "troubling."

"Once it enters the realm of, 'We oppose these folks so much that we're going to shorten their terms,' we are fundamentally changing our system," he said.

The House and Senate let stand all 26 of Youngkin's vetoes, all of them aimed at bills that passed with bipartisan support, several unanimously.

Democrats put up a fight on several of the vetoes, highlighting what they said were inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the governor's reasoning. Del. Charniele L. Herring (D-Alexandria) accused Youngkin of acting mainly "to strike back at Democrats" and "to fan the flames of culture war in order to boost his national profile."

Del. Nadarius Clark (D-Portsmouth) argued that a bill he had sponsored setting a three-year statute of limitations on medical debt was supported by a wide range of consumer groups and had passed the House by a margin of 89 to 7.

"We all agree this is a good bill," Simon said. "Are we going to have the courage of our convictions? Are we going to do what we thought was right 60 days ago, or are we going to take our marching orders from the policy office of the governor?"

The House failed to overturn the veto on a party-line vote of 52 to 48.

Del. Patrick A. Hope (D-Arlington) argued that a bill he had sponsored to stop allowing health insurance companies to levy a surcharge on people who use tobacco was the unanimous recommendation of a bipartisan study commission and followed national studies that showed it would lower costs for consumers. Youngkin vetoed the bill, claiming that it would increase costs for consumers.

"The governor got this one wrong, and big time," Hope said. The House failed to overturn that veto on the same party-line vote, 52 to 48.

Youngkin's proposed amendments to bills met a slightly more mixed fate in the House. Republicans agreed to pass by — not vote on — an amendment proposed by Youngkin that would have reduced by $1 the amount paid to a man who had been wrongly imprisoned for 22 years.

"If ever, ever there was a situation in which someone deserves every penny, every dollar that they have been promised, this is one of those situations," Del. Richard C. "Rip" Sullivan Jr. (D-Fairfax) said. Sullivan said Youngkin's staff had made a rounding error.

Republicans also agreed to not vote on an amendment proposed by Youngkin that would have required the General Assembly to vote again next year on a law setting out qualifications for membership on boards and commissions in the city of Falls Church. However, Republicans approved an amendment proposed by Youngkin to require people on the city's boards and commissions to be legal citizens.

House Republicans killed several amendments proposed by Youngkin that would have required various bills to be reenacted next year. In the House, lawmakers of both parties generally oppose that practice.

On the other side of the Capitol, senators slogged through dozens of bills that Youngkin had amended, mostly without debate and with bipartisan agreement to changes that they deemed purely technical in nature.

But the chamber also rejected some of Youngkin's amendments — at times with Republicans bucking the new governor alongside Democrats.

The Senate voted unanimously against Youngkin's attempt to gut a bill intended to beef up the state's flood preparedness. Only three of the Senate's 19 Republicans stood with Youngkin on an amendment that would have forced a citizen challenging a governor's executive order to do so in Richmond Circuit Court — an inconvenience for people living in other parts of the state that the rest of the Senate saw as an attempt to make such challenges more daunting.

A handful of Republicans crossed party lines to reject other Youngkin amendments, including the Senate version of the bill related to Falls Church commissions.

In a few cases, Republicans who objected to the governor's amendments to their bills pushed back in a slightly less confrontational way, by asking that the recommendation get passed by for the day and, therefore, not get a vote.

Amendments that do not get a vote fail and the bill returns to the governor in its original form, as is the case when the governor's amendments get voted down. The governor then can choose to sign the unamended bill, allow it to become law without his signature or veto it. If he opts for a veto, the General Assembly will not have a chance to override it.

Youngkin had wielded his veto pen with uncommon vigor against Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria), targeting nine of his 10 bills. Youngkin appeared to blame Ebbin, as chairman of the Senate committee that oversees gubernatorial nominees, for a nominations battle that began with the rejection of a former Trump administration official for his Cabinet.

Ebbin's vetoed bills included legislation to prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against organ donors, a measure to bolster consumer data protection, and another to require real estate agents to disclose whether they have an ownership interest in the transaction.

All of Ebbin's vetoed bills passed the House and Senate by overwhelming margins. Six won unanimous support in both chambers, and Youngkin signed six identical House bills. Typically a governor signs both versions, allowing both sponsors to claim credit for getting a bill passed into law.

Ebbin asked the chamber to overturn the vetoes matter-of-factly, without criticizing Youngkin or indulging in heated rhetoric. Sen. Jeremy S. McPike (D-Prince William) backed him up at one point in an equally muted tone.

"When the governor signs a bill in one chamber and then vetoes in the Senate — I really hope we take the ... Senate version and not a partisan approach to it. Just a suggestion," McPike said.

While one or two Republicans crossed over to support Ebbin in some cases, he failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to overturn the vetoes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2022, 10:19:34 AM
QuoteDel. Christopher T. Head (R-Botetourt) thundered that that was exactly what the governor and the General Assembly were trying to do. "Should a local governing body go completely off the rails, then it's up to us to set things right," Head said. "This school board is using powers delegated to them by this legislature and they're misusing them terribly, so it's up to us to fix it."

And there it is - the other shoe drops.  Youngkin's education policy was never really about empowering parents; it was about mobilizing the coercive power of the state to crush the local school districts into compliance with the GOP Kulturkampf.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2022, 08:18:25 AM
DeSantis made an oopsie

Section 56 of the Reedy Creek Act

QuoteThe State of Florida pledges to the holders of any bonds issued under this Act
(1) that it will not limit or alter the rights of the District (a) to own,
acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, maintain, operate or furnish the
projects or to levy and collect the taxes, assessments, rentals, rates, fees,
tolls, fares and other charges provided for in the Reedy Creek Act, and (b)
to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the holders of any bonds
or other obligations of the District; and (2) that it will not in any way
impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in
any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Reedy Creek Act,
until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and
expenses in connection with any act or proceeding by or on behalf of such
holders, are fully met and discharged

US Constitution Article I Section 10

QuoteNo State shall . .  pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on May 03, 2022, 10:03:23 PM
À reminder of the rhetoric that is being peddled.

« Together we're standing up against some of the most menacing forces, entrenched, interest and vicious opponents our people have ever seen despite great outside dangers. And we do have outside dangers. What's happening with Russia and Ukraine is a tremendous outside danger. Our biggest threat remains the sick, sinister and evil people from within our country. They're a bigger threat than the outside threat. But no matter how big or powerful these corrupt, radical politicians may be, you must never forget, this nation does not belong to them, this nation belongs to you. This is your home, this is your heritage and our American liberty is your God-given right, they're not going to take it away. »

DJT, Nebraska rallye.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 03, 2022, 10:07:31 PM
That is fucking terrifying. 

Frankly, I am surprised there hasn't been more outright violence, beyond Jan 6th.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 07:24:13 AM
If you are terrified of that you need to toughen up.

The guy was just president for four years, had a majority in both houses for half of it, and the major thing he got through was a tax cut. He commanded the executive branch and tried to launch an insurrection to stay in office and only got a band of goofballs led by a guy in a viking helmet to respond. If he wasn't a threat then, he isn't a threat now that he is out of power and is getting more senile by the day. Notice the crowd sizes of his rallies keeps diminishing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 04, 2022, 08:00:39 AM
It only takes one unhinged loon to create massive damage, and this is not a Trump problem, it is a GOP problem. He is the symptom, and when he is gone, the problem will still remain. Someone else will pick it up. The narrative of the "biggest threat remains the sick, sinister and evil people from within our country" was not invented by Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2022, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 07:24:13 AMIf you are terrified of that you need to toughen up.

The guy was just president for four years, had a majority in both houses for half of it, and the major thing he got through was a tax cut. He commanded the executive branch and tried to launch an insurrection to stay in office and only got a band of goofballs led by a guy in a viking helmet to respond. If he wasn't a threat then, he isn't a threat now that he is out of power and is getting more senile by the day. Notice the crowd sizes of his rallies keeps diminishing.

Trump could vanish tomorrow, the damage has been done.

QuoteWhen do we get to use the guns? No, and I'm not — that's not a joke. I'm not saying it like that. I mean, literally, where's the line? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 04, 2022, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 07:24:13 AMIf you are terrified of that you need to toughen up.

The guy was just president for four years, had a majority in both houses for half of it, and the major thing he got through was a tax cut. He commanded the executive branch and tried to launch an insurrection to stay in office and only got a band of goofballs led by a guy in a viking helmet to respond. If he wasn't a threat then, he isn't a threat now that he is out of power and is getting more senile by the day. Notice the crowd sizes of his rallies keeps diminishing.

Who do you think "our people" is referring to in the passage Oex quoted?  And what do you think might happen to people not identified as "our people"?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 11:40:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2022, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 07:24:13 AMIf you are terrified of that you need to toughen up.

The guy was just president for four years, had a majority in both houses for half of it, and the major thing he got through was a tax cut. He commanded the executive branch and tried to launch an insurrection to stay in office and only got a band of goofballs led by a guy in a viking helmet to respond. If he wasn't a threat then, he isn't a threat now that he is out of power and is getting more senile by the day. Notice the crowd sizes of his rallies keeps diminishing.

Who do you think "our people" is referring to in the passage Oex quoted?  And what do you think might happen to people not identified as "our people"?

"our people" probably refers to the american people collectively, while the "you" later in the passage probably refers to trump supporters specifically, who i think are probably considered the only true americans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 05, 2022, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 11:40:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2022, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 07:24:13 AMIf you are terrified of that you need to toughen up.

The guy was just president for four years, had a majority in both houses for half of it, and the major thing he got through was a tax cut. He commanded the executive branch and tried to launch an insurrection to stay in office and only got a band of goofballs led by a guy in a viking helmet to respond. If he wasn't a threat then, he isn't a threat now that he is out of power and is getting more senile by the day. Notice the crowd sizes of his rallies keeps diminishing.

Who do you think "our people" is referring to in the passage Oex quoted?  And what do you think might happen to people not identified as "our people"?

"our people" probably refers to the american people collectively, while the "you" later in the passage probably refers to trump supporters specifically, who i think are probably considered the only true americans.

You may just be trolling.  But if not I suggest you re-read it.  the evil ones being referred to are also Americans and they are clearly being differentiated from "our people".  So I ask again, who are these pure untainted folk that make up the categorie "our people"?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on May 05, 2022, 10:54:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2022, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 11:40:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2022, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 07:24:13 AMIf you are terrified of that you need to toughen up.

The guy was just president for four years, had a majority in both houses for half of it, and the major thing he got through was a tax cut. He commanded the executive branch and tried to launch an insurrection to stay in office and only got a band of goofballs led by a guy in a viking helmet to respond. If he wasn't a threat then, he isn't a threat now that he is out of power and is getting more senile by the day. Notice the crowd sizes of his rallies keeps diminishing.

Who do you think "our people" is referring to in the passage Oex quoted?  And what do you think might happen to people not identified as "our people"?

"our people" probably refers to the american people collectively, while the "you" later in the passage probably refers to trump supporters specifically, who i think are probably considered the only true americans.

You may just be trolling.  But if not I suggest you re-read it.  the evil ones being referred to are also Americans and they are clearly being differentiated from "our people".  So I ask again, who are these pure untainted folk that make up the categorie "our people"?

I don't see any reference to "pure untainted folk"...there is a clear "us vs. them" motif going and a reference to "Our biggest threat remains the sick, sinister and evil people from within our country" as the "them". I would think most trump supporters would include people like Hillary Clinton in that group...it ties into his talking points of the "swamp" and "swamp things".

Hillary is white but I don't think anyone in the crowd would think Trump meant to include her in the group of "us", while I don't think many would include Clarence Thomas in the "them". It is divisive and confrontational rhetoric but at least that portion isn't racial. Imo.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 05, 2022, 11:00:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2022, 10:54:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2022, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 11:40:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2022, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 07:24:13 AMIf you are terrified of that you need to toughen up.

The guy was just president for four years, had a majority in both houses for half of it, and the major thing he got through was a tax cut. He commanded the executive branch and tried to launch an insurrection to stay in office and only got a band of goofballs led by a guy in a viking helmet to respond. If he wasn't a threat then, he isn't a threat now that he is out of power and is getting more senile by the day. Notice the crowd sizes of his rallies keeps diminishing.

Who do you think "our people" is referring to in the passage Oex quoted?  And what do you think might happen to people not identified as "our people"?

"our people" probably refers to the american people collectively, while the "you" later in the passage probably refers to trump supporters specifically, who i think are probably considered the only true americans.

You may just be trolling.  But if not I suggest you re-read it.  the evil ones being referred to are also Americans and they are clearly being differentiated from "our people".  So I ask again, who are these pure untainted folk that make up the categorie "our people"?

I don't see any reference to "pure untainted folk"...there is a clear "us vs. them" motif going and a reference to "Our biggest threat remains the sick, sinister and evil people from within our country" as the "them". I would think most trump supporters would include people like Hillary Clinton in that group...it ties into his talking points of the "swamp" and "swamp things".

Hillary is white but I don't think anyone in the crowd would think Trump meant to include her in the group of "us", while I don't think many would include Clarence Thomas in the "them". It is divisive and confrontational rhetoric but at least that portion isn't racial. Imo.



let me ask you something, when you read, do you ever try to analyze the text to determine if there is something else being communicated that is not expressly stated?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on May 05, 2022, 11:30:56 AM
yes
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 05, 2022, 11:42:22 AM
Great, now apply that skill
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on May 05, 2022, 12:01:02 PM
i did
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 12:23:18 PM
Lovely people, these Republicans:

QuoteAbbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids

Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring states to offer free public education to all children, including those of undocumented immigrants.

"Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler versus Doe," Abbott said, speaking during an appearance on the Joe Pags show, a conservative radio talk show. "And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. ... I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 05, 2022, 05:28:31 PM
Speaking of GOP, is it common for guys to rub their naked bodies against their male cousins?  I never hung out with any of my male cousins, so I don't know what male cousins do for fun, but I imagine that at least in my extended family people would look at you weird if you try that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on May 05, 2022, 05:32:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 12:23:18 PMLovely people, these Republicans:

QuoteAbbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids

Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring states to offer free public education to all children, including those of undocumented immigrants.

"Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler versus Doe," Abbott said, speaking during an appearance on the Joe Pags show, a conservative radio talk show. "And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. ... I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago."

Well I guess that is one way to cut property taxes Abbott.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 05, 2022, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2022, 05:32:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 12:23:18 PMLovely people, these Republicans:

QuoteAbbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids

Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring states to offer free public education to all children, including those of undocumented immigrants.

"Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler versus Doe," Abbott said, speaking during an appearance on the Joe Pags show, a conservative radio talk show. "And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. ... I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago."

Well I guess that is one way to cut property taxes Abbott.

You'd figure they'd go back even farther to San Antonio v Rodriguez, and dispense with the entire concept.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 05, 2022, 10:17:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2022, 11:00:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2022, 10:54:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2022, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 11:40:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2022, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 07:24:13 AMIf you are terrified of that you need to toughen up.

The guy was just president for four years, had a majority in both houses for half of it, and the major thing he got through was a tax cut. He commanded the executive branch and tried to launch an insurrection to stay in office and only got a band of goofballs led by a guy in a viking helmet to respond. If he wasn't a threat then, he isn't a threat now that he is out of power and is getting more senile by the day. Notice the crowd sizes of his rallies keeps diminishing.

Who do you think "our people" is referring to in the passage Oex quoted?  And what do you think might happen to people not identified as "our people"?

"our people" probably refers to the american people collectively, while the "you" later in the passage probably refers to trump supporters specifically, who i think are probably considered the only true americans.

You may just be trolling.  But if not I suggest you re-read it.  the evil ones being referred to are also Americans and they are clearly being differentiated from "our people".  So I ask again, who are these pure untainted folk that make up the categorie "our people"?

I don't see any reference to "pure untainted folk"...there is a clear "us vs. them" motif going and a reference to "Our biggest threat remains the sick, sinister and evil people from within our country" as the "them". I would think most trump supporters would include people like Hillary Clinton in that group...it ties into his talking points of the "swamp" and "swamp things".

Hillary is white but I don't think anyone in the crowd would think Trump meant to include her in the group of "us", while I don't think many would include Clarence Thomas in the "them". It is divisive and confrontational rhetoric but at least that portion isn't racial. Imo.



let me ask you something, when you read, do you ever try to analyze the text to determine if there is something else being communicated that is not expressly stated?

You might want to cut back on that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 06, 2022, 07:32:13 AM
Trying to convince people that the GOP really is a threat when they mindlessly ignore all of the danger signs? No I don't think I'm gonna stop that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 06, 2022, 08:14:07 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2022, 07:32:13 AMTrying to convince people that the GOP really is a threat when they mindlessly ignore all of the danger signs? No I don't think I'm gonna stop that.

Let me ask you something; when you read, do you ever try to analyze the text to determine if there is something else being communicated that is not expressly stated?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 06, 2022, 08:22:58 AM
I can totally believe that CC tries very hard to determine what is being communicated that is not expressly stated.  It's the expressly stated parts that he never bothers with.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 06, 2022, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2022, 08:22:58 AMI can totally believe that CC tries very hard to determine what is being communicated that is not expressly stated.  It's the expressly stated parts that he never bothers with.

About par for the course around these parts.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 06, 2022, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2022, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2022, 08:22:58 AMI can totally believe that CC tries very hard to determine what is being communicated that is not expressly stated.  It's the expressly stated parts that he never bothers with.


About par for the course around these parts.

I don't think that is true at all. There are plenty of people around who actually try to have a conversation with what people say in good faith, or something sort of approaching it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on May 06, 2022, 04:42:09 PM
Genuine slip of the tongue or something more sinister?

QuoteSenator Says Legalizing Interracial Marriage Was a Mistake, Backtracks Unconvincingly

Mike Braun of Indiana told reporters that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state laws that banned Black and white Americans from wedding.


Republican Sen. Mike Braun is attempting a rather unconvincing cleanup job after telling reporters on Tuesday that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state laws banning interracial marriage in its landmark 1967 decision, Loving v. Virginia.

Braun, the junior senator from Indiana, made his comments during a media call in which he argued that policy issues should generally be left in the hands of state governments whenever possible, especially in the case of abortion.

"So you would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?" a reporter asked.

"Yes," Braun answered. "I think that that's something that if you're not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that's hypocritical."

But afterward, Braun's office issued a statement attempting to walk back the comment, suggesting he had misunderstood the question despite having seemingly answered with unblinking certitude.

"Earlier during a virtual press conference I misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage, let me be clear on that issue - there is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form, at all levels and by any states, entities, or individuals."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 06, 2022, 09:02:38 PM
Quote...let me be clear on that issue - there is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race...

Not true.  If it had been true, the KKK (whose true stomping ground was Braun's own state) would not have been so infuriated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 09, 2022, 03:40:56 PM
That would have made a great Onion article back in the day
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 11, 2022, 01:19:28 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX3XrQyQ/image.png)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 11, 2022, 05:50:56 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 11, 2022, 01:19:28 PM(https://i.postimg.cc/pX3XrQyQ/image.png)
It was antifa making trouble on Jan 6th, so they denounced it, allright. ;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 11, 2022, 05:51:20 PM
I am beginning to like that guy.
Crenshaw, Greene clash on Twitter: 'Still going after that slot on Russia Today' (msn.com)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 12, 2022, 02:57:41 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2022, 05:51:20 PMI am beginning to like that guy.

Yeah, his tone sometimes reminds me of CdM. :P

(https://i.postimg.cc/J08xzGvc/image.png)


https://twitter.com/Stonekettle
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 12, 2022, 08:49:21 AM
Ohhh!  That's another good one!  :showoff:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 12, 2022, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2022, 02:57:41 AMYeah, his tone sometimes reminds me of CdM. :P

Ay, Dios mio
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 12, 2022, 11:11:19 AM
I bought a dishwasher last month.  It took two weeks to be delivered.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 12, 2022, 11:15:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2022, 11:11:19 AMI bought a dishwasher last month.  It took two weeks to be delivered.

How did you get them through immigration?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 12, 2022, 11:22:57 AM
That was up to the people at Lowe's.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 12, 2022, 11:38:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2022, 11:11:19 AMI bought a dishwasher last month.  It took two weeks to be delivered.
Buying them new is not the problem.  Getting them repaired is the nightmare.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 12, 2022, 11:04:37 PM
The lawyers of this board might be interested in this bit of trivia:
Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape (https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)

QuoteJustice Alito's leaked opinion cites Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can't be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as "witches," and whose misogyny stood out even in his time.

[...]

Ah, Mary would love that too, but not for the same reasons. :wacko: :sleep:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 02:06:29 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2022, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2022, 08:22:58 AMI can totally believe that CC tries very hard to determine what is being communicated that is not expressly stated.  It's the expressly stated parts that he never bothers with.

About par for the course around these parts.

Bullshit.  The vast majority of people here communicate in good faith.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 02:35:01 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 07:24:13 AMIf you are terrified of that you need to toughen up.

The guy was just president for four years, had a majority in both houses for half of it, and the major thing he got through was a tax cut. He commanded the executive branch and tried to launch an insurrection to stay in office and only got a band of goofballs led by a guy in a viking helmet to respond. If he wasn't a threat then, he isn't a threat now that he is out of power and is getting more senile by the day. Notice the crowd sizes of his rallies keeps diminishing.

He got many members of the House and a number of Senators to vote to not certify the election.  He attempted to get the Georgia Secretary of State to invent enough votes to overturn the state election results.  He has persuaded 60% of the GOP, the party that will soon have a majority in both houses of Congress, that the last election was the result of cheating.  No one needs to toughen up.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on May 13, 2022, 08:52:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 02:06:29 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2022, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2022, 08:22:58 AMI can totally believe that CC tries very hard to determine what is being communicated that is not expressly stated.  It's the expressly stated parts that he never bothers with.

About par for the course around these parts.

Bullshit.  The vast majority of people here communicate in good faith.

This may be the most frightening thing you've ever written.  Assuming you wrote it in good faith, of course.   :ph34r:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 10:17:00 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 02:06:29 AMBullshit.  The vast majority of people here communicate in good faith.

I'd rate the good faith communication to sit at roughly 75% with maybe 15% misunderstandings that could be genuine or bad faith, and 10% that's obviously fuckery.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 10:17:00 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 02:06:29 AMBullshit.  The vast majority of people here communicate in good faith.

I'd rate the good faith communication to sit at roughly 75% with maybe 15% misunderstandings that could be genuine or bad faith, and 10% that's obviously fuckery.
I think the obvious fuckery percentage is zero or close to it.  What does happen a lot for a couple of people, and almost never for most, is confirmation bias.  When you're dead convinced that someone is saying something stupid, then you'll find their post to be full of stupid ideas.  If the actual post you're replying to does not oblige to confirm your bias, you'll change it around somewhere between your eyes and whatever place cognition takes place in for you, until it fits the stupidity that you expect.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 13, 2022, 10:53:15 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 10:17:00 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 02:06:29 AMBullshit.  The vast majority of people here communicate in good faith.

I'd rate the good faith communication to sit at roughly 75% with maybe 15% misunderstandings that could be genuine or bad faith, and 10% that's obviously fuckery.
I think the obvious fuckery percentage is zero or close to it.  What does happen a lot for a couple of people, and almost never for most, is confirmation bias.  When you're dead convinced that someone is saying something stupid, then you'll find their post to be full of stupid ideas.  If the actual post you're replying to does not oblige to confirm your bias, you'll change it around somewhere between your eyes and whatever place cognition takes place in for you, until it fits the stupidity that you expect.
I think there is a decent amount of not trying at all to understand what the person is saying, but rather trying to figure out how to strawmen what they are saying in a very conscious manner.

I don't know if I would call that outright fuckery, but it isn't good faith either.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 11:24:51 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 10:24:08 AMI think the obvious fuckery percentage is zero or close to it.  What does happen a lot for a couple of people, and almost never for most, is confirmation bias.  When you're dead convinced that someone is saying something stupid, then you'll find their post to be full of stupid ideas.  If the actual post you're replying to does not oblige to confirm your bias, you'll change it around somewhere between your eyes and whatever place cognition takes place in for you, until it fits the stupidity that you expect.

That is a good point and I agree with the premise. To refine the thesis a bit - I think that there's a two-way relationship between every set of posters (it's not always symmetrical), and some of those relationships have a much higher rate of this happening while others do not.

I know I've definitely been part of this (in both directions), and I regularly observe it with other pairs of posters as well.

But yeah, I think it's a very sound observation.

If anything depended on languish - i.e. if we were a team responsible for actually doing something - it'd be incumbent on us to debug these communication issues. But nothing is, so we just sort of muddle along.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 11:35:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2022, 10:53:15 AMI think there is a decent amount of not trying at all to understand what the person is saying, but rather trying to figure out how to strawmen what they are saying in a very conscious manner.

I don't know if I would call that outright fuckery, but it isn't good faith either.
Maybe I have excessive faith in people, or I have insufficient faith in the ability of people to stay rational, but I think deliberate failure to understand is much more rare than you believe to be the case.  I think it's easy to get red mist during a debate, especially one that gets nasty, as emotions take over and critical thinking gets even more unnatural than it usually is. 

If you suffer from red mist, then what I think often happens is that you see a post by someone else, and you pay attention only to the parts that can most easily in your mind be interpreted as confirming your idea of where the other person gets it wrong.  Suffering from confirmation bias doesn't mean that you're not an asshole, and definitely your confirmation bias comes in part from your own belief that the other person is evil or an idiot (or at least insufficient skepticism of that possibility), but it doesn't make your catastrophic failure of reading comprehension a deliberate act.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 11:37:52 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 11:24:51 AMIf anything depended on languish - i.e. if we were a team responsible for actually doing something - it'd be incumbent on us to debug these communication issues. But nothing is, so we just sort of muddle along.
I've been saying for a while that I think other posters should feel a duty to intervene, if they see someone getting an unfair treatment.  It's understandable for bystanders to really want to desire to remain bystanders, but without external validation or invalidation it's impossible to break the deadlock of mutual misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 13, 2022, 11:54:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 11:35:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2022, 10:53:15 AMI think there is a decent amount of not trying at all to understand what the person is saying, but rather trying to figure out how to strawmen what they are saying in a very conscious manner.

I don't know if I would call that outright fuckery, but it isn't good faith either.
Maybe I have excessive faith in people, or I have insufficient faith in the ability of people to stay rational, but I think deliberate failure to understand is much more rare than you believe to be the case.  
I think it is about as rare as I believe it to be the case. But I guess that is tautological. 

And I don't really think of it is a "deliberate failure to understand" as much as a deliberate decision to engage in a battle to win some points for your team, rather then trying to actually understand what the other person is saying, and responding to that. It's more a difference in intent then a difference in behavior.

Obviously calling out people in THIS context is counter-productive, but I will call out someone who I think does this the right way - Oex. I disagree with him constantly (although I suspect that if we sat down and inventoried all of our political views in a broad manner we are about 90% in agreement - we just tend to focus on the places where we disagree), but I think he almost always gives my posts a fair attempt to understand, and then craft his response in response to what he thinks I am trying to say, rather then what he would have liked me to say so he can tell me how wrong I am.

And it works - he does a great job of making me re-think where I am coming from.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 12:04:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 11:37:52 AMI've been saying for a while that I think other posters should feel a duty to intervene, if they see someone getting an unfair treatment.  It's understandable for bystanders to really want to desire to remain bystanders, but without external validation or invalidation it's impossible to break the deadlock of mutual misunderstanding.

There are a few obstacles there, but I think the biggest one is that an intervention will typically be perceived as taking sides and - especially when red mist as you put it is already in effect - just add fuel to the fire, with you right in the middle of the fire.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 12:14:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 11:35:33 AMMaybe I have excessive faith in people, or I have insufficient faith in the ability of people to stay rational...

Personally - especially in the context of discussions on languish - I value mutal respect and willingness to look at issues from different points of view much higher than rationality. I'm much more interested in answering questions like "what are the premises and line of reasoning that could make a reasonable person reach this conclusion" and "where do we have points of agreement, and what is the core of our disagreement" than determining what is "objectively correct." And for issues I don't know a whole lot about, I'm more interested in "here's a good framework for analysis" and "here's one of potentially several reasonable points of view on the topic."

Quote...but it doesn't make your catastrophic failure of reading comprehension a deliberate act.

I like that turn of phrase :lol:

We do have a non-trivial amount of catastrophic failure of reading comprehension, but also - as I'm sure you'll agree - decent number of failures to state your point clearly.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 13, 2022, 12:32:09 PM
Okay, I admit it.  When Grumbler said "ROE" I deliberately misunderstood it to mean "Fish eggs" and not "Rules of Engagement".  I didn't think you all would get so upset over it.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 01:17:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 12:14:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 11:35:33 AMMaybe I have excessive faith in people, or I have insufficient faith in the ability of people to stay rational...

Personally - especially in the context of discussions on languish - I value mutal respect and willingness to look at issues from different points of view much higher than rationality. I'm much more interested in answering questions like "what are the premises and line of reasoning that could make a reasonable person reach this conclusion" and "where do we have points of agreement, and what is the core of our disagreement" than determining what is "objectively correct." And for issues I don't know a whole lot about, I'm more interested in "here's a good framework for analysis" and "here's one of potentially several reasonable points of view on the topic."

Quote...but it doesn't make your catastrophic failure of reading comprehension a deliberate act.

I like that turn of phrase :lol:

We do have a non-trivial amount of catastrophic failure of reading comprehension, but also - as I'm sure you'll agree - decent number of failures to state your point clearly.
In this case by rational I meant not getting your judgment clouded to the point that you become unable to comprehend what the other person is trying to communicate (whether you'd agree with the intended point or not).  Proper comprehension of the person you're disagreeing with requires some emotional detachment.

As far as not stating one's point clearly, I actually think that happens deliberately more often than deliberately failing to get the point does.  Sometimes I get the feeling that in a situation where one poster is clearly getting the worst of it but doesn't give up, the poster who's getting the best of it prefers to keep the semi-conscious loser propped up on the ropes, just to land more punches.  They don't try to clear up their point, they instead keep making it in a way that they know the other person will misinterpret.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 02:27:54 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 12, 2022, 11:04:37 PMThe lawyers of this board might be interested in this bit of trivia:
Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape (https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)

QuoteJustice Alito's leaked opinion cites Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can't be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as "witches," and whose misogyny stood out even in his time.

[...]

Yes there's been quite a bit of mockery about the witchcraft stuff, but IMO it misses the real point, which is essential inanity of originalism - the doctrine that one interprets a legal text by going back in time to when it was passed and trying to imagine what was going on the brains of the legislators. 

For example, a big question now is how to apply traditional antitrust law (put into statute c. 1890s-1910s) to modern tech companies.  There are a lot of ways to approach and think about that problem.  However, I cannot conceive why one would think it fruitful to ground that process into an inquiry about what Senator John Sherman would have thought about it.  If he had been shown Facebook and Twitter his likely reaction would have been a late 19th century version of WTF???

For a particularly reactionary kind of conservative, however, the attractiveness of that approach is clear enough: many of America's core legal texts and doctrines trace their origins from time periods when franchises were restricted to landholding white men, who held openly racist and misogynistic world views.  Or even better, in the case of the common law, a royalist jurist like Hale who was the loyal servant of a would-be absolutist monarch.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on May 13, 2022, 02:34:49 PM
Yeah - I've never understood it from the outside. From here it basically like it's historical fiction. You might as well get Hilary Mantel on the Supreme Court, because at least she'd do it well.

The other point to your reactionary comment is that it is also an incredibly subjective school. Basically you can shape your opinion based the writings etc of people at the time in an attempt to understand how they would have thought about it. That's a very creative process that leaves a huge amount of discretion to a judge. You can't turn around and disagree with them because it's not what the text says, your argument is about what a historical figure might have thought and I don't really know how you can usefully do that (or what it really adds to the process).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 03:03:08 PM
Sure, there's always room for interpretation in interpreting documents, but IMHO originalism has at least the potential for more intellectual rigour than the "living tree" type analysis.

Let me tell you about a little SCC decision - Law Society of BC v Andrews.  It was one of the earliest cases decided under our Charter of Rights (Charter coming into force 1982, Andrews being decided in 1989).  Mr. Andrews wanted to become a lawyer.  He met all the requirements but one - he was not a Canadian citizen.  So he sued to be allowed to become a lawyer, citing the equality provisions in section 15.

Now remember the Charter itself was only 7 years old.  You wouldn't have had to puzzle through dusty tomes to figure out what the drafters of the Charter meant - you could just ask them.  And the problem for Mr. Andrews was that section 15 of the Charter sets out a list of grounds that can not be discriminated against - and citizenship was not on that list.

(the list is "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability").

Didn't stop the SCC though - they decided that citizenship was an "analogous ground" to the ones listed in section 15, and read it into the constitution.  The Charter means what they said it means.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 13, 2022, 03:41:24 PM
The argument for "originalism" is that the US Constitution was created as a social contract.  The governed gave up certain powers to the government in exchange for the government's fulfillment of certain essential services.  Does not contract law go almost exclusively by "originalism?"

Now, the ratifiers* of the Constitution didn't foresee all the ways in which the contract could be applied, which was why they deliberately included language designed to make the Constitution flexible enough to meet new needs.  And for moderns to interpret those flexible provisions does not require them to interpret them in the way that the ratifiers would have.  Indeed, the ratifiers did not themselves use "original" interpretations of concept like "the Senate."

It irritates me that the "originalists" veer wildly between pretending to "strictly construct" arguments based on their view of the written record, and ignoring the actual words of the Constitution when they are inconvenient (e.g. the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment).


*I prefer to think of the "Founders" as the people who ratified the Constitution, because they were the ones "signing the contract," while Franklin et al were just the lawyers drawing it up
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on May 13, 2022, 04:10:22 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2022, 03:41:24 PMThe argument for "originalism" is that the US Constitution was created as a social contract.  The governed gave up certain powers to the government in exchange for the government's fulfillment of certain essential services.  Does not contract law go almost exclusively by "originalism?"
I'd massively caveat what I'm about to say as much as you can because there are lots of exceptions like consumers or small businesses or employees.

But at least here, generally speaking, no. Contract law is broadly about applying what the parties agreed, not what they necessarily intended to agree.

So in a general sense you start with the ordinary meaning of the clause - in the context of the contract as a whole. You might look at the original purpose of the clause and what all the parties knew at the time and commercial common sense. But in general you only reach for them if the meaning of the actual clause is not clear.

Generally - at least here - courts aren't interested or can't look at prior negotiations, or "declarations of subjective intent". There are rare circumstances when you can - for example if there's an unusual phrase that isn't defined and doesn't make sense from reading the contract then the court can "explore the factual hinterland of the agreement", but again the intent is to identify what the parties' objectively agreed - not what they subjectively intended.

The approach is broadly similar in interepreting statute here - it's based on having professional parliamentary counsel who draft laws. You start with the words of the statute and only if it's unclear do you start to look at other stuff like "intent" but then courts here would still position it as an objective - what is the intent of those words - rather than a subjective - what did the minister or other legislators intend (courts have only been allowed to look at the parliamentary record since the early 90s - and it's only in certain circumstances).

It's totally different with European law where the intent is really important - you don't necessarily look at what legislators said, but it's why European law will always have far more recitals explaining what the legislation is intended to do. I don't think laws in the UK ever have recitals, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 04:11:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 03:03:08 PMSure, there's always room for interpretation in interpreting documents, but IMHO originalism has at least the potential for more intellectual rigour than the "living tree" type analysis.

Originalism as a doctrinal interpretive theory has a political origin, not an academic one.  It was promoted by then Attorney General Edwin Meese as part of a political/rhetorical program.  The doctrine has always had an uneasy place in the academy because: (1) you don't have to be Hans Georg Gadamer to spot the inherent problems in establishing a clear and singular "public meaning" to an historical text, and (2) if taken seriously it leads to troubling consequences such as an inability to provide support for opinions like Brown v Bd of Ed.  For those reasons, even the purported champion of the doctrine in the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, described himself as faint-hearted in his commitment, and openly made pragmatic deviations.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on May 13, 2022, 04:18:11 PM
Isn't the steelman of the originalist argument that they are not saying we should ban inter-race marriage because the founders that we should, but rather that the means of allowing it now that we all rightly realize banning it is wrong, is through amendment/legislation, not through the courts.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 04:19:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2022, 03:41:24 PMThe argument for "originalism" is that the US Constitution was created as a social contract.  The governed gave up certain powers to the government in exchange for the government's fulfillment of certain essential services.  Does not contract law go almost exclusively by "originalism?"

That raises interesting questions.  Is the notion of social contract just a metaphor or does it have real substance.  If real substance, who are the parties to the contract?  Clearly more than the framers.  "We the people" means ALL the people, and that includes those who had no direct voice in its creation.  It includes women whose voices were excluded from the debate chamber, and it should include slaves as the Constitution did not explicitly exclude them from its preambulatory declarations.  How does one divine the universal public meaning from all these disparate and in many cases suppressed voices?  A true theory of social contractual orginalism must account for this or concede it is just seeking to replicate old and discarded hierarchies of oppression.

QuoteNow, the ratifiers* of the Constitution didn't foresee all the ways in which the contract could be applied, which was why they deliberately included language designed to make the Constitution flexible enough to meet new needs.  And for moderns to interpret those flexible provisions does not require them to interpret them in the way that the ratifiers would have.  Indeed, the ratifiers did not themselves use "original" interpretations of concept like "the Senate."

Just so - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not written like a commercial contract.  It does not attempt to specify contingencies; it mostly speaks in terms of general principles and concepts. The meaning and application of general principles necessarily depends on context.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 13, 2022, 04:59:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 04:19:50 PMThat raises interesting questions.  Is the notion of social contract just a metaphor or does it have real substance.  If real substance, who are the parties to the contract?  Clearly more than the framers.  "We the people" means ALL the people, and that includes those who had no direct voice in its creation.  It includes women whose voices were excluded from the debate chamber, and it should include slaves as the Constitution did not explicitly exclude them from its preambulatory declarations.  How does one divine the universal public meaning from all these disparate and in many cases suppressed voices?  A true theory of social contractual orginalism must account for this or concede it is just seeking to replicate old and discarded hierarchies of oppression.

Yes, and this is my point.  The "originalists" who made up what they supposed to be "We the People" were not "the people" at all, which makes the supposed "contract" nature of the Constitution suspect, and thus the "originalist" construct suspect.  That does not deny, though, the contractional nature of the Constitution (not any social contract).

QuoteJust so - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not written like a commercial contract.  It does not attempt to specify contingencies; it mostly speaks in terms of general principles and concepts. The meaning and application of general principles necessarily depends on context.

My point exactly.  I understand the views of the "originalists" but don't have to accept them as true.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 05:30:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2022, 04:18:11 PMIsn't the steelman of the originalist argument that they are not saying we should ban inter-race marriage because the founders that we should, but rather that the means of allowing it now that we all rightly realize banning it is wrong, is through amendment/legislation, not through the courts.

The originalists are defining boundary lines between which are the rights of people protected by the Constitution and which or not.   That boundary is NOT based on explicit textualism.  For example, the Alito draft does not as a definitive matter state that only those rights that are explicitly spelled out are recognized.  On the contested question of whether there exist reserved or implicit fundamental rights, he concedes that such rights may exist but that they are limited to those generally recognized as such at the time when the relevant constitutional provisions were enacted (in most cases 1789).

Why does Alito do this? Because, to take one example, the Constitution says nothing explicitly about parental rights to select their children's schooling.  Thus, a strict explicit textualist would have to admit that states could pass laws forcing universal attendance at secular public schools, with no exception for private or home schooling.  And indeed there are historical examples of such laws.  Alito does not like that idea, the originalist don't like it, and their political backers definitely don't like it.  Fortunately for them there a couple of Supreme Court cases that held that parents have a constitutional right to make choices about education. But those cases are not based on explicitly enumerated rights in the text; they are based on a theory of reserved fundamental rights through the 5th and 14th amendments.

So the first originalist move is to abandon strict textualism.  The second is to attempt to control the recognition of fundamental rights by restricting them to those that the originalists subjectively like - such as educational rights or perhaps the right to travel - while rejecting ones that they don't like, such as privacy, and the right to be free from the state doing bedroom inspections to make sure everyone is doing nothing in there except missionary position. To do that they advance the theory that the way to determine what the non-explicit fundamental rights are is to figure what people thought they were in 1789.

What does that mean in practice?  In practice it means that instead of good legal analysis, we get crappy history. We get crappy history in part because federal court judges, while mostly decently smart people, are not professional historians and don't have the time to do years of archival research to decide each individual case.  And we get crappy history because history just doesn't work that way: it doesn't give definitive and pat answers to these kinds of complex questions.

In practice, originalist interpretation usually just boils down to throwing around quotations from the Federalist Papers, mostly because that's an easy accessible source that law clerks are familiar with and because Madison and Hamilton have street cred. But really all the Federalist Papers tell us are the rhetorical arguments that 3 individuals made as part of a political debate; it doesn't establish a universal public meaning for the Constitution as a whole.  Nothing can do the latter.

And that's the best case, you can do a lot worse than Madison and Hamilton.  Like Alito's draft, which would determine the nature of fundamental rights to be recognized in 21st century America based on the idiosyncratic views of Charles II's chief judicial flunky.  Or the Heller opinion, which meanders its way to a pragmatic result that deviates substantially from the Constitutional text by way of a slanted and tendentious excursion through selected historical studies of gun usage in American history.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on May 13, 2022, 05:43:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2022, 04:18:11 PMIsn't the steelman of the originalist argument that they are not saying we should ban inter-race marriage because the founders that we should, but rather that the means of allowing it now that we all rightly realize banning it is wrong, is through amendment/legislation, not through the courts.
But isn't that more of a philosophical idea or a political preference for judicial restraint - which I'm not unsympathetic to.

The bit I struggle with - and my bias is that I come from a textualist approach - is that argument doesn't explain why the correct approach to interpreting law is what the legislators intended and what they thought it covered at that time. But it also doesn't lead to that "steelman" result.

Minsky's example on anti-trust is right. The social issues are where this will do the most damage and get the most attention but I've no doubt they'll use this approach to gut regulatory law with that tool. I think Kavanaugh has form for this already - but just imagine the impact on, say, the EPA if its role was solely interpreted through how it was understood in 1970.

This isn't a philosophy of judicial restraint and deference to legislation. Instead it elevates the court and reduces the legislature's role to contantly updating, revising and amending legislation to ensure it remains current enough for the court to give effect to that legislation. Obviously in a system like the US' with strong powers for parties to block legislation that means a lot may become frozen in aspic or ultimately redundant - especially when it comes to the administrative/regulatory state.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on May 13, 2022, 07:42:30 PM
The originalists stance isn't completely without merit, we do have people we can ask who were there.  One of them is a cat and both of them are ghosts.
(https://i.imgur.com/7jUPnU5.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2022, 08:02:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 04:11:59 PMFor those reasons, even the purported champion of the doctrine in the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, described himself as faint-hearted in his commitment, and openly made pragmatic deviations.

AKA, making things up as we go along.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 25, 2022, 08:43:54 AM
I was heartened to see today that Marjorie Taylor Green responded to the Texas school shooting by sharing some very sensitive and personal information about herself: "Our nation needs to take a serious look at the state of mental health today. Sometimes meds can be the problem."  In this fevered political environment, it takes courage to admit vulnerability.

Although Marjorie still merits a few years in the federal pen for her treasonous support of an insurrection to overthrow the government, I want to her to know that I sympathize with her struggle and will join in the fight to ensure that the federal prison system provides appropriate support for her mental health conditions and those of her fellow inmates.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on May 25, 2022, 11:20:35 AM
MTG would also9 argue that, if you put reasonable controls on the access of insane people to firearms, they'd just go on elementary school mass skull-bashing-with-iron-skillets rampages.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 01, 2022, 02:42:10 PM
Jesus Christ :bleeding:
https://twitter.com/judiciarygop/status/1532081904601669632?s=21&t=wUCQHK5mNegpMv3_4KqTxw
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 01, 2022, 02:45:54 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 25, 2022, 08:43:54 AMI was heartened to see today that Marjorie Taylor Green responded to the Texas school shooting by sharing some very sensitive and personal information about herself: "Our nation needs to take a serious look at the state of mental health today. Sometimes meds can be the problem."  In this fevered political environment, it takes courage to admit vulnerability.

Although Marjorie still merits a few years in the federal pen for her treasonous support of an insurrection to overthrow the government, I want to her to know that I sympathize with her struggle and will join in the fight to ensure that the federal prison system provides appropriate support for her mental health conditions and those of her fellow inmates.

Representative Greene was caught on video the other day warning people about meat grown in "peach tree dishes".

That's right up there with "Gazpacho Police" for comedy gold from Georgia's most famous congressperson.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on June 01, 2022, 02:48:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2022, 02:42:10 PMJesus Christ :bleeding:
https://twitter.com/judiciarygop/status/1532081904601669632?s=21&t=wUCQHK5mNegpMv3_4KqTxw

One could indeed only hope they stand atop a sinking ship.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 01, 2022, 04:13:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2022, 02:42:10 PMJesus Christ :bleeding:
https://twitter.com/judiciarygop/status/1532081904601669632?s=21&t=wUCQHK5mNegpMv3_4KqTxw
Some people are trying really hard to convince me this case was about toxic masculinity.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 01, 2022, 04:18:05 PM
The whole online discourse around the case has been extraordinary. I've never seen anything like it about a court case. It's basically been an open sewer - so of course House Republicans decide to dive in.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 02, 2022, 05:14:37 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2022, 04:18:05 PMIt's basically been an open sewer

Much like Depp's bed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 04:54:03 PM
Rep Louie Gohmert on Navarro indictment: "If you're a Republican, you can't even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they're coming after you"

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1532776813692342272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1532776813692342272%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollingstone.com%2Fpolitics%2Fpolitics-news%2Flouie-gohmert-republicans-lie-fbi-congress-1362752%2F

God, he's stupid.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 06:41:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 04:54:03 PMRep Louie Gohmert on Navarro indictment: "If you're a Republican, you can't even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they're coming after you"

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1532776813692342272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1532776813692342272%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollingstone.com%2Fpolitics%2Fpolitics-news%2Flouie-gohmert-republicans-lie-fbi-congress-1362752%2F

God, he's stupid.

He's just pointing out the existence of the Vast Evil Conspiracy Against Republicans being orchestrated by the supervillains.  It is his resistance to the supervillains that makes him a superhero.

Lying under oath is a necessary, nay, even courageous, step in fighting the VECAR.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 05, 2022, 09:47:41 PM
Ohio House Republicans vote to put Canada on a federal watch list... (https://www.wksu.org/government-politics/2022-06-02/ohio-house-republicans-vote-to-put-canada-on-a-federal-watch-list)

QuoteThe Ohio House passed a resolution (House Resolution 194) late Wednesday night that urges the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to add Canada to a religious freedom watch list.
Republican Rep. Tim Ginter (R-Salem) backed the resolution for the way Canada handled lockdowns of churches and actions it took against religious leaders during the pandemic.
"This resolution is not the result of a singular incident or even a handful of incidents. It's a persistent pattern of religious rights violations that has driven us to this point," Ginter said.
Rep Reggie Stoltzfus (R-Paris Township) said religious leaders who violated COVID protocols in Canada were jailed. And he says that's not a behavior Ohio should condone. He said this resolution would send a strong message to Canada.
"While Ohio has stood up for religious freedom and protected the right to attend religious services, it is clear Canada has not done the same," Stoltzfus said.
Stoltzfus said this behavior is "very similar to what we see in Communist-controlled China."
But Democrats said it was unnecessary and even out of line for the Ohio Legislature to pass this resolution. Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D-Columbus) said questions about religious freedom are important. But she said Canada, not the state of Ohio, should be addressing those issues.
"We should be addressing the issues that our constituents are asking for such as stricter gun policies, legislation to protect women's rights and reforming our rigged criminal justice system. At this point in time, we are focusing on issues that are not even within our jurisdiction," Humphrey said.
Rep. Daniel Troy (D-Willowick) said Ohio has no business trying to tell Canada how to run its country.
"Before we start the War of 1812 here again with our Canadian neighbors (laughter in chamber), I just want to remind everybody that they've been a strong and loyal N.A.T.O. member. They are one of our strongest allies."
Canada is also a strong trading partner with Ohio. Canada is the top destination for Ohio businesses that export, taking in about 40 percent of all of Ohio's exports. More than $20 billion worth of Ohio goods and services are exported to Canada each year.
The resolution passed along party lines with Republicans voting for it, Democrats voting against it.
Copyright 2022 The Statehouse News Bureau. To see more, visit The Statehouse News Bureau.


Ah.  Canada.  Such an intolerant country to religious zealots of every kind :lmfao:

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 06, 2022, 08:13:33 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 05, 2022, 09:47:41 PMOhio House Republicans vote to put Canada on a federal watch list... (https://www.wksu.org/government-politics/2022-06-02/ohio-house-republicans-vote-to-put-canada-on-a-federal-watch-list)

QuoteThe Ohio House passed a resolution (House Resolution 194) late Wednesday night that urges the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to add Canada to a religious freedom watch list.
Republican Rep. Tim Ginter (R-Salem) backed the resolution for the way Canada handled lockdowns of churches and actions it took against religious leaders during the pandemic.
"This resolution is not the result of a singular incident or even a handful of incidents. It's a persistent pattern of religious rights violations that has driven us to this point," Ginter said.
Rep Reggie Stoltzfus (R-Paris Township) said religious leaders who violated COVID protocols in Canada were jailed. And he says that's not a behavior Ohio should condone. He said this resolution would send a strong message to Canada.
"While Ohio has stood up for religious freedom and protected the right to attend religious services, it is clear Canada has not done the same," Stoltzfus said.
Stoltzfus said this behavior is "very similar to what we see in Communist-controlled China."
But Democrats said it was unnecessary and even out of line for the Ohio Legislature to pass this resolution. Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D-Columbus) said questions about religious freedom are important. But she said Canada, not the state of Ohio, should be addressing those issues.
"We should be addressing the issues that our constituents are asking for such as stricter gun policies, legislation to protect women's rights and reforming our rigged criminal justice system. At this point in time, we are focusing on issues that are not even within our jurisdiction," Humphrey said.
Rep. Daniel Troy (D-Willowick) said Ohio has no business trying to tell Canada how to run its country.
"Before we start the War of 1812 here again with our Canadian neighbors (laughter in chamber), I just want to remind everybody that they've been a strong and loyal N.A.T.O. member. They are one of our strongest allies."
Canada is also a strong trading partner with Ohio. Canada is the top destination for Ohio businesses that export, taking in about 40 percent of all of Ohio's exports. More than $20 billion worth of Ohio goods and services are exported to Canada each year.
The resolution passed along party lines with Republicans voting for it, Democrats voting against it.
Copyright 2022 The Statehouse News Bureau. To see more, visit The Statehouse News Bureau.


Ah.  Canada.  Such an intolerant country to religious zealots of every kind :lmfao:



Well, he has a point in that the resolution does send strong message.  Just not the one he thinks.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on June 06, 2022, 10:20:24 AM
Ohio also recently approved some wildly deranged anti-trans regulations for female youth sports. I thought it was a purple-ish state, not one of the crazy ones.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 06, 2022, 10:26:01 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 06, 2022, 10:20:24 AMOhio also recently approved some wildly deranged anti-trans regulations for female youth sports. I thought it was a purple-ish state, not one of the crazy ones.

It's been swinging fairly red recently.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2022, 12:39:06 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 06, 2022, 10:20:24 AMOhio also recently approved some wildly deranged anti-trans regulations for female youth sports. I thought it was a purple-ish state, not one of the crazy ones.

It's urban islands of blue in a sea of red.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on June 06, 2022, 12:48:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2022, 12:39:06 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 06, 2022, 10:20:24 AMOhio also recently approved some wildly deranged anti-trans regulations for female youth sports. I thought it was a purple-ish state, not one of the crazy ones.

It's urban islands of blue in a sea of red.

So, just like almost every other state, then.  :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PJL on June 06, 2022, 12:54:12 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 06, 2022, 12:48:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2022, 12:39:06 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 06, 2022, 10:20:24 AMOhio also recently approved some wildly deranged anti-trans regulations for female youth sports. I thought it was a purple-ish state, not one of the crazy ones.

It's urban islands of blue in a sea of red.

So, just like almost every other state, then.  :P

Or indeed almost every other democratic country - left-wing islands in a right-wing sea.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2022, 03:28:15 PM
It does seem to me that Ohio has been going more West Virginia over the decades of my life.  Odd case of a smaller population culturally colonizing a larger one.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 06, 2022, 03:32:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2022, 03:28:15 PMIt does seem to me that Ohio has been going more West Virginia over the decades of my life.  Odd case of a smaller population culturally colonizing a larger one.

It is the great replacement?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 06, 2022, 03:33:11 PM
Florida and Missouri too - in terms of voting patterns?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 06, 2022, 05:50:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 06, 2022, 03:33:11 PMFlorida and Missouri too - in terms of voting patterns?
Arkansas now borders Kansas City.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 06, 2022, 06:10:11 PM
A couple of generations of conservatives have accidentally got into Sam Francis before they realised he was unrepentantly white nationalist. They normally read his stuff, get excited (because it is bracing/striking when it's not just very racist) before moving onto more respectable heroes - though you always wonder how much they actually retained.

One or two reached back to their Francis-interest to explain Trump. But it's interesting to see Nate Hochman who is very much the bright young thing on the right at the minute calling it out in the NYT in what is a very interesting and good piece - but I think this also captures where the energy and the young rising stars in conservatism are. I think it's a really good summary of what's going on in the right at the minute - as understood by the right, not by the New Republic or sneering lefties like me:
QuoteWhat Comes After the Religious Right?
By Nate Hochman
Mr. Hochman is a fellow at National Review.

Even for an insider like me, the whirlwind of energy and debate within today's conservative movement can be bewildering. But what's clear is that the Republican Party is changing. A new kind of conservatism, represented by right-wing elites like Ron DeSantis, Christopher Rufo and Tucker Carlson, is making itself known. We are just beginning to see its impact. The anti-critical-race-theory laws, anti-transgender laws and parental rights bills that have swept the country in recent years are the movement's opening shots. They have made today's culture wars as fierce as they have been in decades. But this new campaign is also distinctly different from the culture wars of the late 20th century, and it reflects a broad shift in conservatism's priorities and worldview.

The conservative political project is no longer specifically Christian. That may seem strange to say at a moment when a mostly Catholic conservative majority on the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade. But a reversal of the landmark 1973 ruling would be more of a last gasp than a sign of strength for the religious right. It's hard to imagine today's culture warriors taking any interest in the 1950s push for a Christian amendment to the Constitution, for example. Instead of an explicitly biblical focus on issues like school prayer, no-fault divorce and homosexuality, the new coalition is focused on questions of national identity, social integrity and political alienation. Although it enjoys the support of most Republican Christians who formed the electoral backbone of the old Moral Majority, it is a social conservatism rather than a religious one, revolving around race relations, identity politics, immigration and the teaching of American history.

Today's culture war is being waged not between religion and secularism but between groups that the Catholic writer Matthew Schmitz has described as "the woke and the unwoke." "Catholic traditionalists, Orthodox Jews, Middle American small-business owners and skeptical liberal atheists may not seem to have much in common," he wrote in 2020. But all of those demographics are uncomfortable with the progressive social agenda of the post-Obama years.

Rather than invocations of Scripture, the right's appeal is a defense of a broader, beleaguered American way of life. For example, the language of parental rights is rarely, if ever, religious, but it speaks to the pervasive sense that American families are fighting back against progressive ideologues over control of the classroom. That framing has been effective: According to a March Politico poll, for example, American voters favored the key provision of Florida's hotly debated Parental Rights in Education law, known by its critics as the Don't Say Gay law, by a margin of 16 percentage points. Support for the initiative crosses racial lines. In a May poll of likely general election voters in six Senate battleground states — Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — the conservative American Principles Project found that Hispanics supported the Florida law by a margin of 11 percentage points and African Americans by a margin of four points.

The upshot is that this new politics has the capacity to dramatically expand the Republican tent. It appeals to a wide range of Americans, many of whom had been put off by the old conservatism's explicitly religious sheen and don't quite see themselves as Republicans yet. As the terms of the culture war shift, Barack Obama's "coalition of the ascendant" — the mix of millennials, racial minorities and college-educated white voters whose collective electoral power was supposed to establish a sustainable progressive majority — is fraying, undermining the decades-long conventional wisdom that America's increasing racial diversity would inevitably push the country left.

That thesis was prominently advanced by the progressive political scientists John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira, but both of them have grown alarmed about the rightward movement among nonwhite voters in recent years. "If Hispanic voting trends continue to move steadily against the Democrats, the pro-Democratic effect of nonwhite population growth will be blunted, if not canceled out entirely," Mr. Teixeira wrote in December. "That could — or should — provoke quite a sea change in Democratic thinking." In the absence of that sea change, however, it is likely that disaffected people of all races will continue to move into the Republican coalition.

But is all this good for American conservatism? Particularly for social conservatives older than I am, who have sustained a long string of losses in the culture war, the potential for a new Republican majority is nothing to sniff at. But some have already expressed misgivings about this coalition. "We must not allow evangelical political priorities to be co-opted by functional pagans simply because we share a limited set of political objectives," wrote Andrew T. Walker, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Pushing back on "woke lunacy" is valuable, he said, but it may not be worth embracing a politics that "causes Christians to adopt or excuse the disposition of cruelty and licentiousness." As of now, the new secular conservatives and the old religious right are bound together in an uneasy partnership to fight the cultural left. But they may yet find themselves at odds about the country's future.

The Rise and Fall of the Religious Right

The Republican Party hasn't always been the natural home for conservative Christians. In the years leading up to Roe v. Wade, some Republican governors — including Ronald Reagan of California — helped liberalize state abortion laws. In 1970, Nelson Rockefeller, New York's liberal Republican governor, signed what Planned Parenthood's president at the time, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, approvingly called "the most liberal abortion law in the world." Democrats, on the other hand, were hardly all social liberals. In 1976, Jimmy Carter's presidential bid was backed by Pat Robertson, a leading voice on the emerging religious right and the son of a Democratic senator. Mr. Robertson's ally Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition declared that "God has his hand upon Jimmy Carter to run for president."

All of that began to change with the inflammation of the culture wars in the final decades of the 20th century: Roe, the rise of mass-produced pornography, the Supreme Court's ban on school-sponsored prayer, the gay rights movement and the push for an Equal Rights Amendment all drove the religious right to organize as a political force. As Democrats moved left on these issues, the G.O.P. pivoted right. In 1980 the Democratic Party platform added its first plank on gay rights, prompting the conservative columnist Pat Buchanan to remark bitterly that Mr. Carter was "not the sort of simpleton to allow biblical beliefs to get in the way of carrying San Francisco."

When Mr. Reagan ran for president, he disavowed the abortion bill he signed in California as a "mistake" and courted the Moral Majority. In 1983 he published "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" — the first book written by a sitting president. By the time George W. Bush was elected on the backs of evangelicals and born-again Christians in 2000, the culture war battle lines were clear. He went on to carry 80 percent of voters who ranked "moral values" as their top issue in 2004.

But American church attendance was declining. The share of self-identified Christians in the United States dropped from 75 percent in 2011 to 63 percent in 2021 while the share of religious "nones" — i.e., those who identified as atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular" — jumped from 19 percent to 29 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. The G.O.P. has not been immune to this trend. The share of Republicans who belong to a church dropped from 75 percent in 2010 to 65 percent in 2020, according to Gallup. Although the sharp drop-off in religiosity began in the liberal mainline Protestant denominations, it has spread to their conservative counterparts as well. Fewer than half of Republicans said "being Christian" was an important part of being American in 2020, according to Pew — a 15 percentage point drop from 2016. Across the ideological and theological spectrum, organized religion is waning.

As a result, the religious right's influence in the G.O.P. has been declining since the Bush era. The party's 2008 presidential nominee, John McCain, repeatedly flip-flopped on Roe, voted against a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and decried Jerry Falwell as one of several "agents of intolerance." Mitt Romney, who sat atop the G.O.P. presidential ticket in 2012, had a similarly spotty track record on social issues.

While President Donald Trump delivered on a number of religious conservative priorities — most notably, appointing enough conservative justices to the Supreme Court to cobble together a likely majority of anti-Roe votes — he is a lifelong pro-choicer and sexual libertine who made explicit appeals to gay and lesbian voters on the 2016 campaign trail and was the first openly pro-same-sex-marriage candidate to win the presidency. "It is hardly surprising that the religious right is no longer even perceived as a relevant force in U.S. politics," George Hawley concluded in The American Conservative. "Far from a kingmaker in the political arena, the Christian right is now mostly ignored."

Revolution From the Middle

The decline in Republican church membership directly coincides with the rise of Mr. Trump. As Timothy P. Carney found in 2019, the voters who went for Mr. Trump in the 2016 primary were far more secular than the religious right: In the 2016 G.O.P. primaries, Mr. Trump won only about 32 percent of voters who went to church more than once a week. In contrast, he secured about half of those who went "a few times a year," 55 percent of those who "seldom" attend and 62 percent of Republicans who never go to church. In other words, Mr. Carney wrote, "every step down in church attendance brought a step up in Trump support, and vice versa."

The right's new culture war represents the worldview of people the sociologist Donald Warren called "Middle American radicals," or M.A.Rs. This demographic, which makes up the heart of Mr. Trump's electoral base, is composed primarily of non-college-educated middle- and lower-middle-class white people, and it is characterized by a populist hostility to elite pieties that often converges with the old social conservatism. But M.A.Rs do not share the same religious moral commitments as their devoutly Christian counterparts, both in their political views and in their lifestyles. As Ross Douthat noted, nonchurchgoing Trump voters are "less likely to be married and more likely to be divorced" than those who regularly attend religious services. No coincidence, then, that a 2021 Gallup poll showed 55 percent of Republicans now support gay marriage — up from just 28 percent in 2011.

These voters are more nationalistic and less amenable to multiculturalism than their religious peers, and they profess a skepticism of the cosmopolitan open-society arguments for free trade and mass immigration that have been made by neoliberals and neoconservatives alike. "M.A.Rs feel they are members of an exploited class — excluded from real political representation, harmed by conventional tax and trade policies, victimized by crime and social deviance and denigrated by popular culture and elite institutions," Matthew Rose wrote in "First Things." They "unapologetically place citizens over foreigners, majorities over minorities, the native-born over recent immigrants, the normal over the transgressive and fidelity to a homeland over cosmopolitan ideals."

In this sense, the fierceness of today's culture wars is actually tied to the decline in organized religion. Frequent church attendance is correlated with more negative attitudes toward gay men, lesbians and feminists, but as the pollster Emily Ekins noted in 2018, it softened respondents' views of culture war issues such as race, immigration and identity. Nonchurchgoing Trump voters are more likely to support a border wall, tighter restrictions on legal immigration and a ban on immigration to the United States from some Muslim-majority countries. They are less inclined to agree that "acceptance of racial and religious diversity is at the core of American identity." While the majority of religious conservatives eventually fell in line behind Mr. Trump, the political and cultural energy he represented was primarily a reflection of the nonreligious right.

What is occurring on the right, then, is a partial realization of the program that the hard-right writer Sam Francis championed in his 1994 essay "Religious Wrong." He argued that cultural, ethnic and social identities "are the principal lines of conflict" between Middle Americans and progressive elites and that the "religious orientation of the Christian right serves to create what Marxists like to call a 'false consciousness' for Middle Americans." In other words, political Christianity prevented the right-wing base from fully understanding the culture war as a class war — a power struggle between Middle America and a hostile federal regime. He saw Christianity's universalist ideals as at odds with the defense of the American nation, which was being dispossessed by mass immigration and multiculturalism. "Organized Christianity today," he wrote in 2001, "is the enemy of the West and the race that created it."

Mr. Francis' position, of course, has always been far outside the mainstream of conservative opinion. Conservatives have traditionally viewed religion as foundational to Western heritage, and they have seen its moderating influence on identitarian conflicts as a crucial component of civic harmony. But as a description of recent trends, his assessment holds some weight: The decline of organized religion on the right has, in fact, supercharged the culture war.

Many observers — including Mr. Francis, whose writing became more openly white nationalist toward the end of his career — have been quick to suggest that this new energy is, in essence, white identity politics. It's true that the decline of religion as an organizing force on the right has made other forms of identity more prominent — and in the absence of a humanizing Christian ethic, white racial consciousness could fill the void. There are and always have been strains of white-supremacist politics that reject Christianity for that reason. (The American eugenicist Madison Grant, for example, echoed Friedrich Nietzsche in denouncing Christianity as "the religion of the slave, the meek and the lowly." Christianity tends "to break down class and race distinctions," Mr. Grant wrote in 1916. "Such distinctions are absolutely essential to the maintenance of race purity in any community when two or more races live side by side.")

But it would be wrong to reduce these developments to racial animus. In a speech at the 2021 National Conservatism Conference, Mr. Rufo, a leading conservative activist, described the New Right's project as a counterrevolution: "The goal is to protect these people, Middle Americans of all racial backgrounds — working class and middle class — to protect them against what I think is a hostile and nihilistic elite that is seeking to impose its values onto the working and middle classes to bolster their own power, prestige, status and achievement."

Mr. Rufo, like many of his contemporaries, rarely discusses matters of faith. Today's right-wing culture warriors think in distinctly Marxian terms: a class struggle between a proletarian base of traditionalists and a powerful public-private bureaucracy that is actively hostile to the American way of life. In lieu of Mr. Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative avatars of today's culture war look more like Mr. Rufo or — at the level of elected office — Governor DeSantis of Florida. A hero of the new cultural right and a prospective 2024 presidential front-runner, the governor is nominally Catholic and is politically friendly to conservative Christians. But he rarely discusses his religion publicly and almost never in the context of politics. (He did cite his "faith in God" and "in the power of prayer" when discussing his wife's breast cancer diagnosis last November.)

Overthrowing the New Left

Whereas the old Christian conservatism was about defending an old order, the new social conservatism is about overthrowing a new one. The transformation of the right is a direct response to a shift on the left. In the years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when the G.O.P. was the party of the traditional moral order, many individualists, rebels and eccentrics found themselves aligned with progressives. Today the reverse is true. The left is now widely seen as the schoolmarm of American public life, and the right is associated with the gleeful violation of convention. Contemporary social pieties are distinctly left wing, and progressives enforce them with at least as much moral ardor as the most zealous members of the religious right.

In recent years, American progressivism has departed from its traditional live-and-let-live philosophy on social issues, graduating from a push for rights (e.g., same-sex marriage) to a demand for affirmation (e.g., mandates that religious bakers custom-make cakes celebrating same-sex marriage). Progressives and religious conservatives alike have argued that this was the inevitable conclusion of the gay rights movement — that the logic of civil rights law required the transformation of the public square to accommodate L.G.B.T.Q. Americans once they were recognized as a distinct class.

The left's program is now not so much securing equal rights for certain groups as punishing those who hold views toward those groups that — while well within the mainstream just a decade or two ago — are now deemed unacceptable. Religious conservatives, for their part, have increasingly retreated from a battle for the public view of sexuality and marriage to the defensive crouch of "religious liberty."

Today's left-wing cultural program represents the tastes and worldview of an insular class of often white progressive elites, who now sit to the left of nonwhite Democrats on any number of social issues, including race. (A 2017 Pew survey, for example, found that 79.2 percent of white liberals agreed that "racial discrimination is the main reason why many Black people can't get ahead these days," whereas 59.9 percent of Black Americans said the same.) Though a group Pew calls the 'progressive left' — which is 68 percent white — makes up just 12 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, its members are more likely to donate to campaigns and turn out to vote than other Democratic constituencies.

As a result, they exercise an outsize influence over the social agenda of the Democratic Party. Moderate Democrats in Congress have regularly broken with progressives on economic issues like regulation and spending, but the entire party is generally in lock step on most social issues. All but one of the 225 House Democrats elected in 2018 are co-sponsors of the Equality Act, which would write gender identity and sexual orientation into federal civil rights law, and House Democrats have rarely, if ever, publicly acknowledged that ideas central to critical race theory are being taught in public schools, let alone criticized that fact.

As Democratic elites have embraced a more aggressive form of social liberalism, the party has alienated a swath of its traditional working-class base. Many Americans of all racial backgrounds are deeply uncomfortable with at least some aspects of post-Obama cultural progressivism. A recent poll from the American Principles Project, for example, found that Hispanics and African Americans in six battleground states supported "laws that prohibit biological males who identify as transgender women from participating in girls' sports programs both in K-12 and at the collegiate level." When it came to "banning puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and physical sex-change surgeries for children under the age of 18 who identify as transgender," Hispanics supported such measures by a margin of nine percentage points and African Americans by a margin of 15 points.

All this challenges the conventional wisdom among Republican elites. The G.O.P.'s post-2012 "autopsy," for example, argued for a strategy of moderation on cultural issues — paired with a recommitment to low taxes and deregulation — to make inroads with nonwhite voters. In fact, the opposite strategy seems to have been successful. In 2020, Mr. Trump won more votes from nonwhite people and Hispanics than any other Republican presidential candidate in modern American history and a higher percentage of nonwhite and Hispanic votes than any other since Mr. Bush in 2004, running on an aggressive culture-war platform that simultaneously eschewed several tenets of Republican economic orthodoxy, from welfare cuts and government spending to immigration and free trade. To rephrase James Carville's famous adage on the 1992 campaign trail: It's the culture war, stupid.


Conservatism in a Secular America

The future of the emergent, not-so-silent majority remains uncertain. If Roe is overturned, it may well heighten the contradictions within the uneasy alliance of the new and old forms of social conservatism. In the days after the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion, the Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy — perhaps the most prominent representative of M.A.R.s — declared that if Republicans tried to ban abortion, he would become a Democrat. Just let a "woman do what she wants with her body," he said, with an expletive for emphasis.

A controversy at last year's Turning Point USA, a conservative youth conference, was instructive in showing the potential cracks within the new coalition. Brandi Love, a pornographic actress who describes herself as a "sex, drink and rock 'n' roll conservative," purchased tickets to the event, but after a backlash online, she was barred from attending. She slammed the move, describing it as "a worst-case example of cancel culture" to a writer for The Daily Caller. She added that if Turning Point USA "is the future, then the future is run by puritanical, fanatically devout Christians who will demand compliance or else." A number of prominent conservatives echoed the claim: "I couldn't care less who bangs who, and I missed the part of the Constitution that addresses threesomes," tweeted the TV commentator John Cardillo. The Federalist's Ben Domenech concurred: "The right has an opportunity to be the big tent party. Don't be a bunch of prudes."

At the time, I voiced my own objections to Ms. Love's presence at the conference. I rejected her argument that she had been canceled by free speech hypocrites because, I wrote, it assumes that "the only valid alternative to political correctness and left-wing cultural orthodoxy is the absence of any social or cultural standards whatsoever." This is the heart of the distinction between anti-woke liberals and traditional social conservatives: The disaffected recent converts in the conservative coalition often object to the new left-wing puritanism for the same reason that they objected to its old right-wing counterpart: It prevents them from doing and saying whatever they please, free of social repercussions. That is its own kind of libertinism. Social conservatives, in contrast, do not oppose the enforcement of social norms as such; they oppose the enforcement of left-wing social norms on the grounds that they are the wrong norms.

A resolution of these contradictions will not be necessary for the new conservatism to succeed. Every political coalition contains its fair share of internal tensions. But old social conservatives will need to decide how much they are willing to concede in exchange for a political future, and secular converts will need to decide if they are more alienated by the left's cultural authoritarianism than they are by the G.O.P.'s positions on issues like abortion.

If it can be sustained, however, the secular right may be able to deliver on the old religious right's priorities. Indeed, if Roe is overturned, it will have been due to the election of a president who exemplified the new conservatism. In many ways, the new conservatism is winning where the old conservatism could not. The parental backlash against progressive pedagogy, for example, has inspired a wave of states and localities to crack down on obscenity and sexually explicit content in school libraries. Whereas the religious right failed on gay marriage, school prayer and a number of other social issues, the new conservatism — which has yet to even fully take shape — has already notched a wave of important victories. At least 17 states have passed laws aimed at restricting the teaching of critical race theory, and 14 have barred transgender athletes from competing in single-sex sports corresponding to the gender they were not assigned at birth.

Where religious conservatives fit in all this remains uncertain. Some have pointed to a new strain of Catholic thought known as postliberalism, championed primarily by Catholic academics such as Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vermeule, as one promising alternative path for the New Right. Thinkers in this tradition want to implement a specifically — and sometimes explicitly — Catholic political order. But the relationship between these intellectuals and the grass-roots energy has always been uneasy. Insofar as there is crossover between the two forms of conservatism, the Catholic postliberals could be understood as intellectual fellow travelers in the Trumpian culture war. But they do not define its ethos, and in some ways, they are at odds with it.

While the old religious right will see much to like in the new cultural conservatism, they are partners, rather than leaders, in the coalition. That may be the best thing they can hope for in a rapidly secularizing country. The new cultural conservatism may protect the embattled minority of traditionalist Christians; it will not restore them to their pre-eminent place in public life, as the old religious conservatism hoped to do. But it may have an actual chance at winning. And that, from the conservative perspective, is worth a great deal.

Nate Hochman is a fellow at National Review.

There's some interesting polling on this by generation that shows young Democrats may actually be more receptive to this message/approach than older Democrats which is another reason I never really buy a demographics is destiny argument about young voters. It's also relevant to quite why woke/anti-woke matters to the right.

Edit: Worth noting as others have pointed out online that the quotation from Francis about how he argued "that cultural, ethnic and social identities 'are the principal lines of conflict'" slightly glides over the bit about the need to "prevent the inundation of the country by anti-Western immigrants, stop the cultural and racial dispossession of the historic American people, or resist the absorption of the American nation into a multicultural and multiracial globalist regime".

In Hochman's defence he says he did explain that in an earlier draft and states that he does call out Francis as openly white nationalist, which is fair. He does also say the secular conservatism he is talking about is different from Francis's - I'll look forward to that essay.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2022, 10:02:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 06, 2022, 03:33:11 PMFlorida and Missouri too - in terms of voting patterns?

I was thinking of the linkage with West Virginian migration to Ohio.  I base this conclusion on the unimpeachable Historical Document The Drew Carey Show.  I'm not aware of any similar demographic changes brought on by in-migration in Missouri.  Florida works because we have but seems to be a replacement of Northeastern retirees (i.e. Jews) with Midwestern retirees.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 06, 2022, 10:13:45 PM
It's part of polarization.  People who leaned Republican have moved solidly Republican.  As a result rural areas have gone from purplish to solid red.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on June 06, 2022, 11:01:21 PM
In some "the world is a weird place" News, MTG hired Milo Yiannopoulos as a intern.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 06, 2022, 11:40:26 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 06, 2022, 11:01:21 PMIn some "the world is a weird place" News, MTG hired Milo Yiannopoulos as a intern.

Why is that weird? Radical Reactionaries bent on undermining the US and Western democracy support their own. Seems pretty non-weird to me.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 07, 2022, 10:56:04 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2022, 11:40:26 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 06, 2022, 11:01:21 PMIn some "the world is a weird place" News, MTG hired Milo Yiannopoulos as a intern.

Why is that weird? Radical Reactionaries bent on undermining the US and Western democracy support their own. Seems pretty non-weird to me.
Why did Magic The Gathering hire Milo Yannopoulos?




Ok, seriously, what is MTG?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on June 07, 2022, 11:49:46 AM
Marjorie Taylor Greene :D

@Jacob her hiring a reactionary isn't the surprise, it's a Qanon supporter hiring a pedophile that is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2022, 12:03:17 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 07, 2022, 11:49:46 AM@Jacob her hiring a reactionary isn't the surprise, it's a Qanon supporter hiring a pedophile that is.

No nothing surprising there - this is the same faction co-led by Matt Gaetz and who worship one of the few friends of Jeffrey Epstein who went on record raving about the young girls he partied with.

Talking about trafficking and pedophilia is just a rhetorical smear device, like when kids would call each other "gay" in the 80s as a diss. Few of those people actually care about human trafficking or child exploitation or would do one damn thing to stop it.  But if you want someone to shoot up a non-existent pizza shop basement, there are johnny on the spot.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on June 14, 2022, 03:53:40 PM
More nutty stuff from Ohio:

QuoteOhio Gov. DeWine signs a bill arming teachers after 24 hours of training

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill on Monday allowing teachers to carry guns in class after 24 hours of training, over opposition from teachers and a police group. Backers say the policy will make schools safer, but critics say that's not the case, citing experts' analysis.

The new law dramatically reduces the amount of training a teacher must undergo before they can carry a gun in a school safety zone. Instead of more than 700 hours of training that's currently required, school staff who want to be armed would get training that "shall not exceed" 24 hours, House Bill 99 states.

"DeWine, who had campaigned for gun restrictions after the mass shooting in Dayton in 2019, said signing this bill is part of an overall plan to harden school security," according to the Statehouse News Bureau.

A contested approach gets Ohio's legal backing
The legislation is similar to a controversial policy adopted by a school district in Madison Township, Ohio, in 2018 to make it easier for staff to carry guns. A group of local parents sued, saying teachers should have peace officer training before they can bring a gun to work.

The Ohio Supreme Court sided with the parents last summer. But now the 24-hour requirement is becoming state law.

The new law's backers include state Sen. Frank Hoagland, who calls it "a common-sense, proactive step in securing our schools from the threat of an active shooter."

Of the few people who testified in favor of the bill in the last hearing on the legislation, one was the CEO of S.T.A.R.T, a company Hoagland founded to advise schools and other entities on security and crisis preparation, as the Ohio Capital Journal notes.

In more than a year of debate on the legislation, witnesses spoke to oppose it more than 360 times, while around 20 people spoke in favor.

DeWine says the law will give schools an option
Both the Ohio Federation of Teachers and Ohio Education Association had urged DeWine to veto the bill, saying it is "dangerous and irresponsible" to put more guns in schools in the hands of people who aren't adequately trained.

"House Bill 99 will make Ohio's students less safe in their schools," the organizations said in a joint statement.

Its opponents also include Moms Demand Action and the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.

The FOP's Mike Weinman testified relaxing Ohio's regulations would create a jumble of school district requirements and result in inadequately trained teachers who will then confront a confusion of roles.

When armed, a teacher's first responsibility is to act as a first responder, Weinman said: "She will be required to abandon her students and respond to whatever threat may be in the building at a moment's notice."

But the governor had previously signaled his support for the bill, and he confirmed it in an interview on Sunday with local TV station WFMJ.

"No school has to do this. This is up to a local school board," DeWine said, adding that some schools might have security officers or other plans to deter or counter an active shooter scenario.

"The best thing is to have a police officer in the schools," he said. "They can be plain clothes, but some schools may not be able to do that."

Studies and experts say it's not a good idea to arm teachers
One longtime researcher of school shootings recently told NPR that he has found that arming teachers isn't a good strategy "because it invites numerous disasters and problems, and the chances of it actually helping are so minuscule."

In 2020, an analysis by RAND concluded that there were "no qualifying studies" on whether arming staff in K–12 schools causes or prevents a range of negative outcomes, including deaths or injuries from accidental shootings to suicides, crime and mass shootings.

But the RAND analysis also said that in the decades since two federal laws on gun-free schools were adopted in the early 1990s, it's become much less likely that a student will carry a weapon, be it a gun or a knife.

"In 1993, 12 percent of students reported carrying a weapon on school property during the previous 30 days," RAND stated, adding, "in 2017, only 4 percent of students reported bringing a weapon to school."

The analysis also noted that despite the terrible tragedy of school shootings, "most students killed with firearms are shot in their own homes, typically because of a domestic dispute, accidental or negligent discharge of a gun, or suicide."

States' laws on guns in schools differ vastly
At least three U.S. states — Alabama, Oregon and Utah — let anyone with a concealed-carry permit bring a gun into a K–12 school, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

It's part of a patchwork of policies about guns on campus, with varying levels of training and licensing requirements. All but a handful of states allow law enforcement to bring guns onto school grounds. But from there, the laws diverge.

In at least 18 states, school authorities can allow anyone they choose to carry a gun on campus in some cases, according to the NCSL.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 15, 2022, 08:33:35 AM
There was a house special election yesterday in an 80% hispanic district -- the second most hispanic in the country. The republican won by 8 points.

https://news.yahoo.com/republican-mayra-flores-flips-dem-032809755.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 15, 2022, 05:06:53 PM
She's also a Q-Anon supporter. And Elon Musk voted for her.

Large parts of the US are simply gone, aren't they. What a cesspool.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 15, 2022, 08:29:26 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 15, 2022, 05:06:53 PMShe's also a Q-Anon supporter. And Elon Musk voted for her.

Large parts of the US are simply gone, aren't they. What a cesspool.

The district had never elected a republican until yesterday and voted for obama and clinton by over 20%. Not sure it is a reason to talk about parts of the US being "simply gone".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 01:06:37 AM
Doesn't your first sentence contradict your second?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 16, 2022, 03:09:15 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 01:06:37 AMDoesn't your first sentence contradict your second?

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "simply gone". Clearly it is still a district where Democrats *can* win.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tamas on June 16, 2022, 04:38:50 AM
You Americans get so defensive when somebody from the outside points something negative out.  :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on June 16, 2022, 06:34:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2022, 04:38:50 AMYou Americans get so defensive when somebody from the outside points something negative out.  :lol:
Rather than saying half our major political parties are authoritarians seeking the installation of a theocratic dictatorship, you could say that half of them are dedicated to democracy and rule of law.
You know, focus on the positive, the glass half full kind of thing.  :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 16, 2022, 07:15:54 AM
 
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 01:06:37 AMDoesn't your first sentence contradict your second?

No.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 16, 2022, 07:16:53 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2022, 04:38:50 AMYou Americans get so defensive when somebody from the outside points something negative out.  :lol:
Are you really chuckling about *Americans* getting defensive over *Zoupa* calling the country a cesspool?

That is...hilarious. I don't recall you ever once going after him after one of his 400 nationalistic rants about France....

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 11:52:13 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 16, 2022, 03:09:15 AMYou're going to have to explain what you mean by "simply gone".

Irredeemable. Gone off the deep end. Crazy.

If smack in the middle of the Jan 6 inquiries/media cycle, people decide to vote for a Q-Anon loony, then I think that kinda qualifies as a cesspool.

Either they embrace the "JFK Jr is coming back", they didn't care enough to do some basic research prior to voting or they didn't vote at all. None of these options are positive indicators.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2022, 12:06:47 PM
Zoupa we just don't understand why you hate JFK Jr so much that you want him to stay dead.

Have a heart.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 16, 2022, 12:11:36 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 11:52:13 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 16, 2022, 03:09:15 AMYou're going to have to explain what you mean by "simply gone".

Irredeemable. Gone off the deep end. Crazy.

If smack in the middle of the Jan 6 inquiries/media cycle, people decide to vote for a Q-Anon loony, then I think that kinda qualifies as a cesspool.

Either they embrace the "JFK Jr is coming back", they didn't care enough to do some basic research prior to voting or they didn't vote at all. None of these options are positive indicators.

Zoupa, I don't want to deny that a significant minority of the US population has embraced the crazy.  One third of Americans believe Trump lost due to voter fraud as a key example.  This is Not Good, to put it mildly.

But it's not a majority of americans.  So to try and figure out why a pro-Trump republican won in an 80% Latino district in south Texas requires more explanation than just that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2022, 12:13:08 PM
One-third embracing full batshit is pretty bad.  Especially when there is another 10-15% willing to pander or ignore that to get what they want politically.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 16, 2022, 12:23:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2022, 12:13:08 PMOne-third embracing full batshit is pretty bad.  Especially when there is another 10-15% willing to pander or ignore that to get what they want politically.

Especially when another 1/3 to 1/2 are apathetica and/or supressed and don't participate significantly in the democratic process.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 16, 2022, 12:32:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2022, 12:13:08 PMOne-third embracing full batshit is pretty bad.  Especially when there is another 10-15% willing to pander or ignore that to get what they want politically.
Not the most reliable source, but still, it shows the priorities of the Republican party.  The party that just got one more House member elected, the party that is likely to win both House and Senate during the mid-terms by discussing 'core-issues', very important to people's heart:

https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-slams-kids-drag-shows-needs-illegal-1715866


QuoteRepublican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia is lashing out against the "indoctrination" of children attending drag shows, arguing that it "needs to be illegal."
Greene maintained that a legal remedy was required to stop children from "stuffing" money into "a drag queen bra" while sharing a video purporting to show the practice at an all-ages drag show by the conservative Libs of TikTok social media account to Twitter on Tuesday. Greene is one of many conservatives to have recently railed against events like "Drag Queen Story Hour," while also saying that the LGBTQ community is attempting to "indoctrinate" or "groom" children.
"This needs to be illegal," Greene tweeted while sharing the video on Tuesday. "What's the difference in children stuffing cash in a drag queen bra and a strippers bra? Nothing. It's wrong and it's indoctrination."
Greene's Communications Director Nick Dyer declined to comment further when asked by Newsweek whether the congresswoman would be in favor of a new law to address the issue, saying only "that's what the tweet says."
Although the Libs of TikTok account claimed that the video shows cash being stuffed into the drag queen's bra by "someone who appears to be a minor," the clip does not include footage of any audience member who is clearly underage doing so. Some young children can be seen handing the drag queen money instead.
During an episode of her MTG:Live streaming show late last month, Greene predicted that heterosexuals were destined to go extinct due to an increase in LGBTQ people.
"They just want you to think that all of a sudden the entire population is steadily turning gay or turning trans," Greene said. "Probably in about four or five generations, no one will be straight anymore. Everyone will be either gay or trans or non-conforming or whatever the list of 50 or 60 different options there are."
Greene has made multiple comments speaking out against the LGBTQ community, with a particular focus on transgender or gender non-conforming people and those who support them. During an interview with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in February, Greene appeared to suggest that physical violence was "exactly how we need to stand up" to transgender and non-binary people.


a) I would be much more concerned about the need to arm teachers and post security guards at schools to protect children than I would be of them seeing transvestites or transsexuals.

b) Anyone talking about using violence to solve a political problem needs to be jailed.

c) I'm not holding my breath.

d) I'm cautiously leaning toward Zoupa on this: when a substantial proportion of people keep on voting and liking such people, how are we suppose to analyze American politics?  All is fine?  No particular problem in US society right now that warrants some attention by foreigners other than the casual interest in another country's politics?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 16, 2022, 12:33:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2022, 12:13:08 PMOne-third embracing full batshit is pretty bad.  Especially when there is another 10-15% willing to pander or ignore that to get what they want politically.

Yeah, what they are really embracing is the belief that their side (the superheroes) can never lose unless the other side (the supervillains) cheats.  All elections for them are either victories or fraudulent.  When 1/3 of the voters of a nation reject democracy, its hard to see how it ever recovers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 16, 2022, 12:54:34 PM
Are the Dems hitting back against that specifically?

Like this guy who just got elected - was he asked how he reconciles asking people to vote for him with the fact that he rejects the idea that if a Republican loses, he should not just try to seize power anyway?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 16, 2022, 01:00:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2022, 12:54:34 PMAre the Dems hitting back against that specifically?

Like this guy who just got elected - was he asked how he reconciles asking people to vote for him with the fact that he rejects the idea that if a Republican loses, he should not just try to seize power anyway?

To the extent it gets justified, it's by the fact that the only way a Republican can lose (Trump in particular) is by fraud.  So they're not "seizing power", they're just correcting for the fraud.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 16, 2022, 02:42:10 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 11:52:13 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 16, 2022, 03:09:15 AMYou're going to have to explain what you mean by "simply gone".

Irredeemable. Gone off the deep end. Crazy.

If smack in the middle of the Jan 6 inquiries/media cycle, people decide to vote for a Q-Anon loony, then I think that kinda qualifies as a cesspool.

Either they embrace the "JFK Jr is coming back", they didn't care enough to do some basic research prior to voting or they didn't vote at all. None of these options are positive indicators.

That is dumb. This particular district voted against Trump both times he was on the ballot. It isn't a pro Trump district.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 07:21:28 PM
Ok Dorsey. So what's your explanation for that particular district voting for a Qanon candidate?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2022, 07:24:19 PM
Did you read the link Zoupa?  The term only goes until January and Democratic voters didn't bother voting and the Democratic candidate didn't spend any money.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 07:44:47 PM
Even so, I believe the question still stands.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 16, 2022, 08:33:27 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 07:44:47 PMEven so, I believe the question still stands.

Even so, I believe the answer still stands.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 16, 2022, 08:43:38 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 07:44:47 PMEven so, I believe the question still stands.
Yi has a valid explanation.  It is an exceptional result and it is unique, it is hard to derive a stat from this.

I am more worried about general trends.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2022, 08:48:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2022, 08:43:38 PMI am more worried about general trends.

Mwa ohsee
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 17, 2022, 04:06:21 AM
Although there is a general trend of Republicans doing increasingly well with Latino voters. There is a route for them to becoming a majority party if it keeps going.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 17, 2022, 04:58:18 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 07:21:28 PMOk Dorsey. So what's your explanation for that particular district voting for a Qanon candidate?

Aside from what Yi said, it isn't proof that voters don't see that republicans are awful because they vote for republicans. It is possible that they see republicans as awful but democrats as worse, or at least not worth trusting to have control of all three branches. And that there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 17, 2022, 07:04:41 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2022, 04:58:18 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2022, 07:21:28 PMOk Dorsey. So what's your explanation for that particular district voting for a Qanon candidate?

Aside from what Yi said, it isn't proof that voters don't see that republicans are awful because they vote for republicans. It is possible that they see republicans as awful but democrats as worse, or at least not worth trusting to have control of all three branches. And that there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction.

That reasoning definitely moves the US into cesspool territory. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 17, 2022, 07:15:47 AM
You can just fuck right off.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 17, 2022, 07:21:59 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2022, 07:04:41 AMThat reasoning definitely moves the US into cesspool territory. 

If tactical voting moves a country into cesspool territory, what does that say about Canada?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 17, 2022, 07:27:44 AM
One challenge is whether it's actually just more of a normal American country? If you look at risks in the US - race, warring elites, judicial capture and use of the judiciary to advance or stymie political goals, political deadlock between executive and legislature, one side or other deciding that certain politics represent an existential threat that justifies an "emergency", corruption tolerated if they're "on our side", heavily contested voting rights and systems, powerful special interests particularly around extractive industries and the media etc. I've noted before that generally presidential systems end in an authoritarian capture of the institutions or a "guardian" coup of some form to end deadlock and the US has been an unusual exception.

None of that is new even to the recent political history of countries like Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico.

Even now in Colombia there's the first candidate of the left in the run-off in Colombian history (and he is a former guerilla and terrorist) his competition is a hard-right billionaire businessman who's come to prominence mainly via Tik Tok. Bolsonaro ultimately came to power in elections after manoeuvres by the right through the courts and Senate to impeach Rousseff and imprison Lula - Lula's now back and polling enough to win, but Bolsonaro's apparently building support in the military to "prevent fraud". I think it's fairly accepted now that the removal of Morales was illegitimate (or an inappropriate use of legitimate constitutional tools) and subsequently rejected by voters in the elections. It may not be exactly the same as the US and the GOP - but there are definitely echoes.

I think a lot of the way we're understanding America is primarily based on it being exceptional and different from other American states - and that what is happening in America now around the right is also exceptional. I wonder if a more helpful approach (and one that might - I don't know - have success stories of how to fight back for democracy) is looking at it in the context of the rest of the Americas?

Edit: e.g. why does this week's Economist front cover basically stop at the Rio Grande:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVX_ODhXsAADIEf?format=jpg&name=small)

And the populist leader is also a big echo - and includes, say, AMLO.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2022, 04:38:50 AMYou Americans get so defensive when somebody from the outside points something negative out.  :lol:

I was totally wrong though. It's no big deal to elect the fascist who believes lizard people rule the world because it's only for 6 months and also previously the district voted for Obama.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2022, 09:38:49 AM
It is hard to explain, given that the Obamas were so pro-lizard people, forming a strong relationship with their leader, Elizabeth II.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 10:06:19 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2022, 04:38:50 AMYou Americans get so defensive when somebody from the outside points something negative out.  :lol:

I was totally wrong though. It's no big deal to elect the fascist who believes lizard people rule the world because it's only for 6 months and also previously the district voted for Obama.
Are you confident that nobody can go through all of Frances various elected officials and not find anyone as ridiculous?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 17, 2022, 10:12:26 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2022, 07:21:59 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2022, 07:04:41 AMThat reasoning definitely moves the US into cesspool territory. 

If tactical voting moves a country into cesspool territory, what does that say about Canada?
we're a cesspool territory.  Well, we're no longer in the top ten peaceful countries, thanks to Liberal rule.  So, according to their own vision of the world, it means we're in a cesspool territory now.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 10:18:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 10:06:19 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2022, 04:38:50 AMYou Americans get so defensive when somebody from the outside points something negative out.  :lol:

I was totally wrong though. It's no big deal to elect the fascist who believes lizard people rule the world because it's only for 6 months and also previously the district voted for Obama.
Are you confident that nobody can go through all of Frances various elected officials and not find anyone as ridiculous?

1- Whataboutism
2- If you do find some, then I would be equally as appalled.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 17, 2022, 10:33:19 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2022, 04:38:50 AMYou Americans get so defensive when somebody from the outside points something negative out.  :lol:

I was totally wrong though. It's no big deal to elect the fascist who believes lizard people rule the world because it's only for 6 months and also previously the district voted for Obama.

Deeply researching this by reading her wikipedia page and half of an article on businessinsider that popped up, it seems you are concluding that she is a fascist that believes lizard people rule the world based on her using hashtags and nothing else, and she says she never supported qanon.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 10:40:29 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 10:18:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 10:06:19 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2022, 04:38:50 AMYou Americans get so defensive when somebody from the outside points something negative out.  :lol:

I was totally wrong though. It's no big deal to elect the fascist who believes lizard people rule the world because it's only for 6 months and also previously the district voted for Obama.
Are you confident that nobody can go through all of Frances various elected officials and not find anyone as ridiculous?

1- Whataboutism
2- If you do find some, then I would be equally as appalled.
And you would conclude then that France is a cesspool?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 10:54:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 10:40:29 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 10:18:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 10:06:19 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2022, 04:38:50 AMYou Americans get so defensive when somebody from the outside points something negative out.  :lol:

I was totally wrong though. It's no big deal to elect the fascist who believes lizard people rule the world because it's only for 6 months and also previously the district voted for Obama.
Are you confident that nobody can go through all of Frances various elected officials and not find anyone as ridiculous?

1- Whataboutism
2- If you do find some, then I would be equally as appalled.
And you would conclude then that France is a cesspool?

Parts of it, sure; just like I'd say parts of the US are.

I still don't see what any of this has to do with the discussion at hand.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 10:55:31 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2022, 10:33:19 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2022, 04:38:50 AMYou Americans get so defensive when somebody from the outside points something negative out.  :lol:

I was totally wrong though. It's no big deal to elect the fascist who believes lizard people rule the world because it's only for 6 months and also previously the district voted for Obama.

Deeply researching this by reading her wikipedia page and half of an article on businessinsider that popped up, it seems you are concluding that she is a fascist that believes lizard people rule the world based on her using hashtags and nothing else, and she says she never supported qanon.

See? No big deal.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 17, 2022, 10:59:38 AM
https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 11:00:39 AM
 <_<
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 17, 2022, 03:12:26 PM
In a thread devoted to how fucked up the GOP has become, commenting on how fucked up the GOP is making the US, attracts denial from Americans.

Fascinating
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 03:15:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2022, 03:12:26 PMIn a thread devoted to how fucked up the GOP has become, commenting on how fucked up the GOP is making the US, attracts denial from Americans.

Fascinating
You know perfectly well that what you just said is a flat out lie (in that no American has "denied" anything), and you know that everyone else knows it as well.

What is the point?

Everyone involved from the American side, you know perfectly well, agrees that the GOP is fucked up, and is fucking up America. So you know that it isn't how you just characterized it - you know this.

Yet you state something that is just a straight out lie that you KNOW is a lie.

Why? Do you value Zoupa stroking you that much?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2022, 03:42:18 PM
It's possible for America to have a serious anti-lizard people racism problem and yet still have functioning sewage systems.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2022, 03:44:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2022, 10:33:19 AMshe says she never supported qanon.

Of course not.  She is an avid Dumas fan who mixed up "Where we go one we go all" for "All for one, and one for all"

See it turns out it's France's fault after all.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 05:29:42 PM
Not sure why a non American pointing out some obvious crazy shit makes some of you close ranks. Interesting visceral response.

It was a pretty innocuous starting point, all things considered.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 05:30:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2022, 03:44:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2022, 10:33:19 AMshe says she never supported qanon.

Of course not.  She is an avid Dumas fan who mixed up "Where we go one we go all" for "All for one, and one for all"

See it turns out it's France's fault after all.

Dumas is Q. PROOF!!!!!!?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 17, 2022, 05:29:42 PMNot sure why a non American pointing out some obvious crazy shit makes some of you close ranks. Interesting visceral response.

I thought your response to a completely known point as a way to make another tired bigoted attack on the "cesspool" of America was interesting as well.

Well, not interesting so much as utterly routine and predictable.

That you are SHOCKED, SHOCKED I SAY that Americans find your bigotry objectionable isn't all that interesting either.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on June 18, 2022, 05:07:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 03:15:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2022, 03:12:26 PMIn a thread devoted to how fucked up the GOP has become, commenting on how fucked up the GOP is making the US, attracts denial from Americans.

Fascinating
You know perfectly well that what you just said is a flat out lie (in that no American has "denied" anything), and you know that everyone else knows it as well.

What is the point?

Everyone involved from the American side, you know perfectly well, agrees that the GOP is fucked up, and is fucking up America. So you know that it isn't how you just characterized it - you know this.

Yet you state something that is just a straight out lie that you KNOW is a lie.

Why? Do you value Zoupa stroking you that much?

You are a very tough guy over the internet
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 18, 2022, 07:04:01 AM
:lmfao:

CC is threatening me. That is....awesome.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 18, 2022, 08:01:34 AM
Being bigger doesn't make your arguments better. You'd think a lawyer would realize this.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 18, 2022, 02:18:18 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 18, 2022, 08:01:34 AMBeing bigger doesn't make your arguments better. You'd think a lawyer would realize this.
Being taller does make your arguments better.  That's a fact.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 18, 2022, 02:37:09 PM
I'm 188cm, ergo I'm almost always right.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on June 18, 2022, 03:53:24 PM
Don't know if this is newsworthy at this point:

QuoteThe Texas Republican Party has voted to shut out Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans, from participating in their convention. Log Cabin Republicans just said it is "shameful" they they are being "excluded" and that Republicans are being "narrow-minded."

Also:

QuoteThe @TexasGOP has long opposed gay marriage, but its 2022 proposed platform has new language to describe homosexuality:

"Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice."

This language wasn't in the party's 2018 and 2020 platforms. Delegates will vote on the 2022 platform today.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on June 18, 2022, 05:07:42 PM
Being a politician is an abnormal lifestyle choice.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 18, 2022, 05:12:49 PM
And Obergefell and cases striking down anti-sodomy laws were pretty explicitly called out in that draft Alito decision and would be subject to the same logic. If Roe goes it's difficult to see them surviving. This stuff, as with Roe, isn't some secret conspiracy - it's a plan and strategy Republicans have been pretty open about for at least the last three decades.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 18, 2022, 05:19:03 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 18, 2022, 03:53:24 PMDon't know if this is newsworthy at this point:

QuoteThe Texas Republican Party has voted to shut out Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans, from participating in their convention. Log Cabin Republicans just said it is "shameful" they they are being "excluded" and that Republicans are being "narrow-minded."

Also:

QuoteThe @TexasGOP has long opposed gay marriage, but its 2022 proposed platform has new language to describe homosexuality:

"Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice."

This language wasn't in the party's 2018 and 2020 platforms. Delegates will vote on the 2022 platform today.

All very good developments.  It's about time minorities of all sorts understood that the Republican party is their enemy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 18, 2022, 06:17:42 PM
Go ahead, sow the wind.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on June 18, 2022, 07:42:06 PM
I'm short. If the need arise, I will kneecap any of you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on June 19, 2022, 10:29:53 AM
More fun stuff from the Texas GOP convention:

QuoteTexas GOP Platform also calls for full repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as for the state to hold a referendum on whether Texas should secede
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on June 19, 2022, 11:10:31 AM
I'm not down with their kill the gays and the women policies, but I do like this secession business.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 20, 2022, 12:13:46 AM
I won't use a word like "cesspool" but I'll admit to being more than mildly concerned about recent developments in the US.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 20, 2022, 12:19:45 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2022, 04:58:18 AMAside from what Yi said, it isn't proof that voters don't see that republicans are awful because they vote for republicans. It is possible that they see republicans as awful but democrats as worse, or at least not worth trusting to have control of all three branches. And that there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction.

Okay, so Republicans are looking to reject democracy for elections they don't win. What is it the Democrats are doing that makes them worse? Woke stuff?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 20, 2022, 01:51:44 AM
*some Republicans. There are also ones who do their job, like Mike Pence and Brad Raffensperger.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 20, 2022, 08:58:19 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2022, 12:19:45 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2022, 04:58:18 AMAside from what Yi said, it isn't proof that voters don't see that republicans are awful because they vote for republicans. It is possible that they see republicans as awful but democrats as worse, or at least not worth trusting to have control of all three branches. And that there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction.

Okay, so Republicans are looking to reject democracy for elections they don't win. What is it the Democrats are doing that makes them worse? Woke stuff?
You are framing the question in a way that doesn't really leave any room for an interesting discussion, or a useful one.

People don't look at what Republicans are doing and say "they are rejecting democracy for elections they don't win!". They look at it and say "They are doing to same shit the Dems do with gerrymandering and crap. It is all bullshit, and maybe the Republicans are taking it too far, but look at how expensive gas has become!".

I don't disagree with your framing, btw - I think it is exactly accurate. But I don't think that framing is how the people in question frame it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 20, 2022, 09:50:48 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2022, 12:19:45 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2022, 04:58:18 AMAside from what Yi said, it isn't proof that voters don't see that republicans are awful because they vote for republicans. It is possible that they see republicans as awful but democrats as worse, or at least not worth trusting to have control of all three branches. And that there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction.

Okay, so Republicans are looking to reject democracy for elections they don't win. What is it the Democrats are doing that makes them worse? Woke stuff?

First, it isn't really accurate that republicans don't want to accept elections they don't win. Trump didn't. Lots of republicans support trump in this. Lots don't. There was some doom posting about republicans who certified state results for biden getting primaried: in particular that Trump recruited one of the most prominent republicans to run against the Georgia governor and went all in against the Georgia secretary of state – who was enemy #1 for not only rejecting Trump but secretly recording the phone call with Trump telling him to find more votes and then publicly releasing it. The Trump backed challengers lost by 50 points and 20 points respectively in the republican primary.

Second, the "trump is uniquely bad" was a winning campaign for Biden (and had the benefit of being true) but was incredibly weak in other races. Democrats actually lost seats in the house last cycle, which is stunning for a party winning the white house. Now that Trump is out of office, it won't work. If we had a system where votes would be cast for parties rather than people it could be different, but Trump extremists aren't generally being run in competitive districts.

Democrats are in a really bad spot because of inflation and the economy/gas prices. It isn't really their fault but when this is the environment the party in power is probably going to get creamed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 20, 2022, 10:21:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2022, 08:58:19 AMYou are framing the question in a way that doesn't really leave any room for an interesting discussion, or a useful one.

People don't look at what Republicans are doing and say "they are rejecting democracy for elections they don't win!". They look at it and say "They are doing to same shit the Dems do with gerrymandering and crap. It is all bullshit, and maybe the Republicans are taking it too far, but look at how expensive gas has become!".

I don't disagree with your framing, btw - I think it is exactly accurate. But I don't think that framing is how the people in question frame it.

Yeah, that's very true. But I don't know how the people in question frame it, except that they don't perceive (or care about) the threat to democracy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 20, 2022, 10:44:18 AM
I think the big reasons voters on the whole don't care about the threat to democracy are obvious, and they've been covered before.  In a polarized society where we're fighting a cold civil war, democracy is much more useful to Democrats than to Republicans.  I don't think we can do a lot about that, unfortunately.

On the margins, though, woke liberalism certainly doesn't help.  There is definitely an authoritarian component to woke liberalism, even its proponents here are open about suppression of speech being a feature, not a bug (they just think that the right kind of speech is being suppressed).  If people feel stifled by the cancel culture, and feel like they're not allowed to express thoughts they think they should be allowed to express, then they may not associate democracy with freedom.  They may actually associate it with lack of freedom.  At that point, you may as well go with authoritarianism that agrees with you rather than the authoritarianism that imposes thought police on you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on June 20, 2022, 11:50:32 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 18, 2022, 08:01:34 AMBeing bigger doesn't make your arguments better. You'd think a lawyer would realize this.
Having bigger hands does though.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 20, 2022, 12:24:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2022, 10:44:18 AMI think the big reasons voters on the whole don't care about the threat to democracy are obvious, and they've been covered before.  In a polarized society where we're fighting a cold civil war, democracy is much more useful to Democrats than to Republicans.  I don't think we can do a lot about that, unfortunately.

On the margins, though, woke liberalism certainly doesn't help.  There is definitely an authoritarian component to woke liberalism, even its proponents here are open about suppression of speech being a feature, not a bug (they just think that the right kind of speech is being suppressed).  If people feel stifled by the cancel culture, and feel like they're not allowed to express thoughts they think they should be allowed to express, then they may not associate democracy with freedom.  They may actually associate it with lack of freedom.  At that point, you may as well go with authoritarianism that agrees with you rather than the authoritarianism that imposes thought police on you.

"Republicans are a threat to democracy" is a not a good primary message. The bulk of voters don't have college degrees and are over 50. Most are white. Swing voters are also disproportionately non college graduates. The older messages of "Republicans are going to undermine social security and medicare and mostly want to give tax cuts to the rich" resonates with a primarily working class group.

The "threat to democracy" including things like voter ID laws on the basis of minorities disproportionately not having IDs is not going to get the traction of the old pocketbook issues. The "threat to democracy" being more narrowly defined as Jan. 6 / an actual coup actually doesn't cover the party as a whole, just portions of it (and usually not the portions in competitive areas).

It also is rather logically self defeating...in a two party system, if you can only support democracy by voting for one of two parties, are you still a democracy? 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 20, 2022, 12:27:29 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2022, 12:24:01 PM"Republicans are a threat to democracy" is a not a good primary message. The bulk of voters don't have college degrees and are over 50. Most are white. Swing voters are also disproportionately non college graduates. The older messages of "Republicans are going to undermine social security and medicare and mostly want to give tax cuts to the rich" resonates with a primarily working class group.

The "threat to democracy" including things like voter ID laws on the basis of minorities disproportionately not having IDs is not going to get the traction of the old pocketbook issues. The "threat to democracy" being more narrowly defined as Jan. 6 / an actual coup actually doesn't cover the party as a whole, just portions of it (and usually not the portions in competitive areas).

It also is rather logically self defeating...in a two party system, if you can only support democracy by voting for one of two parties, are you still a democracy? 


I'm kind of impressed how the Jan 6 commission seems to almost go out of its way to involve Republicans.  Liz Cheney is vice-chair of course, but going out of its way to congratulate Mike Pence for his actions that day, to presenting the evidence of multiple Trump staffers all saying there was no evidence the election was rigged.

They certainly could have gone with a "All Republicans are Bastards" approach, but aren't.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 20, 2022, 12:29:33 PM
Here's something from my former governor (who was forced out of office because of a bizarre blackmail scheme.  Also a wife beater), who is running for senate in my state.
https://twitter.com/EricGreitens/status/1538876823978713089
Watch it while you can because it may get tacked down since it's violates Twitter's no inciting violence
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on June 20, 2022, 04:54:35 PM
Ron DeSantis chips in on international diplomacy:

QuoteRon DeSantis
@GovRonDeSantis

The election in Colombia of a former narco-terrorist Marxist is troubling and disappointing. The spread of left-wing totalitarian ideology in the Western Hemisphere is a growing threat. Florida stands with Colombian Americans on the side of freedom.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 20, 2022, 04:59:12 PM
To be fair, South America doesn't have a great record with left wing leaders.  Or right wing leaders, for that matter.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 20, 2022, 04:59:50 PM
Still low-key think he might be the candidate in 2024 :ph34r:

Of course that's not a million miles away from the WSJ interpretation of the election. And no doubt they both would have preferred the alternative candidate - a billionaire businessman, with unconvincing hair who built his campaign on social media (TikTok this time) and who famously said he was a great follower of Adolf Hitler, before clarifying that he meant Albert Einstein.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 20, 2022, 10:50:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2022, 12:29:33 PMHere's something from my former governor (who was forced out of office because of a bizarre blackmail scheme.  Also a wife beater), who is running for senate in my state.
https://twitter.com/EricGreitens/status/1538876823978713089
Watch it while you can because it may get tacked down since it's violates Twitter's no inciting violence

An almost picture-perfect example of what I've been saying about pathetic Republican cosplayers actually believing they are superheroes battling supervillains.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on June 21, 2022, 12:41:30 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2022, 04:59:50 PMwho famously said he was a great follower of Adolf Hitler, before clarifying that he meant Albert Einstein.
:lol: Easy to confuse those two.

Although, Einstein was politically left, so that does not even make sense.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2022, 08:27:29 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2022, 12:27:29 PMI'm kind of impressed how the Jan 6 commission seems to almost go out of its way to involve Republicans

It's more than that - it's really the Liz Cheney Show, essentially presenting the Republican case against Trump.  Deliberate move by the subcommittee to take the air out attempts to write if off as a partisan attack job (the playbook on both impeachments).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2022, 08:35:27 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 20, 2022, 04:54:35 PMRon DeSantis chips in on international diplomacy:

QuoteRon DeSantis
@GovRonDeSantis

The election in Colombia of a former narco-terrorist Marxist is troubling and disappointing. The spread of left-wing totalitarian ideology in the Western Hemisphere is a growing threat. Florida stands with Colombian Americans on the side of freedom.

I share his concerns.  In one of the Western Hemispheric states, the totalitarian leader is carrying out a bitter campaign of political retaliation against a beloved private enterprise and generous employer, smashing the rule of law to over-ride contracts. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 21, 2022, 08:57:11 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2022, 12:13:46 AMI won't use a word like "cesspool" but I'll admit to being more than mildly concerned about recent developments in the US.
What about the phrase "shit pit"?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 21, 2022, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2022, 08:57:11 AMWhat about the phrase "shit pit"?

I think it's one of those things where it's okay for Americans to use phrases like that, but not for non-Americans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 21, 2022, 11:23:12 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2022, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2022, 08:57:11 AMWhat about the phrase "shit pit"?

I think it's one of those things where it's okay for Americans to use phrases like that,

Not really.  <_<
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 21, 2022, 11:50:19 AM
Not even remotely.

Hell, 90% of Languish's political content over the last decade is various flavors of "Holy shit the US is fucked up!"
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on June 21, 2022, 11:57:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2022, 11:50:19 AMNot even remotely.

Hell, 90% of Languish's political content over the last decade is various flavors of "Holy shit the US is fucked up!"

I mean, be less crazy and people will stop calling you crazy :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 21, 2022, 12:02:51 PM
So for the Jan 6 committee, apparently a British filmmaker was making a documentary about the Trump campaign.  They captured numerous videos on and around January 6, including interviews with all the major players.

Their film was subpoenaed by the Jan 6 committee and turned over, and will form part of the public commission.


Damn, I mean I know this is only evidence number 10,006, but Trump is such a narcissist.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on June 21, 2022, 12:26:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2022, 12:02:51 PMSo for the Jan 6 committee, apparently a British filmmaker was making a documentary about the Trump campaign.  They captured numerous videos on and around January 6, including interviews with all the major players.

Their film was subpoenaed by the Jan 6 committee and turned over, and will form part of the public commission.


Damn, I mean I know this is only evidence number 10,006, but Trump is such a narcissist.

Any big examples?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 21, 2022, 02:04:18 PM
British filmmaker? :hmm:

Really hope it was Louis Theroux accidentally invading the Capitol.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 21, 2022, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 21, 2022, 02:04:18 PMBritish filmmaker? :hmm:

Really hope it was Louis Theroux accidentally invading the Capitol.

Dude's name is Alex Holder.

QuoteAs a filmmaker, Holder is best known for his documentary Keep Quiet, which covered far-right Hungarian politician Csanad Szagedi's fall from power. Szagedi was the deputy head of Hungary's radical nationalist Jobbik party, and after years of catering to anti-semitic groups was forced to resign when his own Jewish ancestry became public knowledge.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/alex-holder-jan-6-committee-subpoena-1371644/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 21, 2022, 03:51:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2022, 11:50:19 AMHell, 90% of Languish's political content over the last decade is various flavors of "Holy shit the US is fucked up!"
Hey! It's not our fault you're trying your damn best to make it true!
(https://media.salon.com/2021/03/marjorie-taylor-greene-0228212.jpg)

;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 21, 2022, 04:26:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2022, 03:51:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2022, 11:50:19 AMHell, 90% of Languish's political content over the last decade is various flavors of "Holy shit the US is fucked up!"
Hey! It's not our fault you're trying your damn best to make it true!
(snip)

;)


I don't believe for a second that Berkut is trying his damn best to make it true.  :huh:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 21, 2022, 06:23:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2022, 04:26:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2022, 03:51:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2022, 11:50:19 AMHell, 90% of Languish's political content over the last decade is various flavors of "Holy shit the US is fucked up!"
Hey! It's not our fault you're trying your damn best to make it true!
(snip)

;)


I don't believe for a second that Berkut is trying his damn best to make it true.  :huh:
Is it my fault if English has only one pronoun for the individual and the collective? ;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 21, 2022, 07:09:30 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2022, 03:51:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2022, 11:50:19 AMHell, 90% of Languish's political content over the last decade is various flavors of "Holy shit the US is fucked up!"
Hey! It's not our fault you're trying your damn best to make it true!
(https://media.salon.com/2021/03/marjorie-taylor-greene-0228212.jpg)

;)

That's the face of nationalism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on June 21, 2022, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2022, 04:59:50 PMStill low-key think he might be the candidate in 2024 :ph34r:

Apparently Trump already has him in his crosshairs...  :ph34r:

Quote'I think I would win': Donald Trump takes aim at Ron DeSantis
As the Florida governor rises in the polls, Trump begins to disparage his former ally

The bromance between Donald Trump and the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, appears to be waning as the prospect of the two extreme-right Republicans facing off for the party's presidential nomination grows, with Trump declaring "I think I would win."

As DeSantis's popularity among the Republican base grows nationwide – thanks in part to his regular combative appearances on Fox News and anti-liberal rhetoric – his dramatic ascent in the polls and his refusal to rule out running for president has clearly riled Trump.

True to form, Trump has begun his offensive by taking credit for his likely rival's success.

"If I didn't endorse him [DeSantis], he wouldn't have won," Trump told the New Yorker, which published an in-depth story profiling DeSantis's rise. The former president said that he and DeSantis had a "very good relationship", adding "I'm proud of Ron."

Trump endorsed DeSantis in 2017 over then-Republican frontrunner Adam Putnam after being impressed by the former athlete's combative stance.

Trump, who could soon be forced to give testimony under oath in a New York state civil investigation into his business practices, said he was "very close to making a decision" about launching a third consecutive presidential run, which he has been hinting at ever since losing the 2020 election – a truth he still refuses to publicly accept.

"I don't know if Ron is running, and I don't ask him," Trump said. "It's his prerogative. I think I would win."

In a handful of polls DeSantis, who faces an election for the governor's mansion later this year, comes out ahead of Trump in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Without Trump, he commands a big lead. (Lagging way behind in third place is the Texas senator Ted Cruz.)

The governor's rising star and declining interest in hanging out with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, are fuelling resentment among the former president's inner circle. One Republican political consultant told the New Yorker, "Trump World is working overtime to find ways to burn DeSantis down. They really hate him�."

Perhaps worried that neither his fanbase nor DeSantis subscribe to the New Yorker, Trump said much the same when asked for his thoughts on the 43-year-old governor running for the White House during a phone interview with the rightwing TV station Newsmax on Monday.

"I have a good relationship with Ron, I don't know that he wants to run. I haven't seen that. You're telling me something that I've not seen, so we'll see what happens," he said. "But no, I was very responsible for getting him elected."

In another move that's unlikely to please Trump, some wealthy donors who supported Trump's failed 2020 election race have started contributing to a political committee tied to DeSantis, Politico reported on Sunday. For many this was their first time donating to a candidate in a Florida state-level election.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 21, 2022, 07:42:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2022, 06:23:23 PMIs it my fault if English has only one pronoun for the individual and the collective? ;)


It is your fault that you used a word that applied neither to Berkut individually, nor Berkut in any collective.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 21, 2022, 10:41:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2022, 07:09:30 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2022, 03:51:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2022, 11:50:19 AMHell, 90% of Languish's political content over the last decade is various flavors of "Holy shit the US is fucked up!"
Hey! It's not our fault you're trying your damn best to make it true!
(https://media.salon.com/2021/03/marjorie-taylor-greene-0228212.jpg)

;)

That's the face of nationalism.
Yet, she calls herself a patriot.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 21, 2022, 11:33:11 PM
Yet she calls her self a nationalist.  That's what nationalism looks like from the outside.  That's how strange and laughable and menacing it looks.  That's what you look like when you start going on about nationalism or that weird pro-confederate secessionist argument you make sometimes.  Quebec has left-wing nationalists so maybe they look different, but this is what right-wing nationalism looks like.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on June 22, 2022, 01:27:18 AM
Wake me when a pro-secession Qc MP starts blabbing about Jewish controlled space lasers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 10:49:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2022, 11:33:11 PMYet she calls her self a nationalist.  That's what nationalism looks like from the outside.  That's how strange and laughable and menacing it looks.  That's what you look like when you start going on about nationalism or that weird pro-confederate secessionist argument you make sometimes.  Quebec has left-wing nationalists so maybe they look different, but this is what right-wing nationalism looks like.
I was joking because you guys always insist there's some magical difference between the good, pure patriot and the evil cold-hearted nationalist.

It's exactly the same.  Right wing or left wing does not even matter.  As much as I dislike the left, Sweden and Finland were never the USSR.  Reagan years in the US were not Nazi Germany.

The American Patriots where white men fighting against other white men because they feared their slaves would be taken from them, because they did not want Catholics to have any rights and because they wanted the lands that belonged to Indian tribes.  The rest is as accessory as the Confederacy denouncing some high tariffs as the cause of their own war of independence.

You can be a proud American by not being racist, despite your founding fathers being mostly slavers and against racial equality.

America had racial issues since before it became a country.  Nationalism, as a political concept, is an invention of the 19th century.  It only became a problem when it mixed with imperialism, of which it shares many core issues.  But hey, the problem is certainly that some people are proud of their culture and want it to thrive.  Certainly not that some country invades its weaker neighbors to grab their resources, right? :)

People like MJT are no different than many other politicians of the past.  Winston Churchill let the Indians from Bengal starve for the good of the Empire and generally considered all non British to be inferior.  He was merely a product of his times.  Consider this:
Since 1939, the United Kingdom had been drawing grain and manufactures from India for the war effort, and the colonial government had been printing money to pay for these purchases.  The resulting inflation had combined with other factors to precipitate famine in early 1943.  The following summer, the Government of India asked the War Cabinet for half a million tons of wheat by year-end.  The cereal would feed India's two-million-strong army and workers in war-related industries; if any happened to be left over, it would relieve starvation.  The mere news of the arrival of substantial imports would cause prices to fall, because speculators would anticipate a drop in prices and release any hoarded grain to the market.  Churchill's close friend and technical advisor, Lord Cherwell, demurred, however: he erroneously argued that India's food problem could not be solved by imports.  In any case, expending valuable shipping on Indians "scarcely seems justified unless the Ministry of War Transport cannot find any other use for it," he added in a draft memo.  (In the final version, this sentence was changed to a straightforward recommendation against sending grain.)

This is imperialism, as has been done since antiquity.  Politicians like MJT add nothing new.  They ain't part of some "revolutionary new" political movement.

If you want to be specific to the US, there were always racist US politicians, opposed to immigration and/or wanting to use the power of their army to crush dissent or expand their territory. They existed long before we talked of nationalism.

Imperialism is the problem.  The belief that somehow, your country is superior to all others.  Not the pride once can derive in its cultural group.  Mix imperialism with conservatism, and you got the modern GOP.  We are the best in the world and we should absolutely not change anything.  Add a dose of religious fervor, and you have a recipe for disaster.

But keep blaming it on nationalism all you want.  It'll just blow harder in your face.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2022, 11:07:33 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 10:49:09 AMThe American Patriots where white men fighting against other white men because they feared their slaves would be taken from them, because they did not want Catholics to have any rights and because they wanted the lands that belonged to Indian tribes. 

John Adams would be very surprised to learn that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 22, 2022, 11:17:59 AM
Because he's dead?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 22, 2022, 11:30:45 AM
Doesn't learning by definition include an element of surprise?  If you're not surprised when you learn something, then didn't you already know it and thus didn't learn it?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on June 22, 2022, 11:59:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2022, 11:30:45 AMDoesn't learning by definition include an element of surprise?  If you're not surprised when you learn something, then didn't you already know it and thus didn't learn it?

Like the guys in Treasure Island when Tim Gunn appears.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: frunk on June 22, 2022, 12:02:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2022, 11:30:45 AMDoesn't learning by definition include an element of surprise?  If you're not surprised when you learn something, then didn't you already know it and thus didn't learn it?

You could know that something was within a range of possibilities, and then found out which one it was.  You have learned the result, but not necessarily be surprised that it is that particular result.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 22, 2022, 12:03:37 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 21, 2022, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2022, 04:59:50 PMStill low-key think he might be the candidate in 2024 :ph34r:

Apparently Trump already has him in his crosshairs...  :ph34r:
With good reason :ph34r: :hmm:
https://twitter.com/UNHSurveyCenter/status/1539627220745867266
QuoteSteve Kornacki
@SteveKornacki
New UNH survey of "like NH GOP primary voters" for 2024 (n=318):

DeSantis 39%
Trump 37%
Pence 9%
Haley 6%
Pompeo 1%
Noem 1%
Cruz 1%

Last October:
Trump 43%
DeSantis 18%
Haley 6%
Pence 4%
Cruz 2%
Noem 1%
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2022, 11:07:33 AMJohn Adams would be very surprised to learn that.
What was Franklin's opinion of Canadians ca 1750?  What's #4 on the intolerable acts list?
Quote4. Quebec Act
The Quebec Act was created with two main purposes.
The first one was to increase religious distances between Christian Catholics and Protestants via providing special privileges to Catholics.


As for slavery, Adams and his son are the only one of the first twelve presidents who weren't slave owners.

Clearly, slavery was of the utmost importance to the beginning of America.  It was part of the colonists' grievances that the British had offered freedom to slaves.

Slavery was certainly not THE motivating factor in seceding from Great Britain, unlike in the Civil War, but it was among the motivating factor of the South to join in the rebellion.  On one side, the promise of status quo.  On the other, a government that offers slaves their freedom in exchange for military service.  Arming black folks...  Still not popular today, can't imagine what it was like back then. ;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on June 22, 2022, 12:43:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 22, 2022, 12:03:37 PMWith good reason :ph34r: :hmm:


So in the space to be the nontrump candidate that everyone less trump is aiming for, desantis has a prohibitive lead. So everyone should logically gun for him and cut him down to size, which leaves everyone under 20% except trump in the high 30s. Trump vs. Biden 2.0, this time with more senility.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on June 22, 2022, 12:57:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2022, 12:43:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 22, 2022, 12:03:37 PMWith good reason :ph34r: :hmm:


So in the space to be the nontrump candidate that everyone less trump is aiming for, desantis has a prohibitive lead. So everyone should logically gun for him and cut him down to size, which leaves everyone under 20% except trump in the high 30s. Trump vs. Biden 2.0, this time with more senility.

I've heard it suggested that the GOP primary voters roughly break down as being 1/3 huge  Trump fans, 1/3 open to Trump but also open to someone else, and 1/3 who really wish Trump would go away.

So there is definitely room for Trump to not be the nominee, but you need to see consolidation fairly early on.  Because otherwise Trump can win a lot of states in a divided field with 1/3 of the vote.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2022, 01:12:41 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 12:32:13 PMWhat was Franklin's opinion of Canadians ca 1750?  What's #4 on the intolerable acts list?

It isn't enormously suprising that American colonists, having fought a bitter war to establish their rights to western territory as against Canada, would object to the assignment of those same rights to Quebec.

As for anti-Catholic feeling, that certainly existed, but by virtue of the fact that the Americans inherited such sentiments from the motherland.  As for Franklin specifically, although he can fairly be accused of anti-clerical views, his diplomatic career does not suggest animus against French speakers or French culture. 

During the revolution, Franklin thought there was sufficient consonance of interest between America and Quebec to devote his efforts to a revolutionary era mission to Quebec to take common cause against Britain, a mission co-led by founder Charles Carroll, and Charles' cousin in John, a Jesuit and first American archbishop.  Although that mission failed, the founders' prejudices did not prevent John from founding a Jesuit led institution of higher learning in the nation's capital - Georgetown University.  The Carroll family and other patriot Catholics of Maryland certainly did not understand the American revolt to be anti-Catholic crusade.  Their sentiment is not that hard to understand, given that the patriots fought for and obtained the right of free exercise of religion as against a mother country with an established (Protestant) Church.

QuoteAs for slavery, Adams and his son are the only one of the first twelve presidents who weren't slave owners.

That's another way of observing that most early Presidents were Virginians.

I wouldn't take the position that safeguarding slavery played no role in patriot motivations in the South (I've argued otherwise here on languish), but I can safely say that it was not a significant motivation in the patriot hotbeds of New England.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on June 22, 2022, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 10:49:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2022, 11:33:11 PMYet she calls her self a nationalist.  That's what nationalism looks like from the outside.  That's how strange and laughable and menacing it looks.  That's what you look like when you start going on about nationalism or that weird pro-confederate secessionist argument you make sometimes.  Quebec has left-wing nationalists so maybe they look different, but this is what right-wing nationalism looks like.
I was joking because you guys always insist there's some magical difference between the good, pure patriot and the evil cold-hearted nationalist.

It's exactly the same.  Right wing or left wing does not even matter.  As much as I dislike the left, Sweden and Finland were never the USSR.  Reagan years in the US were not Nazi Germany.

The American Patriots where white men fighting against other white men because they feared their slaves would be taken from them, because they did not want Catholics to have any rights and because they wanted the lands that belonged to Indian tribes.  The rest is as accessory as the Confederacy denouncing some high tariffs as the cause of their own war of independence.

You can be a proud American by not being racist, despite your founding fathers being mostly slavers and against racial equality.

America had racial issues since before it became a country.  Nationalism, as a political concept, is an invention of the 19th century.  It only became a problem when it mixed with imperialism, of which it shares many core issues.  But hey, the problem is certainly that some people are proud of their culture and want it to thrive.  Certainly not that some country invades its weaker neighbors to grab their resources, right? :)

People like MJT are no different than many other politicians of the past.  Winston Churchill let the Indians from Bengal starve for the good of the Empire and generally considered all non British to be inferior.  He was merely a product of his times.  Consider this:
Since 1939, the United Kingdom had been drawing grain and manufactures from India for the war effort, and the colonial government had been printing money to pay for these purchases.  The resulting inflation had combined with other factors to precipitate famine in early 1943.  The following summer, the Government of India asked the War Cabinet for half a million tons of wheat by year-end.  The cereal would feed India's two-million-strong army and workers in war-related industries; if any happened to be left over, it would relieve starvation.  The mere news of the arrival of substantial imports would cause prices to fall, because speculators would anticipate a drop in prices and release any hoarded grain to the market.  Churchill's close friend and technical advisor, Lord Cherwell, demurred, however: he erroneously argued that India's food problem could not be solved by imports.  In any case, expending valuable shipping on Indians "scarcely seems justified unless the Ministry of War Transport cannot find any other use for it," he added in a draft memo.  (In the final version, this sentence was changed to a straightforward recommendation against sending grain.)

This is imperialism, as has been done since antiquity.  Politicians like MJT add nothing new.  They ain't part of some "revolutionary new" political movement.

If you want to be specific to the US, there were always racist US politicians, opposed to immigration and/or wanting to use the power of their army to crush dissent or expand their territory. They existed long before we talked of nationalism.

Imperialism is the problem.  The belief that somehow, your country is superior to all others.  Not the pride once can derive in its cultural group.  Mix imperialism with conservatism, and you got the modern GOP.  We are the best in the world and we should absolutely not change anything.  Add a dose of religious fervor, and you have a recipe for disaster.

But keep blaming it on nationalism all you want.  It'll just blow harder in your face.
That's not what an imperialist is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2022, 03:00:45 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 12:32:13 PMSlavery was certainly not THE motivating factor in seceding from Great Britain, unlike in the Civil War, but it was among the motivating factor of the South to join in the rebellion.  On one side, the promise of status quo.  On the other, a government that offers slaves their freedom in exchange for military service.  Arming black folks...  Still not popular today, can't imagine what it was like back then. ;)

I've read plenty about Britain offering slaves their freedom *during* the war, but nothing at all about the threat of emancipation imposed by the motherland being a cause of independence sentiment.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 03:23:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2022, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 10:49:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2022, 11:33:11 PMYet she calls her self a nationalist.  That's what nationalism looks like from the outside.  That's how strange and laughable and menacing it looks.  That's what you look like when you start going on about nationalism or that weird pro-confederate secessionist argument you make sometimes.  Quebec has left-wing nationalists so maybe they look different, but this is what right-wing nationalism looks like.
I was joking because you guys always insist there's some magical difference between the good, pure patriot and the evil cold-hearted nationalist.

It's exactly the same.  Right wing or left wing does not even matter.  As much as I dislike the left, Sweden and Finland were never the USSR.  Reagan years in the US were not Nazi Germany.

The American Patriots where white men fighting against other white men because they feared their slaves would be taken from them, because they did not want Catholics to have any rights and because they wanted the lands that belonged to Indian tribes.  The rest is as accessory as the Confederacy denouncing some high tariffs as the cause of their own war of independence.

You can be a proud American by not being racist, despite your founding fathers being mostly slavers and against racial equality.

America had racial issues since before it became a country.  Nationalism, as a political concept, is an invention of the 19th century.  It only became a problem when it mixed with imperialism, of which it shares many core issues.  But hey, the problem is certainly that some people are proud of their culture and want it to thrive.  Certainly not that some country invades its weaker neighbors to grab their resources, right? :)

People like MJT are no different than many other politicians of the past.  Winston Churchill let the Indians from Bengal starve for the good of the Empire and generally considered all non British to be inferior.  He was merely a product of his times.  Consider this:
Since 1939, the United Kingdom had been drawing grain and manufactures from India for the war effort, and the colonial government had been printing money to pay for these purchases.  The resulting inflation had combined with other factors to precipitate famine in early 1943.  The following summer, the Government of India asked the War Cabinet for half a million tons of wheat by year-end.  The cereal would feed India's two-million-strong army and workers in war-related industries; if any happened to be left over, it would relieve starvation.  The mere news of the arrival of substantial imports would cause prices to fall, because speculators would anticipate a drop in prices and release any hoarded grain to the market.  Churchill's close friend and technical advisor, Lord Cherwell, demurred, however: he erroneously argued that India's food problem could not be solved by imports.  In any case, expending valuable shipping on Indians "scarcely seems justified unless the Ministry of War Transport cannot find any other use for it," he added in a draft memo.  (In the final version, this sentence was changed to a straightforward recommendation against sending grain.)

This is imperialism, as has been done since antiquity.  Politicians like MJT add nothing new.  They ain't part of some "revolutionary new" political movement.

If you want to be specific to the US, there were always racist US politicians, opposed to immigration and/or wanting to use the power of their army to crush dissent or expand their territory. They existed long before we talked of nationalism.

Imperialism is the problem.  The belief that somehow, your country is superior to all others.  Not the pride once can derive in its cultural group.  Mix imperialism with conservatism, and you got the modern GOP.  We are the best in the world and we should absolutely not change anything.  Add a dose of religious fervor, and you have a recipe for disaster.

But keep blaming it on nationalism all you want.  It'll just blow harder in your face.
That's not what an imperialist is.
"a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force:"

Why do you do it?  Because you can.  Why can you?  Because you're better than everyone else.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 03:28:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2022, 03:00:45 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 12:32:13 PMSlavery was certainly not THE motivating factor in seceding from Great Britain, unlike in the Civil War, but it was among the motivating factor of the South to join in the rebellion.  On one side, the promise of status quo.  On the other, a government that offers slaves their freedom in exchange for military service.  Arming black folks...  Still not popular today, can't imagine what it was like back then. ;)

I've read plenty about Britain offering slaves their freedom *during* the war, but nothing at all about the threat of emancipation imposed by the motherland being a cause of independence sentiment.
It was groundless fear, mostly, but it was one of the reproach to Great Britain, that the Virginia governor was inciting a slave rebellion against the colonists.

But Lincoln didn't intend to free the slaves either at the beginning of the Civil War.

Anyway.

From the declaration of independence:
 
QuoteHe has excited domestic insurrections amongst us
Quote, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


And here:
QuoteThe British had encouraged slave and Indian revolts against the colonists. For example, in 1775, Lord Dunmore of Virginia, swore to members of the Virginia House of Burgesses that if "any Injury or insult were offered to himself" he would "declare Freedom to the Slaves, and reduce the City of Williamsburg to Ashes." The governors of North and South Carolina also were planning similar uprisings. General Gage, commander in chief of the British army in America, tried to persuade various of the Indian tribes to attack the colonists.

https://founding.com/he-has-excited-domestic-insurrections-amongst-us-and-has-endeavoured-to-bring-on-the-inhabitants-of-our-frontiers-the-merciless-indian-savages-whose-known-rule-of-warfare-is-an-undistinguished-des/

Can't deny that was a fear to some colonists.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 03:50:18 PM

That's like saying Canadians fought a bitter war for freedom.  France and the UK paid for the war and supplied most of the troops.

Anyway, the point is not that it is surprising that American colonists were enraged at liberties given to Canadians to keep their religion and have some limited rights over a portion of territory, is that it existed.  Long before you could claim some politician or another is the face of nationalism.

QuoteAs for Franklin specifically, although he can fairly be accused of anti-clerical views, his diplomatic career does not suggest animus against French speakers or French culture.
Can't find the exact quote, but Franklin believed French Canadians should be deported to France after the 7 years wars, or force converted to Protestantism.

It wasn't much about culture back then

QuoteDuring the revolution, Franklin thought there was sufficient consonance of interest between America and Quebec to devote his efforts to a revolutionary era mission to Quebec to take common cause against Britain,
IIRC, he didn't have a high opinion of Canadians.  Anyway, his mission was pretty much doomed to failure from the beginning.

The English merchants already here were Loyalists.  The French mistrusted the Americans who were just another kind of British, and having lost all their elites after 1763, the only ones left with an education were the clergy from whom protecting religion was much more important than silly ideas like freedom.


I wouldn't take the position that safeguarding slavery played no role in patriot motivations in the South (I've argued otherwise here on languish), but I can safely say that it was not a significant motivation in the patriot hotbeds of New England.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Motivations certainly varied from place to place.  It wasn't a simple war, just like the French Revolution can't be summed up to a bourgeois uprising.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 22, 2022, 07:49:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2022, 03:00:45 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 12:32:13 PMSlavery was certainly not THE motivating factor in seceding from Great Britain, unlike in the Civil War, but it was among the motivating factor of the South to join in the rebellion.  On one side, the promise of status quo.  On the other, a government that offers slaves their freedom in exchange for military service.  Arming black folks...  Still not popular today, can't imagine what it was like back then. ;)

I've read plenty about Britain offering slaves their freedom *during* the war, but nothing at all about the threat of emancipation imposed by the motherland being a cause of independence sentiment.
Don't go there. Suggesting that the American Revolutionary War was not primarily about protecting slavery will get you a lot of grief around here. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 22, 2022, 07:50:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 03:28:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 03:28:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2022, 03:00:45 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2022, 12:32:13 PMSlavery was certainly not THE motivating factor in seceding from Great Britain, unlike in the Civil War, but it was among the motivating factor of the South to join in the rebellion.  On one side, the promise of status quo.  On the other, a government that offers slaves their freedom in exchange for military service.  Arming black folks...  Still not popular today, can't imagine what it was like back then. ;)

I've read plenty about Britain offering slaves their freedom *during* the war, but nothing at all about the threat of emancipation imposed by the motherland being a cause of independence sentiment.
It was groundless fear, mostly, but it was one of the reproach to Great Britain, that the Virginia governor was inciting a slave rebellion against the colonists.

But Lincoln didn't intend to free the slaves either at the beginning of the Civil War.

Anyway.

From the declaration of independence:
QuoteHe has excited domestic insurrections amongst us
Quote, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


And here:
QuoteThe British had encouraged slave and Indian revolts against the colonists. For example, in 1775, Lord Dunmore of Virginia, swore to members of the Virginia House of Burgesses that if "any Injury or insult were offered to himself" he would "declare Freedom to the Slaves, and reduce the City of Williamsburg to Ashes." The governors of North and South Carolina also were planning similar uprisings. General Gage, commander in chief of the British army in America, tried to persuade various of the Indian tribes to attack the colonists.

https://founding.com/he-has-excited-domestic-insurrections-amongst-us-and-has-endeavoured-to-bring-on-the-inhabitants-of-our-frontiers-the-merciless-indian-savages-whose-known-rule-of-warfare-is-an-undistinguished-des/

Can't deny that was a fear to some colonists.

The Declaration of Independence came AFTER the war started. Not before.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on June 29, 2022, 10:13:59 AM
Granted it's Boebert, who is a notorious MAGA moron, but still, chilling.

QuoteRepublican Lauren Boebert wins in Colorado after denouncing separation of church and state
Congresswoman backed by Trump wins primary after proclaiming 'I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk'

The extremist Colorado Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert won her primary on Tuesday night, shortly after attacking the separation of church and state under the US constitution.

"I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk," she said.

A dedicated controversialist first elected in 2020, backed by Donald Trump and described by NBC News as a "Maga lightning rod", Boebert convincingly beat Don Coram, a state senator, for the nomination to contest the midterm elections.

(...)

On Sunday, two days before the primary and in comments first reported by the Denver Post, Boebert told a religious service: "The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it."

(...)

Boebert, however, said she was "tired of this separation of church and state junk that's not in the constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does".

The "stinking letter" seemed to be one written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, in 1802.

The third president referred to the constitution establishing "a wall of separation between church and state". His words have been mentioned in supreme court rulings.

Gwen Calais-Haase, a Harvard political scientist, told the Washington Post Boebert's claim was "false, misleading and dangerous", and said she was "extremely worried about the environment of misinformation that extremist politicians take advantage of for their own gains".

The supreme court has also recently ruled on abortion, overturning the long established right in a ruling last week.

At the service on Sunday, Boebert said, "Look at what happened this week. This is the fruit of your labor, of your votes and of your prayers – this is your harvest."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on June 29, 2022, 11:33:09 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 29, 2022, 10:13:59 AMGranted it's Boebert, who is a notorious MAGA moron, but still, chilling.

It's nothing that Christian nationalists haven't been saying for centuries.

But the thing that baffles me is that this separation protects religion from the government. If that wall went away then Christian practice could be in danger all over the country. Not just in areas where other religions, or anti-theists, have power but in areas where other Christian groups they regard as heretical have power. If they are against Sharia law so much one would think they would want to protect that wall.

I guess it is just based on the concept that they will have more power in their very specific area so screw all the Christians in other places.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on June 29, 2022, 12:23:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2022, 11:33:09 AMIt's nothing that Christian nationalists haven't been saying for centuries.

But the thing that baffles me is that this separation protects religion from the government. If that wall went away then Christian practice could be in danger all over the country. Not just in areas where other religions, or anti-theists, have power but in areas where other Christian groups they regard as heretical have power. If they are against Sharia law so much one would think they would want to protect that wall.

I guess it is just based on the concept that they will have more power in their very specific area so screw all the Christians in other places.

That, or they think they can use their power base to impose their particular flavour of Christianity on other areas either through force or co-option. I mean, you do see a certain alignment between some flavours of Catholicism and the radical Evangelical chauvenists at times.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 29, 2022, 06:42:58 PM
What a mortifying way for this allegation to be rebutted :lol:
QuoteDarren Samuelsohn
@dsamuelsohn
NEW: Trump's 'girth would prevent him from actually getting to the steering wheel' of his SUV, former Secret Service agent says: 'I don't see this president ever being able to do that. Ever' - by @ngaudiano @PoliticsInsider
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on June 29, 2022, 07:04:45 PM
Trump is too fat therefore he couldn't do the thing you accuse him of. Checkmate libs
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 29, 2022, 07:18:58 PM
He's fat but agile.  If YMCA was playing on the radio, he could cha-cha to that steering wheel. no problem.

Good to see the Trumpologists are focusing on the important issues . . .
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2022, 07:24:56 PM
My understanding is the witness said he lunged for the steering wheel, not that he grabbed it.  A fat boy six inch lunge would be consistent with that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2022, 07:26:39 PM
My spidey sense says the hearings have done some good.

Cheney is going out in a blaze of glory.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 29, 2022, 07:32:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2022, 07:24:56 PMMy understanding is the witness said he lunged for the steering wheel, not that he grabbed it.  A fat boy six inch lunge would be consistent with that.

Nonsense. Sheilbh is correct that never in the history of ever has anyone attempted to do something that they could not, in fact, do.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on June 30, 2022, 04:21:25 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2022, 07:26:39 PMMy spidey sense says the hearings have done some good.

Cheney is going out in a blaze of glory.
Yeah. I feel it's becoming more likely it'll be DeSantis and this is part of it (and the GOP got what they needed out of Trump).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 30, 2022, 08:19:23 AM
Cheney should run for the GOP nomination for President. Just because.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2022, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2022, 07:26:39 PMMy spidey sense says the hearings have done some good.

Cheney is going out in a blaze of glory.

The RNC censure vote looks more and more ridiculous every day.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on June 30, 2022, 09:04:57 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2022, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2022, 07:26:39 PMMy spidey sense says the hearings have done some good.

Cheney is going out in a blaze of glory.

The RNC censure vote looks more and more ridiculous every day.
Not possible.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2022, 10:29:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2022, 09:04:57 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2022, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2022, 07:26:39 PMMy spidey sense says the hearings have done some good.

Cheney is going out in a blaze of glory.

The RNC censure vote looks more and more ridiculous every day.
Not possible.

This one goes to 11.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 01, 2022, 06:10:14 AM
Really brings to mind the line "all political careers end in failure".
QuoteRudy W. Giuliani
@RudyGiuliani
Great products at reasonable prices. Use code Rudy for additional savings
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWi9HkBWQAAEeOI?format=jpg&name=small)

As Matt Sitman pointed out, in a way there's something fitting about the republic being brought down by a movement of grifters.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on July 01, 2022, 12:30:26 PM
QuoteSchool's out forever: Arizona moves "to kill public education" with new universal voucher law

Families who bail on public school will get $7,000 per kid in GOP's new scheme: "Every red state" urged to follow

Last Friday, while the country reeled from the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade, Arizona made history of a different sort. Legislators in the Grand Canyon State passed a universal school voucher bill that, once signed by Gov. Doug Ducey, will become the most wide-reaching school privatization plan in the country.

In his January State of the State address, Ducey called on Arizona lawmakers to send him bills that would "expand school choice any way we can," and the Republican-dominated legislature obliged, delivering last Friday's bill, which will open a preexisting program for Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) up to the entire state. In practice, the law will now give parents who opt out of public schools a debit card for roughly $7,000 per child that can be used to pay for private school tuition, but also for much more: for religious schools, homeschool expenses, tutoring, online classes, education supplies and fees associated with "microschools," in which small groups of parents pool resources to hire teachers.

[...]


And back in Arizona, the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank founded in honor of former senator and right-wing icon Barry Goldwater, celebrated the law it had done much to create as a "major victory for families wary of a one-size-fits-all approach to education," plus a cost-saving measure to boot, since the total funding parents would receive through ESA vouchers is $4,000 less than Arizona's already paltry per-pupil funding for public schools.

[...]
https://www.salon.com/2022/07/01/schools-out-forever-arizona-moves-to-public-education-with-new-universal-voucher-law/

Defunding public education seems a poor policy. The general destruction of public institutions will have a high price down the road.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on July 01, 2022, 12:54:38 PM
We're watching the devolution of a modern nation into a fairytale nostalgia-state in real-time.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2022, 01:16:23 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 01, 2022, 12:30:26 PM
QuoteAnd back in Arizona, the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank founded in honor of former senator and right-wing icon Barry Goldwater, celebrated the law it had done much to create as a "major victory for families wary of a one-size-fits-all approach to education," plus a cost-saving measure to boot, since the total funding parents would receive through ESA vouchers is $4,000 less than Arizona's already paltry per-pupil funding for public schools.

[...]

That's nonsensical. It is a virtual certainty this will blow a sizable hole in the state budget UNLESS state education is even more badly gutted then it already is.  Which of course is the real point here.

First, there are already 55,000 students currently enrolled in private schools who previously were receiving no subsidy.  That's a $385 million hit right off the bat.

Second, if say 5-10% of the public student body drops away across the board, that doesn't mean that public school funding automatically falls by that amount, because it ignores that there are substantial fixed costs in the provision of public education.  Especially given that those students that are the most costly to the system - special ed, behavioral cases, etc. are the least likely to move.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 01, 2022, 03:26:33 PM
Proposal to teach slavery as 'involuntary relocation' sent to Texas education board (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/proposal-teach-slavery-involuntary-relocation-sent-texas-education-boa-rcna36273)
QuoteA group of nine educators submitted the idea to the State Board of Education, which directed the group to revisit the language, the Texas Tribune reported.

AUSTIN, Texas — Public schools in Texas would describe slavery to second graders as "involuntary relocation" under new social studies standards proposed to the state's education board.
A group of nine educators submitted the idea to the State Board of Education as part of Texas' efforts to develop new social studies curriculum, according to the Texas Tribune. The once-a-decade process updates what children learn in the state's nearly 8,900 public schools.

"The board -- with unanimous consent -- directed the work group to revisit that specific language," Keven Ellis, chair of the Texas State Board of Education, said in a statement, according to the Tribune.

Board member Aicha Davis, a Democrat who represents Dallas and Fort Worth, raised concerns during a June 15 meeting that the term wasn't a fair representation of the slave trade. The board sent the draft back for revision, urging the educator group to "carefully examine the language used to describe events."

"I can't say what their intention was, but that's not going to be acceptable," Davis told the Tribune on Thursday.

Part of the proposed draft standards obtained by the Tribune say students should "compare journeys to America, including voluntary Irish immigration and involuntary relocation of African people during colonial times."

The board is considering curriculum changes one year after Texas passed a law to eliminate topics from schools that make students "feel discomfort."

The state's public education system has become heavily politicized in recent years, with lawmakers passing legislation to dictate how race and slavery should be taught in schools and conservative groups pouring large amounts of money into school board races.

Texas drew attention for a similar situation in 2015, when a student noticed wording in a textbook that referred to slaves who were brought to America as "workers." The book's publisher apologized and promised to increase the number of textbook reviewers it uses.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on July 01, 2022, 08:02:48 PM
If we're going to have unlimited tax-paid school voucher portability available to people with kids, then I demand an equal tax refund for us bachelors/bachelorettes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 01, 2022, 09:50:15 PM
The people with kids are funding our retirement.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on July 01, 2022, 09:57:38 PM
I fund my own.  :mad:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 02, 2022, 01:41:31 AM
Sweden has had school vouchers for 30 years. NB not valid for home-schooling and similar.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on July 02, 2022, 04:26:20 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 01, 2022, 12:54:38 PMWe're watching the devolution of a modern nation into a fairytale nostalgia-state in real-time.

So the US is becoming a new Iran.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 02, 2022, 09:32:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2022, 01:41:31 AMSweden has had school vouchers for 30 years. NB not valid for home-schooling and similar.

And it is quite controversial, given the considerable decline in the performance of Swedish students on international standardized tests.

Charter schools in the US are basically voucher schools.  Michigan has the largest percentage of students in charter schools (thanks, Betsy DeVos!), and charter school students there perform much worse on standardized tests.

Charter/voucher schools sound good in theory (reduced bureaucracy), but there seems to be no proper accountability for the results and poorly-performing private schools are not closed as they would be in theory.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 02, 2022, 10:04:04 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 02, 2022, 09:32:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2022, 01:41:31 AMSweden has had school vouchers for 30 years. NB not valid for home-schooling and similar.

And it is quite controversial, given the considerable decline in the performance of Swedish students on international standardized tests.


What's the connection?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 02, 2022, 11:45:08 AM
My assumption is the voucher program is intended to have to following effects:

1) A small handout to the wealthy and privileged who are sending their kids to high quality private schools.

2) A reasonable handout and more moral support to folks whose top education priority is that their kids are raised with a value system that includes things like "I'm sick of the separation of Church and State" and "protecting children against the woke LGTBQ+ agenda" rather than fostering critical thinking and problem solving skills.

3) Make it more practical for people who care about racial segregation in schooling to find solutions that work for them.

4) Open up potential money streams for radical right wing / evangelical grifters as well as profit maximizing education companies (with ties to State lawmakers and/ or donors) to target.

If at the same time the education quality of minority groups, non-voters, Democrats, and/ or the gullible deteriorates... well, that's just their own fault for staying in the public school system.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 02, 2022, 12:11:10 PM
I think it's mostly 2).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 02, 2022, 12:37:42 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 02, 2022, 12:11:10 PMI think it's mostly 2).

Interesting. Why is that?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2022, 03:46:30 PM
Voucher programs follow the logic of "defund the police" and apply it to education.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 02, 2022, 03:56:34 PM
Before desegregation and an end to school prayer conservatives wanted to ban private schools.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 02, 2022, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2022, 12:37:42 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 02, 2022, 12:11:10 PMI think it's mostly 2).

Interesting. Why is that?

I agree with ET.  These are the people who elected a nitwit to the governor's mansion in Virginia so that he could stop the unspeakably evil, but also non-existent, teaching of Critical Race Theory in Virginia schools.  They are terrified that their kids might be taught to be skeptical about claims lacking proof.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 03, 2022, 09:02:37 AM
Here we all pay property taxes to support the public school system.  So if parents also pay for private school, they are effectively paying twice.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 03, 2022, 09:17:01 AM
Yeah same here-ish. The coalition made big education reforms based on Sweden but it is within the public school sector. Schools were allowed to leave local authority rule to become "academies" or specialist schools who deal directly with the Department for Education. The funding for education is tied to each kid (like a voucher) plus a "pupil premium" for social and education issues to encourage schools to want those kids.

We also have a national education regulator who inspects schools and issues league tables. The theory was that it would encourage choice, so schools would expand if they were good and shut down if they were bad (which has sort of happened) as well as allowing the creation of "academy groups" of schools including those set up by private schools to spread "best practice" etc.

I think it has sort of worked. It's the only policy from the coalition that hasn't already been reversed and I don't think Labour is proposing to undo it - they'd maybe change it but the fundamental structure would stay. There are some issues with it that still need fixing though. The big mystery here is the success of London schools which no-one can really explain (so can't replicate).

Edit: Oh and the UK has state funded faith schools - but we have a national curriculum so they still have to teach broadly the same stuff.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 03, 2022, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 03, 2022, 09:17:01 AMEdit: Oh and the UK has state funded faith schools - but we have a national curriculum so they still have to teach broadly the same stuff.

I think this is the critically important part.  Here each province mandates the curriculum, and in BC all schools must follow/incorporate that curriculum.  The schools and individual teachers get to exercise their judgment as to how best to teach it, but there would be no such thing as a school deciding that it would be a great idea to teach creationism as science. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 03, 2022, 09:43:14 AM
Yeah absolutely or school boards deciding to teach about slavery as "involuntry relocation".

It sounds very similar there's a national curriculum of things that must be taught, but that's only a small part of it. The bigger bit is a broad structure and "output" requirements of what a pupil should be able to do, but they could be taught many different things to meet that output. Generally schools get to pick that because there are multiple exam boards who create curriculums and materials that meet the requirements of the national curriculum - but could have totally different topics, set texts etc (I don't know how it works in science or maths where I assume it's more standardised).

Edit: And obviously nation = to England. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own education departments and Scotland and Northern Ireland have different education systems/structures.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 03, 2022, 11:00:46 AM
Somehow I don't think the school boards in Arizona is going to do much do keep those sort of ideas in check for long.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on July 08, 2022, 06:04:18 PM
Ohio seems to keep steadily going down the drain.

QuoteOhio lawmaker wants to teach the Holocaust 'from the perspective of the Nazis'

State Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur made the comments when explaining to a local news station why she believes that "divisive concepts" should be taught from multiple points of view.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 08, 2022, 06:05:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2022, 06:04:18 PMOhio seems to keep steadily going down the drain.

QuoteOhio lawmaker wants to teach the Holocaust 'from the perspective of the Nazis'

State Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur made the comments when explaining to a local news station why she believes that "divisive concepts" should be taught from multiple points of view.

I assume she would also support teaching the burning of Christians from Nero's point of view.  Consistency and fairness and all that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on July 08, 2022, 06:24:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 08, 2022, 06:05:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2022, 06:04:18 PMOhio seems to keep steadily going down the drain.

QuoteOhio lawmaker wants to teach the Holocaust 'from the perspective of the Nazis'

State Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur made the comments when explaining to a local news station why she believes that "divisive concepts" should be taught from multiple points of view.

I assume she would also support teaching the burning of Christians from Nero's point of view.  Consistency and fairness and all that.

Depends. Do you think it's a "divisive concept"?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 08, 2022, 06:24:09 PM
I think what the Nazis thought is already taught for free all over America and on the internet.

But also I think in most classes covering this topic the crazy shit the Nazis thought is usually taught. Though the sheer depths of lunacy and idiocy of the Nazis is hard to fully explain in just one class.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 08, 2022, 06:35:05 PM
I read similar about some school board in, I think, Wisconsin wanting to add the novel When the Emperor was Divine to the curriculum. I understand it's about the internment of a Japanese-American family.

There was a big row because this was unbalanced and someone suggested that to balance it students should also learn about the rape of Nanjing.

On the one hand it's good if students learn about the Chinese-Japanese war. But I think it's mad as balance against a book about American internment of Japanese people.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 08, 2022, 08:07:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 08, 2022, 06:35:05 PMI read similar about some school board in, I think, Wisconsin wanting to add the novel When the Emperor was Divine to the curriculum. I understand it's about the internment of a Japanese-American family.

There was a big row because this was unbalanced and someone suggested that to balance it students should also learn about the rape of Nanjing.

On the one hand it's good if students learn about the Chinese-Japanese war. But I think it's mad as balance against a book about American internment of Japanese people.

It makes perfect sense if you view it as a race thing. That a book about Japanese-internment makes white people seem evil so it is comforting to remember that Japanese people are also evil so it all balances out.

See this is why we need to learn about the Nazi point of view so things like this make sense.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 08, 2022, 08:36:34 PM
Students cannot truly appreciate the horror of the Holocaust unless they are taught the Nazi POV on the process.  They tried all sorts of methods of mass-murder and settled on gas chambers and Zyklon-B not because it was the most evil approach possible, or the most humane approach possible, it was because it was the cheapest approach possible.  Conspiracy (the 2001 film) is a terrific horror movie, made even more horrifying because it is 100% true.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 11, 2022, 09:21:57 PM
Herschel Walker just proved (again) what a massive risk he is for Republicans (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/herschel-walker-just-proved-again-what-a-massive-risk-he-is-for-republicans/ar-AAZt51j?cvid=20e044ba16db4e89b0364b987cd24d0b)

QuoteHere's what the Georgia Republican Senate candidate said about climate change during a recent campaign event:

"Since we don't control the air, our good air decided to float over to China's bad air. So when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then – now we got we to clean that back up."
[...]


Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on July 11, 2022, 09:27:58 PM
Well at the very least he's a good case study to show that playing football causes brain trauma.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 02:01:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 08, 2022, 06:35:05 PMI read similar about some school board in, I think, Wisconsin wanting to add the novel When the Emperor was Divine to the curriculum. I understand it's about the internment of a Japanese-American family.

There was a big row because this was unbalanced and someone suggested that to balance it students should also learn about the rape of Nanjing.

On the one hand it's good if students learn about the Chinese-Japanese war. But I think it's mad as balance against a book about American internment of Japanese people.

Well, a book about how Americans of German descent were NOT interned combined with a book about Auschwitz-Birkenau might be instructive.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2022, 08:50:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 11, 2022, 09:21:57 PMHerschel Walker just proved (again) what a massive risk he is for Republicans (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/herschel-walker-just-proved-again-what-a-massive-risk-he-is-for-republicans/ar-AAZt51j?cvid=20e044ba16db4e89b0364b987cd24d0b)

QuoteHere's what the Georgia Republican Senate candidate said about climate change during a recent campaign event:

"Since we don't control the air, our good air decided to float over to China's bad air. So when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then – now we got we to clean that back up."
[...]


He just finished himself.  Everyone knows you can't rely on a running back to control the air game.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on July 12, 2022, 08:57:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2022, 08:50:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 11, 2022, 09:21:57 PMHerschel Walker just proved (again) what a massive risk he is for Republicans (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/herschel-walker-just-proved-again-what-a-massive-risk-he-is-for-republicans/ar-AAZt51j?cvid=20e044ba16db4e89b0364b987cd24d0b)

QuoteHere's what the Georgia Republican Senate candidate said about climate change during a recent campaign event:

"Since we don't control the air, our good air decided to float over to China's bad air. So when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then – now we got we to clean that back up."
[...]


He just finished himself.  Everyone knows you can't rely on a running back to control the air game.

Then – now we got we to clean that back up

The statement is ambiguous but is he implying we need to do something to clean up the air? That will cost him some votes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 12, 2022, 09:00:19 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/29/republican-lauren-boebert-wins-colorado-primary-church-state

Quote"I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk," she said.

On Sunday, two days before the primary and in comments first reported by the Denver Post, Boebert told a religious service: "The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 09:11:10 AM
What about the foundling fathers? Not the fondling fathers though, Catholicism is right out.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on July 12, 2022, 09:25:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 02, 2022, 09:32:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2022, 01:41:31 AMSweden has had school vouchers for 30 years. NB not valid for home-schooling and similar.

And it is quite controversial, given the considerable decline in the performance of Swedish students on international standardized tests.

As I understand that's because of the insane levels of immigration. Schools are more or less segregated and the ethnic Swedes are doing good, but the average drops due to large numbers of immigrants with very basic education and if older low language skills and no experience in how Swedish schools work.

It's not only because they are immigrants, it's mostly a socio-economic issue. Poors of all kinds are doing bad and we have a lot of poor immigrants.

Looking into this I could only find ( Report in Swedish (https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a654393/1553957474781/pdf871.pdf)) reports from the early 2000s about why immigrants were doing bad and since then immigration has sky-rocketed.

One further observation is that Swedish results have been going up lately, as immigration have gone down.

It's quite clear and has been quite clear for decades that immigrants require far more resources than non-immigrants, but they are not getting those resources and as a result the results drop like a stone.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 10:16:13 AM
There are several factors that can conceivably have contributed to the decline in Swedish pupil ability over the past several decades. Not in any special order (my FWIW comments in parentheses):

1. Transfer of government schools from central government to local government carried out in 1991 (fairly weak impact is my guess, but increasing the number of decision makers tends to lower the average quality of decision makers).

2. The system of school vouchers, created in 1992 (I can think of several mechanisms by which this could potentially have had an impact on general results, both positive and negative, but I have a hard time seeing how the negative ones could be more significant than the positive ones)

3. Reduction in status and pay of teachers. In the 1950s being a teacher, especially in secondary education, was a fairly prestigious job comparable to other professionals, with decent pay. For several decades now being a teacher has been a low-status job with fairly poor pay. This has led to top students staying away from a teacher career. School vouchers have had some positive impact when it comes to status is my impression, but teacher is still very far from a high-status career (I think this has contributed, but it also ties in a bit with #4 below).

4. The reduction, through malevolence or otherwise, of the theory and ideology of teaching to harmful pseudoscience, and its application in the school system. This started in the 1960s and has kept going since. A strong move away from teaching knowledge and ability to teaching god-knows-what mumbo-jumbo. This has contributed to intelligent people staying away from a teaching career, and denied generations of children an optimal education (my impression is that this is the core factor, overshadowing all others).

5. Demographic and socio-economic changes in the population (if this has had a negative effect then that negative effect would have been very much reduced without #4 above, so my impression is that this isn't a core factor).

6. The change from the old-style multi-track school system to a unified school system completed in 1972 (I don't see anything inherently bad about the unified system itself that would be significant enough to explain poor results).

7. I'm sure there are more...

When I was in secondary education in the early 90s pupils knew and talked about the obvious reduction in education quality since the 1970s. Centralized tests from the 1970s that we practiced on were on a higher level than our equivalents. All the best teachers were old-timers that had become teachers in the 1950s and were about to retire. They were highly educated and knowledgeable, dedicated, and focused on getting the best out of the students.

To sum up, I don't see any credible reason to suspect that school vouchers have significantly reduced Swedish results. In addition of course there are other positive things about school vouchers. Even during the heyday of Socialism in the 1970s Sweden never banned private schools. But those were of course only available to the rich. School vouchers make school choice available to everyone, even the very poor. And standard schools being worse than they were say in the 1950s, the need for choice is greater now.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 11:53:03 AM
What's the deal with #4?

What's the harmful mumbo-jumbo? And is that something specifically local to Sweden?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 12:04:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 11:53:03 AMWhat's the deal with #4?

What's the harmful mumbo-jumbo? And is that something specifically local to Sweden?

Essentially it's the abandonment of 1) evidence-based teaching methods, 2) knowledge and ability as teaching goals, or 3) both. I don't know, I cannot speak for other countries.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 01:09:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 12:04:20 PMEssentially it's the abandonment of 1) evidence-based teaching methods, 2) knowledge and ability as teaching goals, or 3) both. I don't know, I cannot speak for other countries.
England went very big on skills based teaching which my understanding is, isn't really backed by evidence from education research. Gove pushed back (possibly too far) in the other direction on facts/knowledge based teaching.

The skills-based model makes intuitive sense and sounds right - I think especially to liberals v old fashioned learning facts. My understanding was the research showed it reinforced existing social divisions because basically kids from backgrounds with social capital tended to do disproportionately well, while facts/knowledge was more of a level playing field. I also think there was basically an issue with teaching skills without facts to practice them on meant they were less likely to be retained. You need the concrete to demonstrate the skill.

In England at least race and ethnicity aren't huge dividers - all minority groups are more likely to go to university than white kids. For school level attainment there are divisions and different levels of attainment for different ethnic identities, but my understanding is those levels are more explicable by (of course) geography and class.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 01:13:24 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 01:09:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 12:04:20 PMEssentially it's the abandonment of 1) evidence-based teaching methods, 2) knowledge and ability as teaching goals, or 3) both. I don't know, I cannot speak for other countries.
England went very big on skills based teaching which my understanding is, isn't really backed by evidence from education research. Gove pushed back (possibly too far) in the other direction on facts/knowledge based teaching.

The skills-based model makes intuitive sense and sounds right - I think especially to liberals v old fashioned learning facts. My understanding was the research showed it reinforced existing social divisions because basically kids from backgrounds with social capital tended to do disproportionately well, while facts/knowledge was more of a level playing field. I also think there was basically an issue with teaching skills without facts to practice them on meant they were less likely to be retained. You need the concrete to demonstrate the skill.

In England at least race and ethnicity aren't huge dividers - all minority groups are more likely to go to university than white kids. For school level attainment there are divisions and different levels of attainment for different ethnic identities, but my understanding is those levels are more explicable by (of course) geography and class.

What is the skills-based model about?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Duque de Bragança on July 12, 2022, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 12:04:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 11:53:03 AMWhat's the deal with #4?

What's the harmful mumbo-jumbo? And is that something specifically local to Sweden?

Essentially it's the abandonment of 1) evidence-based teaching methods, 2) knowledge and ability as teaching goals, or 3) both. I don't know, I cannot speak for other countries.

Long story short, some of it applies to France, namely changes for the worse in pedagogy giving way to pseudo-science mumbo jumbo, mass immigration, multi-tracked to unified (collège unique) but not all : vouchers and transfer to local governments.

Results are comparably bad.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 01:30:49 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 01:13:24 PMWhat is the skills-based model about?
So from an education company. Knowledge:
QuoteWhen people talk about a knowledge-based education, they are talking about a formal curriculum which imparts a broad base of general knowledge on traditional subjects. This curriculum is structured in a way which enables students to build on their prior knowledge when learning something new. This approach is very content-focused.
[...]
Proponents of knowledge-based education believe that the more you know, the more you are able to learn. The impact of a content-rich curriculum can reduce the attainment gap between pupils of different socio-economic backgrounds. In this model, learning and research is teacher-led, and students build on their prior knowledge to develop a deeper understanding and mastery of various subjects.

Skills:
QuoteA skills-based education is one where the focus is skills development rather than knowledge acquisition. This type of curriculum is structured in a way which prioritises student-led learning and helps students to develop the type of transversal skills which they can apply across subjects and use in every area of their lives.
[...]
Proponents of this system believe that skills-based learning better equips students with the tools they will need to adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing world. In this model, the measure of successful learning is the development of skills which can be used in different situations to solve different types of problems.

Now obviously education is actually both but my understanding is that the studies are that kids need knowledge in order to practice and develop skills. The content is sort of the protein that's essential. Without it they just sort of float in the ether (and get lost quite quickly). But it's counter-intuitive (because skills are good and important) and also sounds more conservative/controlling so gets pushback.

And as I say my understanding is the academic evidence is what it states in terms of attainment. Kids from families with social and cultural capital do disproportionately well in a system tilted to skills, while there's more equal levels of attainment with knowledge/content system.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 01:33:48 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 12, 2022, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 12:04:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 11:53:03 AMWhat's the deal with #4?

What's the harmful mumbo-jumbo? And is that something specifically local to Sweden?

Essentially it's the abandonment of 1) evidence-based teaching methods, 2) knowledge and ability as teaching goals, or 3) both. I don't know, I cannot speak for other countries.

Long story short, some of it applies to France, namely changes for the worse in pedagogy giving way to pseudo-science mumbo jumbo, mass immigration, multi-traced to unified (collège unique) but not all : vouchers and transfer to local governments.

Results are comparably bad.

Interesting. Thanks.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 01:39:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 01:30:49 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 01:13:24 PMWhat is the skills-based model about?
So from an education company. Knowledge:
QuoteWhen people talk about a knowledge-based education, they are talking about a formal curriculum which imparts a broad base of general knowledge on traditional subjects. This curriculum is structured in a way which enables students to build on their prior knowledge when learning something new. This approach is very content-focused.
[...]
Proponents of knowledge-based education believe that the more you know, the more you are able to learn. The impact of a content-rich curriculum can reduce the attainment gap between pupils of different socio-economic backgrounds. In this model, learning and research is teacher-led, and students build on their prior knowledge to develop a deeper understanding and mastery of various subjects.

Skills:
QuoteA skills-based education is one where the focus is skills development rather than knowledge acquisition. This type of curriculum is structured in a way which prioritises student-led learning and helps students to develop the type of transversal skills which they can apply across subjects and use in every area of their lives.
[...]
Proponents of this system believe that skills-based learning better equips students with the tools they will need to adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing world. In this model, the measure of successful learning is the development of skills which can be used in different situations to solve different types of problems.

Now obviously education is actually both but my understanding is that the studies are that kids need knowledge in order to practice and develop skills. The content is sort of the protein that's essential. Without it they just sort of float in the ether (and get lost quite quickly). But it's counter-intuitive (because skills are good and important) and also sounds more conservative/controlling so gets pushback.

And as I say my understanding is the academic evidence is the opposite of what it states in terms of attainment. Kids from families with social and cultural capital do disproportionately well in a system tilted to skills, while there's more equal levels of attainment with knowledge/content system.

Thanks. Yeah, when I (very anecdotally) look at my family's history it's partially a story of students from a very poor, non-academic and ethnic minority background doing very well in an "old-school" school system with a strong focus on what here is called knowledge-based education. My impression is that they would have had a much harder time making their "class journey" with a "skills-based" system.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on July 12, 2022, 02:26:42 PM
Which reinforces the socio-economic differences. I'm not superconvinced that it's the skill-based system that's to blame primarily, since that seems to be an international thing. But it's probably not helping.

I'm more a believer that the primary culprit is the lack of resources and the appropriation of resources due to the absolutely unparalleled mass immigration. But I can't prove it since I haven't really found any data. 

Would be interesting to read some more modern reports on it. The ministry of schools is usually very trustworthy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 12, 2022, 02:31:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2022, 02:30:28 PMSo the problem is "unparalleled mass immigration" we just need evidence to back it up?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on July 12, 2022, 02:39:35 PM
Found an article on Pisa. The 2012 measurement was catastrophic but by 2015 we were above average and 2018 was also a hige improvement.

Well. Apparently it's possible to discount up to 5 percent of the students from the result because of different reasons.

The good 2018 result was the result of the governments exclusion of 11% of the students due to their immigrant background and their low language skills. This was approved by the OECD. Some schools excluded more students than there were immigrants, so that's natives with too low language skills.

Reputable newspaper on Pisa (https://www.svd.se/a/jBeGRL/pa-3-minuter-vad-handlar-pisa-kritiken-om)

Raz, the unparalleled means that we have taken in an unparalleled amount of immigrants, more than comparable countries which should affect schools more than in comparable countries.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on July 12, 2022, 03:07:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2022, 02:31:27 PMSo the problem is "unparalleled mass immigration" we just need evidence to back it up?

Just to be clear, the problem isn't the immigration per se, it's the socio-economic situation badly handled mass immigration results in that's the problem. There's just a lack of resources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population)

Since we are really talking about refugees this list should give credence to my claim. Sweden is at 14.66 refugees per 1000 inhabitants, some 50% more than the nearest comparable country which is Norway. Some 5 times more than Germany. Some 20 times more than the US.

When it comes to immigration at large Sweden is comparable to Canada, but three times as many refugees.

Estimates give that immigration costs something like 10 billion € yearly out of a state budget of about 120 billion €. Of course it's going to lead to a lack or resources in schools.

Which leads the discussion a long way from vouchers, sorry for sounding like a raging racist, just trying to give a reason why it's not the vouchers that causes bad Swedish schools.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 03:09:10 PM
Back to school vouchers, according to Wiki in 2010/11 12% of students in years 1-9, and 24% in years 10-12, were in voucher schools. So worth pointing out that a big majority of students are still in government schools, which makes the argument that school vouchers are to blame for Sweden's poor results as a nation face an uphill battle. And yes, I am aware of some government teachers claiming that school vouchers have had a significant negative effect on their schools (mostly variations on "our students suck, they took the good ones", which wouldn't explain a nationwide loss even if there was found to be some insignificant higher-order effects).

Obviously the quality of a school isn't measured (solely) by the knowledge of its graduates. A better student doesn't necessarily mean a better school. And vice versa.

A school that blames a completely different school for their own failures is an organization that is intellectually and professionally bankrupt. Like any supplier, if they start blaming the competition they likely suck.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on July 12, 2022, 03:10:45 PM
Quote from: Threviel on July 12, 2022, 02:39:35 PMRaz, the unparalleled means that we have taken in an unparalleled amount of immigrants, more than comparable countries which should affect schools more than in comparable countries.

The research I'm doing seems to suggest that the level of immigration to Sweden is in fact quite comparable to other countries.

Currently 16.8% of Sweden's population is foreign-born.  That compares pretty well to Norway at 14.2% or Denmark at 10.1%.  You're behind Canada at 21.8%, but again comparable to the US at 14.5% and the UK at 13.2%.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.TOTL.ZS
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2022, 03:10:45 PMThe research I'm doing seems to suggest that the level of immigration to Sweden is in fact quite comparable to other countries.

Currently 16.8% of Sweden's population is foreign-born.  That compares pretty well to Norway at 14.2% or Denmark at 10.1%.  You're behind Canada at 21.8%, but again comparable to the US at 14.5% and the UK at 13.2%.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.TOTL.ZS

The distinguishing factor is refugee vs other types of immigrants, with the stated assumption being that refugees are harder to integrate, have fewer social and educational resources, and have more associated social issues compared to immigrants who arrive due to other reasons.

I cannot speak to whether that is factually correct or whether other factors contribute, but that's the argument as I understand it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on July 12, 2022, 03:38:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 03:29:04 PMThe distinguishing factor is refugee vs other types of immigrants, with the stated assumption being that refugees are harder to integrate, have fewer social and educational resources, and have more associated social issues compared to immigrants who arrive due to other reasons.

I cannot speak to whether that is factually correct or whether other factors contribute, but that's the argument as I understand it.

I see threviel did clarify that subsequently.

Best I could find for statistics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

And yes - Sweden does appear to have the highest percentage of it's population being refugees of any developed country (some African and Asian countries have much, much higher) at 14.6 / 1000.  Although again Norway isn't that far off at 9.1 / 1000.

Highest in the world appears to be Lebanon, at 208 /1000.  I wonder what could be the factor there... :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 03:42:23 PM
Wait wut? John Bolton talking about his experiences planning coups elsewhere - didn't think American foreign policy bods liked to admit that sort of thing publicly :huh:
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1546954718458662912?s=20&t=wMFen32d9lSrpYlQHt8nGQ
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on July 12, 2022, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 03:42:23 PMWait wut? John Bolton talking about his experiences planning coups elsewhere - didn't think American foreign policy bods liked to admit that sort of thing publicly :huh:
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1546954718458662912?s=20&t=wMFen32d9lSrpYlQHt8nGQ

Planning a coup is not that hard, I've done a few!

Damn, what a moment to shut your mouth. A Kissinger he ain't...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 03:51:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 03:42:23 PMWait wut? John Bolton talking about his experiences planning coups elsewhere - didn't think American foreign policy bods liked to admit that sort of thing publicly :huh:
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1546954718458662912?s=20&t=wMFen32d9lSrpYlQHt8nGQ

What's his batting average?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 03:52:11 PM
Nope.

Though, I hope Petro etc have flights booked in case the GOP win again :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on July 12, 2022, 03:54:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 03:52:11 PMNope.

Though, I hope Petro etc have flights booked in case the GOP win again :(

Or Boric.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 12, 2022, 05:09:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2022, 03:10:45 PM
Quote from: Threviel on July 12, 2022, 02:39:35 PMRaz, the unparalleled means that we have taken in an unparalleled amount of immigrants, more than comparable countries which should affect schools more than in comparable countries.

The research I'm doing seems to suggest that the level of immigration to Sweden is in fact quite comparable to other countries.

Currently 16.8% of Sweden's population is foreign-born.  That compares pretty well to Norway at 14.2% or Denmark at 10.1%.  You're behind Canada at 21.8%, but again comparable to the US at 14.5% and the UK at 13.2%.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.TOTL.ZS

It's unclear if that includes illegal immigrants.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2022, 12:19:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 03:51:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 03:42:23 PMWait wut? John Bolton talking about his experiences planning coups elsewhere - didn't think American foreign policy bods liked to admit that sort of thing publicly :huh:
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1546954718458662912?s=20&t=wMFen32d9lSrpYlQHt8nGQ

What's his batting average?

As low as his batty average is high.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 13, 2022, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2022, 03:51:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 12, 2022, 03:42:23 PMWait wut? John Bolton talking about his experiences planning coups elsewhere - didn't think American foreign policy bods liked to admit that sort of thing publicly :huh:
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1546954718458662912?s=20&t=wMFen32d9lSrpYlQHt8nGQ

What's his batting average?

Those who know don't talk.  Those who talk don't know.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 14, 2022, 08:45:01 AM
Is this real or a parody?

https://twitter.com/nickknudsenus/status/1547259907275075584?s=12
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on July 14, 2022, 08:56:43 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2022, 08:45:01 AMIs this real or a parody?

https://twitter.com/nickknudsenus/status/1547259907275075584?s=12

Sounds very cultish. Who are those guys supposed to be?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 14, 2022, 09:00:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2022, 08:45:01 AMIs this real or a parody?

https://twitter.com/nickknudsenus/status/1547259907275075584?s=12

That's a scene from Starship Troop... oh, wait a minute....
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 14, 2022, 09:01:26 AM
Religious nutjobs have been around for thousands of years.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 14, 2022, 09:01:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2022, 09:00:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2022, 08:45:01 AMIs this real or a parody?

https://twitter.com/nickknudsenus/status/1547259907275075584?s=12

That's a scene from Starship Troop... oh, wait a minute....

^_^
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 14, 2022, 10:32:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2022, 09:01:26 AMReligious nutjobs have been around for thousands of years.

That is true. Sometimes they've caused real trouble.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 14, 2022, 10:41:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2022, 09:01:26 AMReligious nutjobs have been around for thousands of years.

You make a good point - you need to go back thousands of years to find a Theocracy that is in any way comparable to the position the US has in the modern world.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on July 14, 2022, 10:58:08 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2022, 09:01:26 AMReligious nutjobs have been around for thousands of years.
That doesn't make me feel any better.

Having a passing understanding of history, it actually scares the shit out of me.

Seriously, that is like responding to worries about COVID by noting that plagues are nothing new.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on July 14, 2022, 11:36:05 AM
They "stand against wokeness and the occult"  :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 14, 2022, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 14, 2022, 08:56:43 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2022, 08:45:01 AMIs this real or a parody?

https://twitter.com/nickknudsenus/status/1547259907275075584?s=12

Sounds very cultish. Who are those guys supposed to be?
The "Seven Mountains" refers to seven aspects of society.  It's Dominion theology: They are saying they want to control everything.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on July 14, 2022, 01:11:24 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 14, 2022, 11:36:05 AMThey "stand against wokeness and the occult"  :lol:

I wish I was part of the occult :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on July 14, 2022, 02:39:31 PM
:menace: :lmfao:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on July 14, 2022, 03:24:07 PM
I guess if you're a woke and a member of the Hellfire Club you especially aren't wanted among Christian Fascist circles. :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on July 14, 2022, 03:27:05 PM
Well I do play D&D every week...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 14, 2022, 03:30:12 PM
Find the location of their next meeting, show up with your Players Manual, and tell them your pronouns - oh and wear body armour.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on July 14, 2022, 05:52:07 PM
So Trump is apparently saying he's already made the decision as to whether he's going to run in 2024.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2022, 10:18:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2022, 05:52:07 PMSo Trump is apparently saying he's already made the decision as to whether he's going to run in 2024.

Not sure how he can do that as there are several possible prisons he could be assigned to and not all them have inmate rep elections.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 14, 2022, 11:10:45 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2022, 10:18:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2022, 05:52:07 PMSo Trump is apparently saying he's already made the decision as to whether he's going to run in 2024.

Not sure how he can do that as there are several possible prisons he could be assigned to and not all them have inmate rep elections.

You in the market for Florida swampland by any chance?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on July 14, 2022, 11:46:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2022, 05:52:07 PMSo Trump is apparently saying he's already made the decision as to whether he's going to run in 2024.

He's such an attention whore. Everyone on the planet knows he's running.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on July 15, 2022, 01:08:41 AM
To go back to the debate on Swedish schools.

A few days ago an article was published in one of the most reputable morning papers by a reputable scientist that had done some research on the Pisa results.

https://www.dn.se/debatt/den-svenska-grundskolan-ar-bland-de-basta-i-varlden/ (https://www.dn.se/debatt/den-svenska-grundskolan-ar-bland-de-basta-i-varlden/)

The idea is that the development of the schools need to count out the immigrants and focus on the Swedish students, otherwise the results won't be comparable to previous measurements with fewer immigrants. That way one can also compare like with like with other countries.

It seems that the 2010 result was indicative of a lowering of the quality, probably due to the things that Brainy talked about, all across the board.

Later results indicate that since 2010 the quality drop has vanished (now we're talking about non-immigrants) and students today are better than they were in the early 2000s.

So the result of national Swedish testing indicate that the quality has gone up significantly.

Comparing 2018 OECD Pisa results with different countries and only taking natives into account takes Sweden up to second place in the rankings. Fully comparable to Finland, Japan and the like.

So, Swedish schools got bad due to idiotic politics, got fixed and improved significantly but then the Pisa results did not show that due to immigrants lowering the average.

The conclusion is that the schools are good,, but the poor areas need more resources and perhaps special solutions. Which seems quite obvious and sensible.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 15, 2022, 01:36:24 AM
Quote from: Threviel on July 15, 2022, 01:08:41 AM...

The conclusion is that the schools are good,, but the poor areas need more resources and perhaps special solutions. Which seems quite obvious and sensible.

What kind of resources do they need?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on July 15, 2022, 01:44:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2022, 01:36:24 AM
Quote from: Threviel on July 15, 2022, 01:08:41 AM...

The conclusion is that the schools are good,, but the poor areas need more resources and perhaps special solutions. Which seems quite obvious and sensible.

What kind of resources do they need?

I dunno, read the thing.

I would guess a more resources primarily to social services and schools, but also to the justice system.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 21, 2022, 09:26:36 PM
The clip of Hawley running away is making my Twitter feed erupt in joyous laughter.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2022, 03:15:18 PM
Louis Gohmert on the house floor: "The gentleman just impugned our integrity. I would demand that his words be taken down. He is not allowed under the rules to impugn false statements by this side ."

 :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on August 14, 2022, 01:06:55 PM
So Rand Paul now wants to legalize... treason.


https://www.newsweek.com/rand-paul-calls-espionage-act-repeal-trump-fumes-over-fbi-search-1733488
Quoteenator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, called for repealing the Espionage Act less than a week after the FBI executed a search warrant at former President Donald Trump's Florida residence, with the legal document citing a provision of the federal law that the federal agency suspected had been violated.

The FBI, with the approval of Attorney General Merrick Garland, carried out the Monday raid of Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort home, searching for top secret and sensitive compartmentalized information, as well as other classified documents. Trump and his allies have condemned the raid, with the ex-president calling it part of a "hoax" and an ongoing "witch hunt" targeting him.

On Friday, the warrant for the search was unsealed, revealing that it cited potential violations of federal laws 18 USC 2071—Concealment, removal or mutilation, 18 USC 793—Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, and 18 USC 1519—Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations. The federal statute 18 USC 793 is part of the Espionage Act.

Paul, a supporter of the former president, took issue with the Espionage Act in a Saturday Twitter post.

"The espionage act was abused from the beginning to jail dissenters of WWI. It is long past time to repeal this egregious affront to the 1st Amendment," he wrote. The GOP senator included a link to a June 2019 article titled "Repeal the Espionage Act" published by The Future of Freedom Foundation.


The article shared by the senator, which was written by the foundation's founder and president, Jacob Hornberger, said that the World War I-era law should be repealed in connection to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Hornberger called the Espionage Act "a tyrannical law" that had been enacted and used to "punish" political dissidents.

"In fact, it is that World War I relic that U.S. officials are now relying on to secure the criminal indictment of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks head who released a mountain of evidence disclosing the inner workings and grave wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. national-security establishment, especially with respect to the manner in which it has waged it undeclared forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan," he wrote.

Paul has previously called for Assange to be granted immunity from prosecution.

"I think that he should be given immunity from prosecution in exchange for coming to the United States and testifying," the Kentucky Republican told The Gateway Pundit in August 2018. "I think he's been someone who has released a lot of information, and you can debate whether or not any of that has caused harm, but I think really he has information that is probably pertinent to the hacking of the Democratic emails that would be nice to hear."

Paul's Democratic opponent, former state Representative Charles Booker, slammed the GOP senator's call for repealing the federal law.

"Rand Paul is now calling to repeal the Espionage Act after the world learned Donald Trump is under investigation for violating it. When I am elected to the Senate, you will never have to question my loyalty to our country," Booker wrote in a Saturday tweet.

"Rand Paul's actions are shameful," the Democratic candidate added in a follow-up post.

Paul also previously said, without any evidence, that the FBI may have planted classified information at Mar-a-Lago during the raid. "Do I know that the boxes of material they took from Mar-a-Lago, that they won't put things into those boxes to entrap him?" Paul asked during an interview with Fox News show Fox & Friends on Wednesday. "How do we know?"

News first broke in early February that the former president had improperly taken classified documents to his Florida home, with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) confirming that it had been searching for 15 boxes of records. The ex-president did not deny the story at the time, saying that it was a mix-up as his staff hastily moved him out of the White House.

After the boxes were returned to the NARA, the collection led to additional concern that the former president still had additional classified materials. Federal investigators began interviewing Trump staffers to determine what had been taken from the White House. The interviews, and a broader investigation overseen by a U.S. attorney, resulted in a grand jury subpoena served against Trump in late May to produce specific documents.

When the documents were not turned over, the FBI and the Justice Department chose to take the unprecedented step of carrying out a search warrant against a former president. A federal judge, as is required due process, approved the warrant—believing that the FBI had demonstrated probable cause.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on September 01, 2022, 10:14:25 AM
Hooray for the free market and deregulation ... or something  :hmm:

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/08/24/texas-boycott-companies-fossil-fuels/

QuoteTexas bans local, state government entities from doing business with firms that "boycott" fossil fuels

Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar singled out financial firms under a 2021 state law that prohibits most state entities from contracting with companies that have reduced or cut investments in the oil and gas industry

Texas banned 10 financial firms from doing business with the state after Comptroller Glenn Hegar said Wednesday that they did not support the oil and gas industry.

Hegar, a Republican running for reelection in November, banned BlackRock Inc., and other banks and investment firms — as well as some investment funds within large banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan — from entering into most contracts with state and local entities after Hegar's office said the firms "boycott" the fossil fuel sector.

Hegar sent inquiries to hundreds of financial companies earlier this year requesting information about whether they were avoiding investments in the oil and gas industry in favor of renewable energy companies. The survey was a result of a new Texas law that went into effect in September and prohibits most state agencies, as well as local governments, from contracting with firms that have cut ties with carbon-emitting energy companies.


State pension funds and local governments issuing municipal bonds will have to divest from the companies on the list, though there are some exemptions, Hegar said.

"The environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) movement has produced an opaque and perverse system in which some financial companies no longer make decisions in the best interest of their shareholders or their clients, but instead use their financial clout to push a social and political agenda shrouded in secrecy," Hegar said in a written statement on Wednesday.

New York-based BlackRock, which has publicly embraced investing more in renewable energy, criticized Hegar's decision.

"This is not a fact-based judgment," a spokesperson for the company said in a written statement. "BlackRock does not boycott fossil fuels — investing over $100 billion in Texas energy companies on behalf of our clients proves that.

"Elected and appointed public officials have a duty to act in the best interests of the people they serve," the spokesperson added. "Politicizing state pension funds, restricting access to investments, and impacting the financial returns of retirees, is not consistent with that duty."

The other nine companies banned completely are: BNP Paribas SA, a French international banking group; Swiss-based Credit Suisse Group AG and UBS Group AG; Danske Bank A/S, a Danish multinational banking and financial services corporation; London-based Jupiter Fund Management PLC, a fund management group; Nordea Bank ABP, a European financial services group based in Finland; Schroders PLC, a British multinational asset management company; and Swedish banks Svenska Handelsbanken AB and Swedbank AB.

The funds within larger companies are aimed at sustainable investing, such as Goldman Sachs' "Paris-aligned Climate US Large Cap Equity ETF" and JP Morgan's "U.S. Sustainable Leaders Fund."

Texas energy experts said the intent of the law, and Wednesday's announcement, was to punish financial firms that don't want to invest in the backbone of Texas' economy — oil and gas.

"But at the end of the day, it's all about a rate of return," said Ed Hirs, an energy economist at the University of Houston. "Quite honestly, fossil fuel companies, in particular oil and gas companies, have not been great performers in the (stock market) prior to this year."

The Lone Star Chapter of the environmental group Sierra Club said Hegar's "climate-denying publicity stunt will be costly for taxpayers."

��"Major financial institutions like the ones on this list are beginning to recognize that investments in fossil fuels bring significant risk in the face of an inevitable clean energy transition, and that addressing the financial risks of the climate crisis is essential to good business," said Sierra Club Fossil-Free Finance Campaign Manager Ben Cushing. "The fact that the Texas Comptroller has arbitrarily picked a handful of companies that, despite their climate commitments, continue to have massive fossil fuel investments, shows that this is nothing more than a political stunt at Texas taxpayers' expense."

James Coleman, an energy law professor at Southern Methodist University, said there is political pressure driving both sides of this debate.

"Not just from those hoping to reign in fossil fuels, but also from those worried that moving away from fossil fuels is an economic harm," Coleman said.

But Coleman said that "whenever the state limits the potential world that it can do business with, that potentially leaves some returns on the table."

The actual impact on Texas taxpayers is hard to predict, said Felix Mormann, a Texas A&M University School of Law professor who studies energy and climate change. He called Wednesday's move "a symbolic act by the Comptroller to protest the rise of ESG investing."

"Will this announcement give a boost to Texas oil and gas companies? Morally, perhaps," Mormann wrote in an email to The Texas Tribune. "But, financially, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and other Texas oil-and-gas majors play in the global league... In other words, I strongly doubt that the Comptroller is setting off the next oil-and-gas boom in Texas."

As political campaigning heats up ahead of the November elections, Hegar this week also accused Harris County of slashing its spending on its constables' offices, even though those offices would get big boosts to their budgets under a proposed budget. Republicans used Hegar's accusation as an opportunity to criticize County Judge Lina Hidalgo, the county's Democratic chief executive who is seen as a rising star in the party, as she faces a reelection battle in November.

Last week, Hegar announced he supports Texas repealing state taxes on menstrual products such as tampons and sanitary pads, a position echoed by Gov. Greg Abbott.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on September 02, 2022, 12:06:29 AM
Alaska has instituted a new voting scheme last year where voters rank their candidates by choices, and they can fill in a candidate name if he/she isn't on the ballot.

If a candidate wins 50%+1 votes, he/she is elected to the position, but if not, the other choices are added until the tally gives 50%+1.  Interesting system.  I think I prefer this to the list system proposed to our first past the post election system.

Anyway, the good news is, Sarah Palin lost her Alaskan election.

The predictable news is, she and other Republicans are now calling the election a scam.  They had no objetion before the vote took place, but now that they lost, it's unfair and unjust system. :)

https://www.salon.com/2022/09/01/scam-to-rig-elections-tom-cotton-fumes-over-sarah-palin-loss-as-fans-cry-stolen-election/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on September 04, 2022, 06:36:07 AM
This just in: Lone Star state not lonely enough.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on September 04, 2022, 04:25:24 PM
They cry the election was stolen even when they win. What else is new?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 07, 2022, 07:48:47 AM
Can anyone translate Steve Bannonish into English:

"Just days after being swatted three different times by deranged thugs from New York City inspired to be the Biden administration to assassinate me by police, the Soros-backed DA has now decided to pursue phony charges against me 60 days before the midterm election because WarRoom is the major source of the MAGA grassroots movement."

-His response to reports that the NY County DA is seeking to bring charges in the wall fundraising fraud.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on September 07, 2022, 07:51:58 AM
*rips off mask of the monster* So it was bmolsson all along! :o
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on September 07, 2022, 07:52:25 AM
:lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on September 07, 2022, 08:04:05 AM
:XD:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on September 24, 2022, 01:02:54 AM
Only the best candidates.

https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle

(https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/305764364_5537094039659287_2368935103715066970_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=1PmTLSjEos4AX8xOvQW&tn=3xexa7b5-wNgCvUf&_nc_ht=scontent-vie1-1.xx&oh=00_AT8vF2VPcd79VagFvNUgHkWZzdzXaUZF_2NCeCqioQk6UQ&oe=6333F6E9)

QuoteThing about this guy: he served.

It was nothing spectacular. But he served. He spent a couple months loading planes in Qatar. They don't make movies about Air Force logistics guys, but he served. That's more than a lot of people did.

According to a DD-214 that is apparently attributed to Masjewski (the form that you get when you leave the service) his service might have been, well, less than stellar. After four years, it appears he left the service with a fairly low rank, even for the Air Force. But still, he served.

He could have run on that record.

He could have said, yeah, I'm a veteran. Not a hero. I went where they needed me, did what I was told, didn't win any medals. But I served.

And he'd be like any of a million other guys.

He could have run for office on his actual military record. Or he could have just said he was a vet, if he didn't want to talk about his undistinguished career.

That would have been honorable.

No one would have batted an eye.

Lot of vets served in similar roles. Nothing dishonorable about loading airplanes. Someone has to do it.
War moves on logistics.

Nothing wrong with loading planes.

Absolutely nothing wrong with being just a logistics guy.

But Macho Studs like Majewski, they've spent so much time calling anyone who wasn't a SEAL Sniper Ninja Door Kicking Green Bean Beret a soyboy, a sissy, a loser, that he's embarrassed by his own service.

Majewski wants voters to think he's some bad ass steely-eyed killer on a secret mission, but he doesn't even have the courage to be honest about his own record.

He's a coward.

But it's worse than that.  A lot worse.

See, guys like this, what they're doing is crapping on every vet who served honorably. Who did the essential jobs nobody makes movies about, the ones that never get thanked, never get the medals, but those without whom the door kickers and the SEAL teams and the fighter jocks couldn't fight.

Again, the guy served. When a lot of people didn't and that should be enough. That's what America says, right? Everywhere you turn, thankyouforyouservice. That's what we say. Right?

But it's not.

Not enough.

Not enough to have served.

No, you gotta be a snake eater.

And it's not enough, because of assholes just like Majewski, who have turned service into some dick measuring contest.

The country is full of these damn clods. With their fake wannabe SEAL beards and their paramilitary clothing and their militarized 4x4s and their goddamn guns.

All trying to out swagger each other.

Meanwhile, the guys who really did do the thing day after day have to fight for what this country promised them when America was desperate for rough men to do violence in their name, all while fake patriots sit in congress and vote against every veteran's bill.

(There's Twitter threads looking into this guy's record; apparently he left ranked E-2 after 4 years of service which apparently is also quite sketchy as you'd normally leave E-3 or E-4 at that point.)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on September 24, 2022, 08:52:41 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 24, 2022, 01:02:54 AMOnly the best candidates.

https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle

(snip)
(There's Twitter threads looking into this guy's record; apparently he left ranked E-2 after 4 years of service which apparently is also quite sketchy as you'd normally leave E-3 or E-4 at that point.)

If he left as an E-2, he got busted in rank.  Making E-3 is automatic after 10 months as an E-2 (roughly 16 months time in service) and to E-4 after roughly 36 months TIS.  My guess is that he got busted from E-3 to E-2 for something bad enough that his CO declined to give him his automatic promotions thereafter (normally, he would have been re-promoted to E-3 after ten months in his second stint as an E-2).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Berkut on September 24, 2022, 09:16:58 AM
In MAGA world, this is ok though.

I mean, comeone, if Herschel Walker is a viable candidate, this guy is a super star.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on September 24, 2022, 09:42:01 PM
Shoot...if a busted down USAF 1-termer can potentially get elected to Congress, maybe I should try that after I retire.  :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2022, 10:03:33 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 24, 2022, 09:42:01 PMShoot...if a busted down USAF 1-termer can potentially get elected to Congress, maybe I should try that after I retire.  :P

You would have to suck the orange popsicle.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on September 24, 2022, 10:26:23 PM
How subverted do you folks think the American military is by Trump, Fox, and the forces trying to overthrow American democracy?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2022, 10:46:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2022, 10:26:23 PMHow subverted do you folks think the American military is by Trump, Fox, and the forces trying to overthrow American democracy?

2/10.

The Joint Chiefs did everything right during and after the election.

I was surprised and disappointed to find out that a retired brigadier is running as the Trump supported candidate for Senate in New Hampshire.

I was very relieved by a poll released before the election that Trump's favorable had dropped from 60ish to 40ish.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on October 06, 2022, 12:33:34 PM
A roundup of recent headlines, just in case you're under any misgivings about where the Republicans are and where they intend to take us.

A Majority of 2022 GOP Candidates Deny the 2020 Election Results (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/10/06/elections-deniers-midterm-elections-2022/?itid=hp-top-table-main)

CPAC deletes pro-Putin Tweet (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cpac-deletes-tweet-that-used-pro-putin-language/ar-AA12vIgN)
Quote"Vladimir Putin announces the annexation of 4 Ukrainian-occupied territories. Biden and the Dems continue to send Ukraine billions of taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile, we are under attack at our southern border. When will Democrats put #AmericaFirst and end the gift-giving to Ukraine?"

The tweet also featured an image of a Russian flag and described the annexation as "official" in an accompanying image that listed the territories.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on October 06, 2022, 12:53:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2022, 10:26:23 PMHow subverted do you folks think the American military is by Trump, Fox, and the forces trying to overthrow American democracy?

The military seemed really rattled around the time of the election and coup. IIRC there was some communication from the chiefs or similar along the lines of "obey the law and do your duty", which indicates they were scared af that some officers would do something stupid. And IIRC many in the military are Republicans, which today means you're an anti-democratic nutjob.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on October 06, 2022, 01:04:43 PM
I fear that "obey the law" and "defend the Constitution" are not clear enough guidelines during constitutional crises.  No one brazenly tells people to disregard laws, they just claim with varying levels of gaslighting that the law is on their side.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 06, 2022, 01:20:18 PM
There's the bit too, right now, where Fox/ Carlson is destroying the career of a general who disagreed with them about how the "woke / feminized" military is bad.

... seems to me Fox & friends are doing their best to bring the military on to their side by driving out non reactionaries.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on October 19, 2022, 12:46:49 PM
Realistic or alarmistic?

QuoteInside Steve Bannon's 'disturbing' quest to radically rewrite the US constitution

By taking over state legislatures, Republicans hope to pass conservative amendments that cannot be electorally challenged


Steve Bannon, the former chief strategist in the Trump White House who is at the forefront of the Republican march toward hard-right populism, is throwing his weight behind a movement to radically rewrite the US constitution.

Bannon has devoted recent episodes of his online show the War Room to a well-funded operation which has stealthily gained ground over the past two years. Backed by billionaire donors and corporate interests, it aims to persuade state legislatures to call a constitutional convention in the hope of baking far-right conservative values into the supreme law of the land.

The goal is, in essence, to turn the country into a permanent conservative nation irrespective of the will of the American people. The convention would promote policies that would limit the size and scope of the federal government, set ceilings on or even abolish taxes, free corporations from regulations, and impose restrictions on government action in areas such as abortion, guns and immigration.

"This is another line of attack strategically," Bannon told his viewers last month. "You now have a political movement that understands we need to go after the administrative state."

By "administrative state", Bannon was referring to the involvement of the federal government and Congress in central aspects of modern American life. That includes combating the climate crisis, setting educational standards and fighting health inequities.

Mark Meckler, a founder of the Tea Party who now leads one of the largest groups advocating for the tactic, the Convention of States Action (Cosa), spelled out some of the prime objectives on Bannon's show. "We need to say constitutionally, 'No, the federal government cannot be involved in education, or healthcare, or energy, or the environment'," he said.

Meckler went on to divulge the anti-democratic nature of the state convention movement when he said a main aim was to prevent progressive policies being advanced through presidential elections. "The problem is, any time the administration swings back to Democrat – or radical progressive, or Marxist which is what they are – we are going to lose the gains. So you do the structural fix."

The "structural fix" involves Republican state legislatures pushing conservative amendments to America's foundational document. By cementing the policies into the US constitution, they would become largely immune to electoral challenge.

Were a convention achieved, it would mark the zenith of conservative state power in American politics. Over the past 12 years, since the eruption of the Tea Party, Republicans have extended their grip to more than half of the states in the country, imposing an increasingly far-right agenda on the heartlands.

Now the plan is to take that dominance nationwide.

Article V of the constitution lays out two distinct ways in which America's core document, ratified in 1788, can be revised. In practice, all 27 amendments that have been added over the past 244 years have come through the first route – a Congress-led process whereby two-thirds of both the US House and Senate have to approve changes followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states.

Meckler, working alongside other powerful interest groups and wealthy rightwing megadonors, is gunning for Article V's second route – one that has never been tried before. It gives state legislatures the power to call a constitutional convention of their own, should two-thirds of all 50 states agree.

The state-based model for rewriting the US constitution is perhaps the most audacious attempt yet by hard-right Republicans to secure what amounts to conservative minority rule in which a minority of lawmakers representing less-populated rural states dictate terms to the majority of Americans. Russ Feingold, a former Democratic US senator from Wisconsin, told the Guardian that "they want to rewrite the constitution in a fundamental way that is not just conservative, it is minoritarian. It will prevent the will of 'we the people' being heard."

Feingold has co-authored with Peter Prindiville of the Stanford constitutional law center The Constitution in Jeopardy, a new book that sounds the alarm on the states-based convention movement. "Our goal is not to scare people, but to alert them that there is a movement on the far right that is quietly getting itself to a point where it will be almost impossible to stop a convention being called," he said.

His urgency is underlined by how active the movement has become. A convention resolution framed by Cosa has passed so far this year in four states – Wisconsin, Nebraska, West Virginia and South Carolina.

The group has also been busy around November's midterm elections, using its muscle and some $600,000 (£528,252) of its reserves to support candidates amenable to the idea. "We have built the largest grassroots activist army in American history," Meckler told Bannon, probably hyperbolically.

Bannon's other guest on the War Room, Rick Santorum, a former Republican US senator from Pennsylvania who advises Cosa, told Bannon: "This is something that can happen very quickly. We are a lot further along than people think."

They are also much better funded than people might think. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which monitors the constitutional convention movement, estimates that it pulled in $25m (£22m) in 2020, the last year for which figures are known.

The funds were split between Cosa and other influential groups on the right. They include the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a network of state politicians and corporate lobbyists which has taken up the cry for a constitutional amendment to force balanced budget restrictions on Washington.

Much of the income is dark money, with the origins hidden. CMD has managed to identify some key donors – among them the Mercer Family Foundation set up by reclusive hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, and a couple of groups run by Leonard Leo, the mastermind behind the rightwing land grab in the federal courts.

More than $1m (£880,265) has also been donated in the form of Bitcoin.

The attraction to these groups and donors of pursuing a states route to rewriting the US constitution is easily explained. Over the past 12 years, since the eruption of the Tea Party in 2010, Republican activists have deployed extreme partisan gerrymandering to pull off an extraordinary takeover of state legislatures.

In 2010, Republicans controlled both chambers of just 14 state legislatures. Today, that number stands at 31.

"Republicans are near the high watermark in terms of their political control in the states, and that's why the pro-Trump rightwing of the party is increasingly embracing the constitutional convention strategy," said Arn Pearson, CMD's executive director.

Should a convention be achieved, the plan would be to give states one vote each. There is no legal or historical basis for such an arrangement but its appeal is self-evident.

One vote per state would give small rural conservative states like Wyoming (population 580,000) equal leverage to large urbanized progressive states like California (39.5 million). Collectively, small states would be in the majority and control would tip to the Republicans.

Last December Santorum spelled out this minoritarian vision at a private ALEC meeting. In an audio recording obtained by CMD, Santorum said: "We have the opportunity, as a result, to have a supermajority, even though we may not even be in an absolute majority when it comes to the people who agree with us."

Pearson decried such thinking as "a profoundly anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic strategy that gives small rural states most control".

With the counting system skewed towards the conservative heartlands, the list of amendments that might be pursued is disconcertingly large. Though Meckler and his allies largely avoid talking about culture war issues, it is quite conceivable that a nationwide ban on abortion and a rescinding of gay marriage would be on the table.

More openly, advocates have talked about imposing balanced budget requirements on the US government that would dramatically shrink federal resources. Some have even proposed making income tax unconstitutional.

One of the more popular ideas circulating within rightwing constitutional convention circles, initially floated by the talk show host Mark Levin, is that states should grant themselves the ability to override federal statutes and supreme court rulings. It is hard to see how the federal rule of law could be sustained under such an arrangement with its unmistakable civil war undertones.

Under Article V, 34 states would have to call for a constitutional convention to reach the two-thirds requirement. Cosa has so far succeeded in getting 19 states to sign up, with a further six in active consideration.

ALEC, which sets a narrower remit for a convention focused on its balanced budget amendment, has gone further with 28 states on board.

Either way, there is a shortfall. To address it, constitutional convention leaders have invented increasingly exotic mathematical formulas for attaining the magic number, 34. "We used to call it fuzzy math, now we call it wacky math," Pearson said.

Advocates filed a lawsuit in Texas in February that tried to get the courts to force a constitutional convention on grounds that they had reached 34 states already – they cobbled together unrelated state convention calls, including some dating back to the 1800s. In July two bills were also introduced to the US House requiring Congress to call a convention immediately.

David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the willingness to adopt outlandish logic should sound further alarm bells. It raised the stakes even higher for the November elections.

"The midterms are crucial," Super said. "Changes at state-level matter, but will not get them to 34 states. If they can take control of Congress, they could bridge the gap."

Paradoxically, what happens to Congress in the midterms could have the biggest impact on the future prospects of a states-based constitutional convention. Should the Republicans take back control of the US House and Senate they would be in a position to advance radical Republicans' demands.

"We've already seen a willingness to play fast and loose with the math on all sorts of things in Congress," Super said. "I would not be surprised if they were to make a serious attempt to adopt one of these bizarre accounting theories should they take control of both chambers in November."

That could mean a rapid dash for a convention before most Americans would have woken up to the danger.

"If the Republicans prevail in Congress, they could try to call a convention right away," Feingold said. "People should know that when they go to vote in November – this could fundamentally undermine their rights in a way that is both disturbing and permanent."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on October 19, 2022, 01:02:42 PM
I'm not terribly alarmed by the GOP using constitutional means to further their agenda. I mean they already tried a coup.

Given the general situation in the US though, it might make sense for the sensible forces to push malcontent states to leave the Union. Waiting until the sensible ones will have to be the ones to leave may be a high-risk tactic. If you provoke GOP states to leave first then the seat on the security council and the position as official nuclear weapons power according to the NPT would still be in sensible hands.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 19, 2022, 01:05:18 PM
What's the current sense on the midterms? I saw headlines that it's leaning GOP for both House and Senate, but I don't know how reflective that is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 01:10:35 PM
I've heard talk about a US constitutional convention for my entire life.  It hasn't happened yet.

But the thing is - not only do they need 34 states to call for the convention, it has to be ratified by 38 states.  There is no way you're going to get 38 state legislatures controlled by hard-right republicans who will pass some hard-right new constitution.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 01:12:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2022, 01:05:18 PMWhat's the current sense on the midterms? I saw headlines that it's leaning GOP for both House and Senate, but I don't know how reflective that is.

538 gives the Democrats a 62% chance of winning control of the Senate, while the GOP a 75% chance of control of the House.

So things are all very much in play right now.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2022, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: The Larch on October 19, 2022, 12:46:49 PMRealistic or alarmistic?

34 states can apply for a convention to be called to propose amendments.  Congress then calls the Convention. But all the Convention can do is propose the amendments.  It then has to ratified through the usual means, i.e. by 3/4 of the states or 38 states.  38 states is still the magic number.

Also, implicit in the Bannon proposal is the assumption that the applying states could limit the scope of what the Convention could consider or propose, a constitutionally dubious assumption.  Otherwise the Convention could also result in proposals to e.g., incorporate an explicit right to privacy, amend the 2nd amendment to permit greater restrictions on gun rights, a right to affordable health care access, or other potential popular proposals that the Bannon people wouldn't like.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on October 19, 2022, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 01:12:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2022, 01:05:18 PMWhat's the current sense on the midterms? I saw headlines that it's leaning GOP for both House and Senate, but I don't know how reflective that is.

538 gives the Democrats a 62% chance of winning control of the Senate, while the GOP a 75% chance of control of the House.

So things are all very much in play right now.

It was 70% Democrats in the Senate a short time ago. Things are turning the GOP's way.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2022, 02:44:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 19, 2022, 01:02:42 PMI'm not terribly alarmed by the GOP using constitutional means to further their agenda. I mean they already tried a coup.

Given the general situation in the US though, it might make sense for the sensible forces to push malcontent states to leave the Union. Waiting until the sensible ones will have to be the ones to leave may be a high-risk tactic. If you provoke GOP states to leave first then the seat on the security council and the position as official nuclear weapons power according to the NPT would still be in sensible hands.

I see it the other way - we'd be in better shape if Canada had just let the US conquer them in 1812, and help dilute some of the crazy.  Yes it would be tough on Canadians to lose their national identity but sometimes you've got to take one for the human being team.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 02:49:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2022, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 01:12:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2022, 01:05:18 PMWhat's the current sense on the midterms? I saw headlines that it's leaning GOP for both House and Senate, but I don't know how reflective that is.

538 gives the Democrats a 62% chance of winning control of the Senate, while the GOP a 75% chance of control of the House.

So things are all very much in play right now.

It was 70% Democrats in the Senate a short time ago. Things are turning the GOP's way.

That was in the midst of a global economic meltdown and at the same time as one of the best orators I've ever seen was running for President.

On the other hand even in the midst of an off-year election and the highest inflation in 40 years the GOP at most picks up a handful of seats in the House, and may pick up no Senate seats.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on October 19, 2022, 02:59:25 PM
Yeah this isn't going to be some 1994, 2006, 2010 swing to the opposition party. The Republicans are going to at least win the House but after the 2020 census that was a pretty likely scenario anyway with Democrats having such a tiny majority. And as you say, the Democrats are kind of fucked due to economic conditions that are largely, though not entirely of course, outside of their control.

The idea that the current guys in office are to blame for complex economic conditions that are the result of decisions made many years before, often by people who were not even in the US government, is a dangerous notion IMO. It puts all kinds of pressure for the government to control economics which is generally a bad deal. I hated it when Clinton made his "it's the economy stupid" statement in 1992 and I hate it now. But it is just how it works, no point moaning about it. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't. Besides it is not like strong economic conditions did the Republicans much good in 2018.

It was a miracle that the Democrats got control of the Senate in 2020. The Republicans are a powerful coalition of populists, nativists, social conservatives, and anarchist-libertarian types of all stripes. That is a difficult overlap of forces. They are especially potent out of power, as benefitting from public rage at the establishment is when they are most effective politically.

I probably should just be grateful that the Democrats have a shot to repeat the miracle in 2022 and hold the Senate under the circumstances. But things were looking much better over the summer. I hate to see things trending south right at the end.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 03:03:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2022, 02:59:25 PMYeah this isn't going to be some 1994, 2006, 2010 swing to the opposition party. The Republicans are going to at least win the House but after the 2020 census that was a pretty likely scenario anyway with Democrats having such a tiny majority. And as you say, the Democrats are kind of fucked due to economic conditions that are largely, though not entirely of course, outside of their control.

There was every reason to think it would be a huge swing to the opposition like 1994, 2006, 2018 and 2010 were.  GOP thought there would be.

A series of GOP self-owns took away a lot of that momentum, but the idea there would be significant Dem gains was always a fantasy, and we've probably seen a minor 'reversion to the norm' and will end up with slight GOP gains.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on October 19, 2022, 03:06:45 PM
Somebody on this board pointed out that due to gerrymandering even a big Republican swing wouldn't move the needle that much due to the Democrats majority being so small. The Democrats floor is not far from where they currently sit, at least in the House.

But we will see. I am just hoping for 14 Democratic Congress reps from Texas.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on October 19, 2022, 03:19:29 PM
T
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2022, 03:06:45 PMSomebody on this board pointed out that due to gerrymandering even a big Republican swing wouldn't move the needle that much due to the Democrats majority being so small. The Democrats floor is not far from where they currently sit, at least in the House.

But we will see. I am just hoping for 14 Democratic Congress reps from Texas.

I'd be shocked if the republicans don't get the house and the way that things work now with mostly gerrymandered seats and more radical membership is that a small majority is little different than a big one.

Because the senate class that is up now is from 2016, when trump won and brought in a big senate republican class, the republicans have little room for gains. The room they do have was possibly squandered by nominating really awful candidates in almost every competitive seat. But if Republicans can pick up 4 seats in the senate they will have a real shot at 60 in the coming couple of cycles, which would be a filibuster proof majority, because 2018 was something of a democratic wave and republicans could have a bunch of easy pickups.

The nomination of senate republican psychos is the real wild card. If there is a wave, they could squeek in, and if the wave is that big it could then bring in more normal candidates that republicans have in races that are in less favorable ground like Colorado. On the other hand, if the wave isn't big enough to bring in the psychos, the democrats may pick up a senate seat or two even in a wave (see Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on October 20, 2022, 08:10:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 19, 2022, 03:19:29 PMI'd be shocked if the republicans don't get the house and the way that things work now with mostly gerrymandered seats and more radical membership is that a small majority is little different than a big one.

That is an interesting and true point. The Democrats have not been all that inconvenienced by the smallness of their majority either, at least in the House. The Senate is the only place where more independent voices can screw things up for you.

That and the ridiculous powers the speaker now has thanks to Paul Ryan. Debates and horse trading and modifications to bills seems to be a thing of the past. It is all a up or down vote and nothing comes to the floor the speaker doesn't want to come to the floor.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2022, 12:05:09 PM
If the GOP does take a thin majority in the Senate, the silver lining is that the filibuster will finally be killed off for good. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on October 20, 2022, 01:48:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2022, 12:05:09 PMIf the GOP does take a thin majority in the Senate, the silver lining is that the filibuster will finally be killed off for good. 

I disagree. They didn't kill it off with a majority in both houses and the white house, they won't do it with Biden as president.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2022, 04:04:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 20, 2022, 01:48:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2022, 12:05:09 PMIf the GOP does take a thin majority in the Senate, the silver lining is that the filibuster will finally be killed off for good. 

I disagree. They didn't kill it off with a majority in both houses and the white house, they won't do it with Biden as president.

They will do it to push through the national abortion ban.  The party has become more radicalized now than it was then. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 20, 2022, 04:36:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2022, 04:04:50 PMThey will do it to push through the national abortion ban.  The party has become more radicalized now than it was then. 

Forgive my ignorance of basic American legislative process... if the GOP controls both houses they can pass a bill to outlaw abortion, but wouldn't Biden refuse to sign it? Is it worth it for them to kill the filibuster for a bill that won't be signed? Or is there a way they can force it into law anyways?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on October 20, 2022, 04:57:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2022, 04:36:44 PMForgive my ignorance of basic American legislative process... if the GOP control both houses they can pass a bill to outlaw abortion, but wouldn't Biden refuse to sign it? Is it worth it for them to kill the filibuster for a bill that won't be signed? Or is there a way they can force it into law anyways?

It might be worth doing to say that you did it, even if you couldn't over-ride a veto.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2022, 05:23:37 PM
Thinking logically about the legislative process works misses the point.  This is a party divorced from reality and addicted to performative politics.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 20, 2022, 05:27:20 PM
Okay, my assumption was that they'd only kill the filibuster for an actual result - and you think that's incorrect. Fair enough.

But my core understanding is correct? That as long as Biden is president, the Republicans won't be able to pass national anti-abortion legislation even if they control both houses?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on October 20, 2022, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2022, 05:27:20 PMBut my core understanding is correct? That as long as Biden is president, the Republicans won't be able to pass national anti-abortion legislation even if they control both houses?

Correct.  It takes a 2/3 majority in both chambers to over-ride a veto.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 20, 2022, 06:40:52 PM
Thank you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: celedhring on October 21, 2022, 03:46:20 AM
 :huh:

QuoteRep. Anthony Sabatini
@AnthonySabatini
·
Oct 20
"I answer only to God and to History."

-Francisco Franco
Rep. Anthony Sabatini
@AnthonySabatini
Anyone who criticizes the above tweet is extremely un-American

He's just a Florida State Rep that lost the primary for the US Congress. But still...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on October 21, 2022, 03:53:05 AM
Wat.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: alfred russel on October 21, 2022, 05:56:47 AM
Outreach to conservative hispanics?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on October 21, 2022, 07:24:35 AM
Did Francisco Franco speak English? Or is this his cousin Francisco Franco from Jacksonville?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2022, 07:51:30 AM
It's a true statement.  Franco does now answer only to God and history.  And he has a lot of explaining to do to both. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on October 21, 2022, 07:57:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2022, 07:24:35 AMDid Francisco Franco speak English?

Quite poorly, or at least he was able to readi it phonetically. There's a video of him sending a message to Britain at the onset of the SCW to defend his position that should be somewhere on Youtube.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on November 25, 2022, 10:22:51 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FiZghQtXEAAcZIx?format=jpg&name=900x900)

CHOOSE YOUR FIGHTER
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on November 25, 2022, 10:28:45 AM
Is that an FBI lineup?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2022, 07:32:04 PM
Tim Pool wins edgiest.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on November 25, 2022, 07:39:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2022, 07:32:04 PMTim Pool wins edgiest.

It's the beanie, right? So edgy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2022, 08:47:20 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 25, 2022, 07:39:09 PMIt's the beanie, right? So edgy.

It's a watch cap, which is pretty edgy.  Jack Nicholson killed the watch cap in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Last Detail.  And his only competition is Matt Walsh's neck beard.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on November 25, 2022, 09:02:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2022, 08:47:20 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 25, 2022, 07:39:09 PMIt's the beanie, right? So edgy.

It's a watch cap, which is pretty edgy.  Jack Nicholson killed the watch cap in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Last Detail.  And his only competition is Matt Walsh's neck beard.

Aren't they basically the same thing? A beanie and a watch cap, I mean.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on November 25, 2022, 09:08:47 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 25, 2022, 09:02:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2022, 08:47:20 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 25, 2022, 07:39:09 PMIt's the beanie, right? So edgy.

It's a watch cap, which is pretty edgy.  Jack Nicholson killed the watch cap in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Last Detail.  And his only competition is Matt Walsh's neck beard.

Aren't they basically the same thing? A beanie and a watch cap, I mean.

I think that generally a watch cap is considered a type of beanie but fits more closely to the top of the skull than other types like ski caps.  Lots of other beanie types don't have the folded rim like a watch cap or ski cap.

So, yeah, basically the same thing but not always termed that way.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on November 26, 2022, 12:44:00 AM
Jack Posobiec is a Nazi.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 26, 2022, 04:05:39 AM
QuoteTexas Governor Greg Abbott sends two busloads of immigrants to the DC residence of VP Kamala Harris on Christmas Eve - one of the coldest nights on record.

The Republicans insist on shamelessly and cruelly using vulnerable people as political weapons. At least DeSantis sent them by plane rather than by bus.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on December 26, 2022, 07:19:10 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 26, 2022, 04:05:39 AM
QuoteTexas Governor Greg Abbott sends two busloads of immigrants to the DC residence of VP Kamala Harris on Christmas Eve - one of the coldest nights on record.

The Republicans insist on shamelessly and cruelly using vulnerable people as political weapons. At least DeSantis sent them by plane rather than by bus.

more details on this outrageous behaviour :

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/25/kamala-harris-migrant-buses-christmas-eve-texas

I'm surprised this is even legal; but perhaps it isn't; Republicans don't seem to put much store in obeying the law of the land.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: mongers on December 26, 2022, 08:50:18 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 26, 2022, 07:19:10 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 26, 2022, 04:05:39 AM
QuoteTexas Governor Greg Abbott sends two busloads of immigrants to the DC residence of VP Kamala Harris on Christmas Eve - one of the coldest nights on record.

The Republicans insist on shamelessly and cruelly using vulnerable people as political weapons. At least DeSantis sent them by plane rather than by bus.

more details on this outrageous behaviour :

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/25/kamala-harris-migrant-buses-christmas-eve-texas

I'm surprised this is even legal; but perhaps it isn't; Republicans don't seem to put much store in obeying the law of the land.

Shameful.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 26, 2022, 06:15:55 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 26, 2022, 04:05:39 AM
QuoteTexas Governor Greg Abbott sends two busloads of immigrants to the DC residence of VP Kamala Harris on Christmas Eve - one of the coldest nights on record.

The Republicans insist on shamelessly and cruelly using vulnerable people as political weapons. At least DeSantis sent them by plane rather than by bus.

This is apparently what passes for being a good "Christian" in today's America.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2022, 06:37:38 PM
Have the migrants been coerced or tricked into going?  I've heard about investigations into that issue but not a lot about the results.

I called this stunt clever political theater before, in part because any Democratic counter-narrative is difficult to sustain. 

If De Santos and friends are imposing a burden on the destination states, then that's a burden the arrival states were already bearing.

If the migrants went up voluntarily, then they can't be cast as the victims.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 26, 2022, 06:45:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2022, 06:37:38 PMI called this stunt clever political theater before, in part because any Democratic counter-narrative is difficult to sustain. 

if that is so, it says awful things about our national character.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2022, 06:50:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 26, 2022, 06:45:45 PMif that is so, it says awful things about our national character.

You chopped out the part where I explained why it doesn't say awful things about our national character.  That's not like you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on December 26, 2022, 06:59:49 PM
It's still shitty to send them to someone's house, independently of whether they want to go.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 26, 2022, 07:38:34 PM
There are mechanisms for moving refugees from the arrival states to states that have prepared to take them.  Such mechanisms don't serve De Santis's political objective, though, so he bypasses them to create political theater at the expense of the refugees.  There is certainly benefits to De Santis to doing this, as one of our posters here thinks that it is admirable because "clever."  It certainly does not benefit the refugees, who are just doing what they are told and then being dumped somewhere that is not prepared to receive them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 26, 2022, 07:39:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2022, 06:50:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 26, 2022, 06:45:45 PMif that is so, it says awful things about our national character.

You chopped out the part where I explained why it doesn't say awful things about our national character.  That's not like you.

You explained nothing, you just stated something for which there is no evidence.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 27, 2022, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2022, 06:50:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 26, 2022, 06:45:45 PMif that is so, it says awful things about our national character.

You chopped out the part where I explained why it doesn't say awful things about our national character.  That's not like you.

You raised some questions of fact.  I don't think the resolution of those questions is relevant to whether it is appropriate or decent to bus people on Christmas Eve to a destination in the freezing cold where there is no place for them to stay.  That is like a plot element in a Grinch-themed movie.

If we want to talk about facts, such as burdens on states, then the fact is that California hosts more immigrants then Texas and Florida combined. New Jersey hosts far more per capita than either Florida and Texas.  Yet the governors of California and New Jersey are not sending out busloads of immigrants to Kansas.

If Texans believe their state is bearing a disproportionate burden of incoming migrants, then they would be well within their rights to demand additional federal assistance.  But that would conflict with Abbot's agenda, which is not to ameliorate the problem for the state but to exploit it for political points.  Instead, he is wasting millions of state taxpayer money on perverse human campaign ads.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on December 27, 2022, 06:20:22 PM
I guess it is "clever" in that it hits so many of the notes that really appeal to morlocks.
The "why don't you let them stay in your place" fallacy, anti metropolitan liberal elite, anti government, etc....

Hopefully it's not clever in that more of the population are capable of rational thought that he is assuming.

Fingers crossed Texas hurries up and goes purple
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2022, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 27, 2022, 06:05:49 PMYou raised some questions of fact.  I don't think the resolution of those questions is relevant to whether it is appropriate or decent to bus people on Christmas Eve to a destination in the freezing cold where there is no place for them to stay.  That is like a plot element in a Grinch-themed movie.

I think it is very relevant if the people were asked if they would like to take a bus on Christmas Eve to a destination in the freezing cold where there is no place for them to stay or if they were coerced or tricked into doing so.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 27, 2022, 08:11:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2022, 07:28:34 PMI think it is very relevant if the people were asked if they would like to take a bus on Christmas Eve to a destination in the freezing cold where there is no place for them to stay or if they were coerced or tricked into doing so.

So you'd be okay if they were asked if they wanted to be shot or to take a bus on Christmas Eve to a destination in the freezing cold where there is no place for them to stay?  I mean, they got to choose, right?

I think that you are being as absurd as question above.  No one choses to be transported with their kids to a freezing location with no food or shelter.  What they almost certainly did choose was to follow the directions of the Texas state authorities, not knowing that they were just pawns in some despicable political game.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on December 28, 2022, 04:27:27 AM
It need not be an either/or.
I recall with the Martha's Vineyard one they thought they were being sent to Boston where they'd be met and dealt with officially.

Also worth considering they probably aren't tracking weather reports for all parts of the country and don't know what to expect in Washington. Its 24 degrees [American] sounds perfectly fine to people in most of the world. If they're from Central America they might never have dealt with seriously freezing temperatures- a pretty common problem for international students hitting their first winter
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on December 28, 2022, 10:50:07 AM
Yi, I didn't have you for such a piece of shit kind of person.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2022, 10:57:54 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 28, 2022, 10:50:07 AMYi, I didn't have you for such a piece of shit kind of person.

Well now you know.  I'm exactly this kind of person.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on December 28, 2022, 11:10:29 AM
Yep--I lump Yi in with Berkut as someone who has massively declined in terms of their quality as human beings in the last few years. I remember a time many years ago when I was one of the more diehard Republican and conservative posters on these boards (and also one of the few devout Christians), but as my former party has gotten into awful things like this very topic (using humans as pawns for political points) I've tried to pretty vigorously denounce them.

Yi clearly hasn't aged well, I'm guessing as he's gotten older he's gotten more bitter about things in his life, and he clearly doesn't like America anymore because it isn't the same America he knew 20 years ago or 30 years ago. It's a common nastiness that people get as they age, but I had hoped for better from many people here.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 28, 2022, 11:19:44 AM
Same Yi, same libertarian-ish streak.  What matters is the fact of an individual choice, not the context for that choice or the meaning associated with it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on December 28, 2022, 11:54:00 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 28, 2022, 11:19:44 AMSame Yi, same libertarian-ish streak.  What matters is the fact of an individual choice, not the context for that choice or the meaning associated with it.

That's how I see it. Which is a nice ideal, but unfortunately people often aren't free from outside pressures when making their choices, and don't always have access to all relevant information and/or resources to make an informed decision in the first place (and with interested parties often going out of their way to hinder access to that information and those resources).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2022, 11:58:08 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 28, 2022, 11:19:44 AMSame Yi, same libertarian-ish streak.  What matters is the fact of an individual choice, not the context for that choice or the meaning associated with it.

I was thinking about this very question last night.  Now obviously using people as props for political purposes is done all the time, so that in itself can't be the issue.  What does differentiate this case is the props presumably don't subscribe to the same agenda as the ring leader.  Whatever De Santos actually would like in terms of changes to immigration policy--he hasn't mentioned any specifics--it's surely to limit immigration.  Build teh wall, tell asylum seekers to fuck off.  The props probably disagree with his position.

So here are groups of asylum seekers who have been given the choice to move at taxpayer expense to blue states.  I don't *know* they have been given a free choice because I haven't personally talked to each and every one, but I also know there are numerous parties who have a vested political interest in demonstrating they have not been given a free choice and AFAIK they have failed to produce any evidence this is so.  On that basis I feel confident they were not prodded onto Greyhound at bayonet point.

As far as that goes I don't see how you can call the asylum seekers victims of anything.  If they of their own free will accept the offer of transportation  even though it has political ramifications does that make them victims?  I say no.  They are free to weigh the net benefits to themselves of free transportation vs. furthering an agenda they object to.  Same if they are indifferent to US immigration policy.

I think the wedge comes in when they are naive to the ramifications, when they don't follow US politics.  I.e. the paternalistic argument.  In a way they are child like and like children they need to be protected from their own decisions.

So I do see grounds for saying De Santos has DONE WRONG.  But I also think the Democratic response, which has been endless repetition of "don't use people as political props" has missed the mark.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on December 28, 2022, 12:29:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2022, 11:58:08 AMI also think the Democratic response, which has been endless repetition of "don't use people as political props" has missed the mark.

You're not a fan of Kant, I take it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on December 28, 2022, 12:29:25 PM
I would love to understand how someone can be so "deliberately stupid", it's easy to be accidentally stupid, but Yi's obvious deliberate stupidity takes real effort, and is not nearly so easy to pull off as one would assume.

I have not seen any mainstream claims that people are being "prodded" onto buses. That is what we call a shitty strawman argument (which you wouldn't bother making unless on some level, you "like" what's happening to these immigrants--which I suspect Yi does because he's a huge piece of shit.) The claims are that they are not being given informed consent, and there has been significant investigative reporting that has largely substantiated those claims. I'm not sure what more evidence you want. Arrests? Criminal trials? It's highly skeptical if a person working as a contractor for the State of Texas or Florida, giving someone who can't speak English vaguely confusing information and sending them for free to another state constitutes any kind of crime at all. In Florida it may have represented a breach of law restricting how the State spends money, but it would be up to the Florida legislature to deal with that--and they are in fief to DeSantis.

I don't think the Democratic response has missed the mark. It has gotten on record they think this is wrong, which all good people agree with. It hasn't changed the way ghoulish asshats like Yi look at it because well, they are ghoulish asshats. This stuff is designed to appeal to asshats like you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on December 28, 2022, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2022, 10:57:54 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 28, 2022, 10:50:07 AMYi, I didn't have you for such a piece of shit kind of person.

Well now you know.  I'm exactly this kind of person.
:huh: You're not that kind of a person at all. :unsure:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on December 28, 2022, 12:30:48 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 28, 2022, 12:29:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2022, 11:58:08 AMI also think the Democratic response, which has been endless repetition of "don't use people as political props" has missed the mark.

You're not a fan of Kant, I take it.

Of course not. When people say they are libertarians they really just mean they have no morality whatsoever and want to do everything they want, have no obligations in life, but take pride in seeing other people who aren't like them get shit on by the government.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2022, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 28, 2022, 12:29:34 PM:huh: You're not that kind of a person at all. :unsure:

Thanks.

I meant I am exactly as you see me.  The Larch is free to think I'm a piece of shit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 28, 2022, 12:45:56 PM
What if Abbot and DeSantis announced a new state program that migrants would be offered the opportunity to enter into seven-year contracts of indentured servitude, the completion of which would entitle them to residency in the state?  Of course, this would be prohibited by the 13th Amendment.  But if the legal objection could be waived, and the migrants agreed to the contract, would there be any basis to object?  Consent trumps all?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2022, 12:52:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 28, 2022, 12:45:56 PMWhat if Abbot and DeSantis announced a new state program that migrants would be offered the opportunity to enter into seven-year contracts of indentured servitude, the completion of which would entitle them to residency in the state?  Of course, this would be prohibited by the 13th Amendment.  But if the legal objection could be waived, and the migrants agreed to the contract, would there be any basis to object?  Consent trumps all?

I believe consent trumps all.  Obama's proposed immigration reform bill included a path to citizenship conditional on, as one option, service in the military.  The military offers education at a service academy in exchange for a fixed period of service.  It also offers free medical school on the same terms.  What is that if not indentured servitude?

edit: Although the right to residency in a given state is a nothingburger.  If you have the legal right to reside in the US you have the legal right to reside anywhere in the US.  If you don't you don't.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 28, 2022, 01:30:50 PM
I am not sure why Yi assumes that, barring conclusive evidence to the contrary, people who end up in a shitty situation gave their informed consent to be shat upon. 

My assumption (and, I think, the rational assumption) is that they didn't, and Yi has produced exactly zero evidence that they did give informed consent.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on December 28, 2022, 04:36:27 PM
Yi has generally never produced evidence for anything he says on these boards, it's his "style", he is big on asking others to do research he either lacks the ability or willingness to do himself.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Gups on December 28, 2022, 04:45:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2022, 12:52:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 28, 2022, 12:45:56 PMWhat if Abbot and DeSantis announced a new state program that migrants would be offered the opportunity to enter into seven-year contracts of indentured servitude, the completion of which would entitle them to residency in the state?  Of course, this would be prohibited by the 13th Amendment.  But if the legal objection could be waived, and the migrants agreed to the contract, would there be any basis to object?  Consent trumps all?

I believe consent trumps all.  Obama's proposed immigration reform bill included a path to citizenship conditional on, as one option, service in the military.  The military offers education at a service academy in exchange for a fixed period of service.  It also offers free medical school on the same terms.  What is that if not indentured servitude?

edit: Although the right to residency in a given state is a nothingburger.  If you have the legal right to reside in the US you have the legal right to reside anywhere in the US.  If you don't you don't.

There's a difference between consent when you have other options and consent when you don't.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on December 28, 2022, 07:19:12 PM
The refugee resettlement process that already exists also moves people to other states to share the burden. As Minsky mentioned, there is no good faith reason for the ancillary spending to randomly ship people deliberately with no coordination with refugee orgs at the destination, it is done purely to cause harm and to generate drama. It is an inherently deceptive and immoral activity.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2022, 07:31:05 PM
Quote from: Gups on December 28, 2022, 04:45:44 PMThere's a difference between consent when you have other options and consent when you don't.



Surely.  Insofar as if you have no other options consent is meaningless.  We all die at some point whether we consent or not.  Consenting to die at some point is meaningless.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 13, 2023, 03:53:47 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmTu_A-XwAEPXZm?format=jpg&name=medium)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmTu_A7WAAEp6y0?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on January 13, 2023, 06:14:36 AM
So long as he's cold and dead.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 13, 2023, 07:06:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 13, 2023, 03:53:47 AM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmTu_A-XwAEPXZm?format=jpg&name=medium)
Moving to a flat with an electric cooker is stressful enough, and now Syt's found my alt account :weep:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 13, 2023, 07:21:38 AM
Gas stoves are great
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 13, 2023, 07:27:31 AM
Yes, but turning them into another battleground in the Culture Wars is ridiculous. Guess it's a good thing that lead paint and asbestos in everything were abandoned before today's hyperpolarization. :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 13, 2023, 07:31:37 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 13, 2023, 07:27:31 AMYes, but turning them into another battleground in the Culture Wars is ridiculous. Guess it's a good thing that lead paint and asbestos in everything were abandoned before today's hyperpolarization. :P

Regarding culture wars and home appliances, it's funny how Trump ranted during his whole presidency about how toilet flushing was terrible nowadays and absolutely nobody followed him on that and now an unfounded rumour about gas stoves has the rabid sector of the GOP up in arms.  :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on January 13, 2023, 09:21:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2023, 07:06:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 13, 2023, 03:53:47 AM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmTu_A-XwAEPXZm?format=jpg&name=medium)
Moving to a flat with an electric cooker is stressful enough, and now Syt's found my alt account :weep:

Be patient and use a lower settings if your cooker is of poor quality.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 13, 2023, 09:24:57 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2023, 09:21:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2023, 07:06:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 13, 2023, 03:53:47 AM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmTu_A-XwAEPXZm?format=jpg&name=medium)
Moving to a flat with an electric cooker is stressful enough, and now Syt's found my alt account :weep:

Be patient and use a lower settings if your cooker is of poor quality.

I hate the inability to rapidly change the temperature.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 13, 2023, 09:33:35 AM
I resent having to (probably) buy new pans and learn how to use a cooker again :weep: <_<
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on January 13, 2023, 09:42:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 13, 2023, 09:24:57 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2023, 09:21:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2023, 07:06:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 13, 2023, 03:53:47 AM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmTu_A-XwAEPXZm?format=jpg&name=medium)
Moving to a flat with an electric cooker is stressful enough, and now Syt's found my alt account :weep:

Be patient and use a lower settings if your cooker is of poor quality.

I hate the inability to rapidly change the temperature.

I'd like to experience that one day. My neighborhood was built in the aftermath of a 1962 explosion that took 20 years for Quebec housing construction to get over.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: celedhring on January 13, 2023, 09:44:34 AM
I love my electric cooker. That said, I'm not a very demanding cook.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on January 13, 2023, 09:58:02 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2023, 07:06:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 13, 2023, 03:53:47 AM(https://pbs.om/media/FmTu_A-XwAEPXZm?format=jpg&name=medium)
Moving to a flat with an electric cooker is stressful enough, and now Syt's found my alt account :weep:

:blink:
I just tossed my gas cooker to get electric in. So much better and more reliable.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on January 13, 2023, 12:10:38 PM
If you're newly going electric go induction. For that one you might need new pans sheilbh. You strike me as a copper pan guy  :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on January 13, 2023, 12:58:42 PM
Referring to "electric" cookers is near-useless considering the diverse range (ha ha!) of them out there. Electrics using coil burners are probably what most people think of, and they're absolutely awful.

Glass-top and induction electrics are up there with the best gas stoves.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 13, 2023, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2023, 12:10:38 PMIf you're newly going electric go induction. For that one you might need new pans sheilbh. You strike me as a copper pan guy  :D
I don't even know what that means :weep:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on January 13, 2023, 01:03:10 PM
We have a halogen hob and its great, not like those terrible coil things from way back.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on January 13, 2023, 01:08:55 PM
My old, 1995, coil range is fine.  :mad:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on January 13, 2023, 01:12:11 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on January 13, 2023, 12:58:42 PMGlass-top and induction electrics are up there with the best gas stoves.
Induction, definitely, but not sure about glass-top.  My understanding is that induction ranges have that same instant responsiveness as gas, and they can put more energy into the food at max output.  The problem with glass-top is that you have to plan ahead, because the coils don't warm up or cool down quickly.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on January 13, 2023, 01:17:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2023, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2023, 12:10:38 PMIf you're newly going electric go induction. For that one you might need new pans sheilbh. You strike me as a copper pan guy  :D
I don't even know what that means :weep:

Copper pans are fancy. So they're for good cooks OR for bad cooks who want people to think they're good :D .  I figured you're a fancy good cook  :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 13, 2023, 01:20:14 PM
Does anyone believe that Matt Gaetz or Jim Jordan cooks their own food?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on January 13, 2023, 01:22:15 PM
They care about their employees Jacob, you should appreciate that   ;)   :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 13, 2023, 01:23:49 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2023, 01:22:15 PMThey care about their employees Jacob, you should appreciate that   ;)   :D

Hard for the employees to cook if they're bosses are holding on to the gas ranges and refusing to let go.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 13, 2023, 01:24:01 PM
I don't think my wife will ever let me be rid of my gas stove. So for the forseeable future my fireplace and stove will remain gas. Everything else is electric though, powered by my solar panels (to an extent...when I get my battery backup it will be 100% but that is still for the future)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on January 13, 2023, 01:30:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2023, 01:23:49 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2023, 01:22:15 PMThey care about their employees Jacob, you should appreciate that   ;)   :D

Hard for the employees to cook if they're bosses are holding on to the gas ranges and refusing to let go.

A good chef cooks around their crazy boss.

Anyone, the GOP is weird in general, but I assume these objections are being paid by their regular oil and Gas lobby so makes sense.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on January 13, 2023, 01:30:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2023, 01:24:01 PMI don't think my wife will ever let me be rid of my gas stove. So for the forseeable future my fireplace and stove will remain gas. Everything else is electric though, powered by my solar panels (to an extent...when I get my battery backup it will be 100% but that is still for the future)

What battery system you looking at?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 13, 2023, 02:05:33 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2023, 01:30:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2023, 01:24:01 PMI don't think my wife will ever let me be rid of my gas stove. So for the forseeable future my fireplace and stove will remain gas. Everything else is electric though, powered by my solar panels (to an extent...when I get my battery backup it will be 100% but that is still for the future)

What battery system you looking at?

Generac. They work best with my panel system.

But hey by the time I am ready to do it who knows who might be good? The market is changing pretty fast.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 13, 2023, 03:00:27 PM
The gas stove rage v distribution of different types of stoves is very weird given the way it's split in the culture war - wonder if this will flip as people in red states start getting gas stoves to signal their cultural/political values:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.statcdn.com%2FInfographic%2Fimages%2Fnormal%2F29082.jpeg&hash=0a42100311454af1dcbf4645ccc7d0e81b27691c)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 13, 2023, 03:29:26 PM
Doubtful. Kitchen changes of any kind are brutally expensive.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on January 13, 2023, 03:59:18 PM
I wonder how common the gas lines are.  Do you need a gas line for anything other than a gas kitchen range?  If not, then I don't see the utility of even having them outside of densely populated areas.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2023, 04:09:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2023, 03:59:18 PMI wonder how common the gas lines are.  Do you need a gas line for anything other than a gas kitchen range?  If not, then I don't see the utility of even having them outside of densely populated areas.

Gas furnace, water heater.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 13, 2023, 04:10:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2023, 03:59:18 PMI wonder how common the gas lines are.  Do you need a gas line for anything other than a gas kitchen range?  If not, then I don't see the utility of even having them outside of densely populated areas.

Gas water heaters and furnace as well.

Edit: Dang it Yi!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2023, 04:20:31 PM
 :nelson:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on January 13, 2023, 04:48:55 PM
I understand people use gas for water heaters and furnaces as well.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 13, 2023, 04:53:20 PM
My understanding is that many use gas for home heating and hot water tanks.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on January 13, 2023, 08:10:53 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 13, 2023, 03:53:47 AM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmTu_A-XwAEPXZm?format=jpg&name=medium)

From your mouth to God's ear, Matt.  May it happen sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 19, 2023, 04:36:27 PM
First they came for the gays...

QuoteFlorida Rejects A.P. African American Studies Class
The state's Department of Education said in a letter that the course content was "inexplicably contrary to Florida law and significantly lacks educational value."

MIAMI — Florida will not allow a new Advanced Placement course on African American studies to be offered in its high schools, stating that the course is not "historically accurate" and violates state law.

In a letter last week, the Florida Department of Education informed the College Board, which administers A.P. exams, that it would not include the class in the state's course directory. Rigorous A.P. courses allow high school students to obtain credit and advanced placement in college.

"As presented, the content of this course is inexplicably contrary to Florida law and significantly lacks educational value," the department's office of articulation, which oversees accelerated programs for high school students, wrote on Jan. 12. In the future, should the College Board "be willing to come back to the table with lawful, historically accurate content, FDOE will always be willing to reopen the discussion."

The letter, with no name attached to it, did not cite which law the course violated or what in the curriculum was objectionable. The department did not respond to questions asking for more details. But last year, Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed legislation that restricted how racism and other aspects of history can be taught in schools and workplaces. The law's sponsors called it the Stop WOKE Act. Among other things, it prohibits instruction that could make students feel responsibility for or guilt about the past actions of other members of their race.

On Thursday, the College Board said that the A.P. African American studies course was still undergoing a multiyear pilot phase. The course is multidisciplinary and addresses not just history but civil rights, politics, literature, the arts, even geography.

"The process of piloting and revising course frameworks is a standard part of any new A.P. course, and frameworks often change significantly as a result," the College Board said in a statement. "We will publicly release the updated course framework when it is completed and well before this class is widely available in American high schools."

Mr. DeSantis, who is widely considered a top contender for the Republican presidential nomination, has repeatedly taken on polarizing culture war issues, including teaching about race and gender. Those stances are popular among many parents and helped him win re-election last year by a wide margin. He pledged when he was sworn into a second term this month that he would continue seeking to make Florida "the land of liberty and the land of sanity."

Last year, a federal judge blocked part of the Stop WOKE Act — officially named the Individual Freedoms Act — that would have regulated workplace trainings on issues such as race and diversity. But the law still applies to public schools. So does another 2022 law, the Parental Rights in Education Act, which critics call "Don't Say Gay," that among other things bans instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade.

Some Florida teachers have said they feel as if they are looking over their shoulder, worrying about what and how they can teach.

Even before Mr. DeSantis signed the contentious laws last year restricting what can be taught, his administration rejected dozens of math textbooks for use in public school classrooms, claiming their incorporation of social-emotional learning and critical race theory. The rejection of the new A.P. African American studies course was first reported by National Review.

The course has been tried in 60 high schools across the country, including at least one in Florida. At all schools, students taking part in the course will not receive an A.P. exam score or college credit.

Florida already prohibits schools from teaching "critical race theory," an academic framework for understanding racism in the United States that was not taught in high schools but became a political rallying cry among parents and political activists on the right.

The state also does not allow educators to teach the 1619 Project, a classroom program that was developed by The New York Times and sought to reframe the country's history by putting the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the center of the national narrative.

Henry Louis Gates Jr., a former chair of Harvard's department of African and African American studies and director of the Hutchins Center for African & African American Research, who was a consultant to the College Board as it developed the A.P. course, said last year that he hoped the curriculum would not shy away from such debatable topics — not as a framework, but as a way of studying different theories of the African American experience.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 19, 2023, 05:26:17 PM
Meowtf?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 19, 2023, 05:31:43 PM
So it looks like the US is set for another debt ceiling crisis, is that right?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 19, 2023, 11:04:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2023, 05:31:43 PMSo it looks like the US is set for another debt ceiling crisis, is that right?

Anytime the Republicans control part of the legislature and the Democrats control the Presidency, we will do this.

When the Republicans also control the Presidency they will eagerly run up the national debt.

It is all very stupid.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on January 19, 2023, 11:06:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2023, 05:26:17 PMMeowtf?

It's what Florida wants man. They are all onboard the culture wars train.

I am in no position to judge Florida of course.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on January 20, 2023, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2023, 11:06:52 PMI am in no position to judge Florida of course.
No, you are not. :ph34r:


Food made of aborted fetuses needs clear labels, new Texas bill says (https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Food-made-of-aborted-fetuses-needs-clear-labels-17727110.php)


QuoteA Texas Republican proposed a bill in the state legislature calling for any food that contains "aborted human fetal tissue" to be clearly labeled, however according to one federal agency there is no need. 

[...]

"Unfortunately, many Texans are unknowingly consuming products that either contain human fetal parts or were developed using human fetal parts," Hall said in a statement. "While some may not be bothered by this, there are many Texans with religious or moral beliefs that would oppose consumption or use of these products." 

However, the Food and Drug Administration doesn't even allow the sale of foods containing human tissue in the U.S., a spokesperson said, adding that such a product designed for animal or human consumption doesn't even exist. 
[...]
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on January 20, 2023, 12:53:15 AM
Soylent Green baby food, now with more baby.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on January 20, 2023, 01:38:59 AM
I swear Republicans eat the weirdest shit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on January 20, 2023, 05:55:49 AM
Florida: "The NHL is not white enough"

QuoteDeSantis v NHL: Florida governor taps unlikely foe in 'anti-woke' crusade
What does the Florida governor and Republican presidential hopeful look to gain from attacking North America's whitest sports league as 'woke'?

As part of its forthcoming All-Star game weekend in Sunrise, Florida, the National Hockey League planned to host a special event called the Pathway to Hockey Summit. Part of the league's Hockey is For Everyone initiative, the summit was described in a now-deleted LinkedIn post as a "career event for diverse job seekers who are pursuing careers in hockey".

In addition to be over 18 and a US resident, participants had to "identify as female, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, and/or a person with a disability". Also welcome: veterans.

Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, didn't like the sound of it. The Republican's office issued a terse statement suggesting that the inclusive event had been too exclusive.

"We do not abide by the woke notion that discrimination should be overlooked if applied in a politically popular manner or against an unpopular demographic," DeSantis's press secretary, Bryan Griffin, said. He demanded that the NHL "remove and denounce" the "prohibitions it has imposed" on the event's attendees. The NHL quickly replaced the original post, deleting the self-identification criteria.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on January 20, 2023, 10:23:31 AM
Unless there is more to the story, it strikes me as a "The worst person you know just made a great point" story.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 20, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2023, 10:23:31 AMUnless there is more to the story, it strikes me as a "The worst person you know just made a great point" story.

Because if you want to hold an event for non straight white males, you definitely should not exclude straight white males?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on January 20, 2023, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2023, 10:23:31 AMUnless there is more to the story, it strikes me as a "The worst person you know just made a great point" story.

Because if you want to hold an event for non straight white males, you definitely should not exclude straight white males?

Probably more like: if you want to protest against discrimination based on race, sex, skin color, creed, or sexual orientation, you probably should not do so by discrimination based on race, sex, skin color, creed, or sexual orientation.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 20, 2023, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2023, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2023, 11:25:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2023, 10:23:31 AMUnless there is more to the story, it strikes me as a "The worst person you know just made a great point" story.

Because if you want to hold an event for non straight white males, you definitely should not exclude straight white males?

Probably more like: if you want to protest against discrimination based on race, sex, skin color, creed, or sexual orientation, you probably should not do so by discrimination based on race, sex, skin color, creed, or sexual orientation.

I guess the concept of discrimination is not well understood in the US  :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on January 20, 2023, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2023, 03:04:15 PMI guess the concept of discrimination is not well understood in the US  :(

The Canadian definition is not understood in the US.  We go by definitions like
Quotea
: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
racial discrimination
b
: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
2
: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
the film viewed by those with discrimination
3
a
: the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating
a bloodhound's scent discrimination
b
psychology : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
Mirriam Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination)

The Canadian "make up whatever meaning is most convenient right now" type definitions are practiced here only by the right.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 20, 2023, 07:02:36 PM
My bet is that the GOP analysis of the issue runs as deep.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on January 20, 2023, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2023, 07:02:36 PMMy bet is that the GOP analysis of the issue runs as deep.


So, did you copy your analysis from them, or did they copy their analysis from you?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 27, 2023, 09:08:34 AM
Well, this doesn't seem dystopian at all.

https://eu.heraldtribune.com/story/news/education/2023/01/23/fearing-prosecution-manatee-county-teachers-cover-up-classroom-books/69832276007/

QuoteManatee County teachers close class libraries, fearing prosecution under new Florida law

STEVEN WALKER   Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Some Manatee County teachers have covered their classroom libraries with construction paper or otherwise eliminated students' access to make sure they comply with new Florida law requiring all library books to be approved by a certified media specialist.

The Manatee County School District directed teachers to remove all books that had not yet been approved by a specialist from their classroom libraries, Kevin Chapman, the district's chief of staff, said Monday. Chapman said many of the books teachers make available to students in their classrooms are likely already approved through the district's library system, but many teachers have chosen to close access altogether, since making unvetted books available could lead to felony prosecution.

The district did not, however, directly advise teachers to shut down classroom libraries and cover them up, Chapman said.

The policy comes in response to HB 1467, which requires all reading material in schools to be selected by an employee with a valid education media specialist certificate. In a message sent from the Manatee district to principals, the material must be "free of pornography" and "appropriate for the age level and group." New training approved by the State Board of Education also asks media specialists to avoid materials with "unsolicited theories that may lead to student indoctrination."

Don Falls, a history teacher at Manatee High School, said some of his colleagues have already covered their bookshelves and he plans to join them.

"If you have a lot of books like I do, probably several hundred, it is not practical to run all of them through (the vetting process) so we have to cover them up," he said. "It is not only ridiculous but a very scary attack on fundamental rights."

Falls was involved in a lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis over the Stop WOKE Act, which banned the teaching of critical race theory in Florida schools despite it not being in the state's curriculum. He said the law violates a teacher's First Amendment rights.

Jean Faulk, a history and journalism teacher at Bayshore High, had to remove books on democracy and writings from John Adams because they weren't vetted in the district's library system. Her bookshelves are now only lined with reference books, she said.

"This is totally a political move by the governor," Faulk said. "It has nothing to do with the students."

She said her school's administration sent out a directive to teachers asking them to put away or cover up all books in classroom libraries. Faulk said the books from her classroom libraries would now go to other local libraries or Goodwill.

Manatee Education Association President Pat Barber said the union advised its teachers to listen to principals and comply with the law, erring on the side of caution.

"It's a scary thing to have elementary teachers have to worry about being charged with a third-degree felony because of trying to help students develop a love of reading," Barber said.

Several Manatee teachers have taken to social media to post images of their classroom libraries covered to prevent students from taking books. Posts call the vetting process "cumbersome" and said the process of comparing the books on their shelves with the list of approved books is "incredibly difficult."

Each of Manatee County's more than 60 schools has at least one certified media center specialist to vet books, Chapman said. The district and schools have begun making calls for volunteers to help teachers go through their classroom libraries and inventory what was already approved and what needs to be approved.

There is no deadline or timeline as to when classroom books would need to be vetted by, he said.


I hope the "employees with a valid education media specialist certificate" get snazzy titles like Commissar, Blockwart, Preservers of Purity of Mind, or Loyalty Officers. :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 27, 2023, 09:14:00 AM
What is an unsolicited theory?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on January 27, 2023, 09:34:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 27, 2023, 09:14:00 AMWhat is an unsolicited theory?
Shoreditch men talking about feminism :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on January 27, 2023, 10:02:52 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 27, 2023, 09:08:34 AMWell, this doesn't seem dystopian at all.

https://eu.heraldtribune.com/story/news/education/2023/01/23/fearing-prosecution-manatee-county-teachers-cover-up-classroom-books/69832276007/

QuoteManatee County teachers close class libraries, fearing prosecution under new Florida law

STEVEN WALKER   Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Some Manatee County teachers have covered their classroom libraries with construction paper or otherwise eliminated students' access to make sure they comply with new Florida law requiring all library books to be approved by a certified media specialist.

The Manatee County School District directed teachers to remove all books that had not yet been approved by a specialist from their classroom libraries, Kevin Chapman, the district's chief of staff, said Monday. Chapman said many of the books teachers make available to students in their classrooms are likely already approved through the district's library system, but many teachers have chosen to close access altogether, since making unvetted books available could lead to felony prosecution.

The district did not, however, directly advise teachers to shut down classroom libraries and cover them up, Chapman said.

The policy comes in response to HB 1467, which requires all reading material in schools to be selected by an employee with a valid education media specialist certificate. In a message sent from the Manatee district to principals, the material must be "free of pornography" and "appropriate for the age level and group." New training approved by the State Board of Education also asks media specialists to avoid materials with "unsolicited theories that may lead to student indoctrination."

Don Falls, a history teacher at Manatee High School, said some of his colleagues have already covered their bookshelves and he plans to join them.

"If you have a lot of books like I do, probably several hundred, it is not practical to run all of them through (the vetting process) so we have to cover them up," he said. "It is not only ridiculous but a very scary attack on fundamental rights."

Falls was involved in a lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis over the Stop WOKE Act, which banned the teaching of critical race theory in Florida schools despite it not being in the state's curriculum. He said the law violates a teacher's First Amendment rights.

Jean Faulk, a history and journalism teacher at Bayshore High, had to remove books on democracy and writings from John Adams because they weren't vetted in the district's library system. Her bookshelves are now only lined with reference books, she said.

"This is totally a political move by the governor," Faulk said. "It has nothing to do with the students."

She said her school's administration sent out a directive to teachers asking them to put away or cover up all books in classroom libraries. Faulk said the books from her classroom libraries would now go to other local libraries or Goodwill.

Manatee Education Association President Pat Barber said the union advised its teachers to listen to principals and comply with the law, erring on the side of caution.

"It's a scary thing to have elementary teachers have to worry about being charged with a third-degree felony because of trying to help students develop a love of reading," Barber said.

Several Manatee teachers have taken to social media to post images of their classroom libraries covered to prevent students from taking books. Posts call the vetting process "cumbersome" and said the process of comparing the books on their shelves with the list of approved books is "incredibly difficult."

Each of Manatee County's more than 60 schools has at least one certified media center specialist to vet books, Chapman said. The district and schools have begun making calls for volunteers to help teachers go through their classroom libraries and inventory what was already approved and what needs to be approved.

There is no deadline or timeline as to when classroom books would need to be vetted by, he said.


I hope the "employees with a valid education media specialist certificate" get snazzy titles like Commissar, Blockwart, Preservers of Purity of Mind, or Loyalty Officers. :)

There has already been book burning in Florida, official designations for the pure of mind can't be far behind
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 27, 2023, 10:54:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 27, 2023, 09:14:00 AMWhat is an unsolicited theory?

I'm guessing CRT, 1619 curriculum, anything sex/gender related ... this being Florida maybe also evolution or gravity? :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on January 27, 2023, 11:09:30 AM
I expect books on climate science, germ theory, current events, American history, evolution, biology, comparative religion, fantasy, anything with non-straight people.in them, sex education, and politics would all be off limits.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on January 27, 2023, 11:35:18 AM
African American history too.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on January 27, 2023, 11:47:07 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 27, 2023, 10:54:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 27, 2023, 09:14:00 AMWhat is an unsolicited theory?

I'm guessing CRT, 1619 curriculum, anything sex/gender related ... this being Florida maybe also evolution or gravity? :P

I wonder who is responsible for soliciting.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on January 27, 2023, 11:49:00 AM
Is conviction of third-degree felony enough to lose voting rights in Florida?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on January 29, 2023, 01:24:31 PM
Is the Bible banned?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2023, 05:57:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 29, 2023, 01:24:31 PMIs the Bible banned?

Only if the law is applied as written.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 01, 2023, 08:11:28 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/us/governor-desantis-higher-education-chris-rufo.html

QuoteDeSantis Takes On the Education Establishment, and Builds His Brand

A proposal by Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida to overhaul higher education would mandate courses in Western civilization, eliminate diversity programs and reduce the protections of tenure.


Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, as he positions himself for a run for president next year, has become an increasingly vocal culture warrior, vowing to take on liberal orthodoxy and its champions, whether they are at Disney, on Martha's Vineyard or in the state's public libraries.

But his crusade has perhaps played out most dramatically in classrooms and on university campuses. He has banned instruction about gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade, limited what schools and employers can teach about racism and other aspects of history and rejected math textbooks en masse for what the state called "indoctrination." Most recently, he banned the College Board's Advanced Placement courses in African American studies for high school students.

On Tuesday, Governor DeSantis, a Republican, took his most aggressive swing yet at the education establishment, announcing a proposed overhaul of the state's higher education system that would eliminate what he called "ideological conformity." If enacted, courses in Western civilization would be mandated, diversity and equity programs would be eliminated, and the protections of tenure would be reduced.

His plan for the state's education system is in lock step with other recent moves — banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, shipping a planeload of Venezuelan migrants to Martha's Vineyard and stripping Disney, a once politically untouchable corporate giant in Florida, of favors it has enjoyed for half a century.

His pugilistic approach was rewarded by voters who re-elected him by a 19 percentage-point margin in November.

Appearing on Tuesday at the State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota, one of the state's 28 publicly funded state and community colleges, Mr. DeSantis vowed to turn the page on agendas that he said were "hostile to academic freedom" in Florida's higher education system. The programs "impose ideological conformity to try to provoke political activism," Mr. DeSantis said. "That's not what we believe is appropriate for the state of Florida."

He had already moved to overhaul the leadership of the New College of Florida, a small liberal arts school in Sarasota that has struggled with enrollment, but calls itself a place for "freethinkers." It is regarded as among the most progressive of Florida's 12 public universities.

Mr. DeSantis pointed to low enrollment and test scores at New College as part of the justification for seeking change there.

"If it was a private school, making those choices, that's fine, I mean, what are you going to do," he said. "But this is paid for by your tax dollars."

The college's board of trustees, with six new conservative members appointed by Governor DeSantis, voted in a raucous meeting on Tuesday afternoon to replace the president, and agreed to appoint Richard Corcoran, a former state education commissioner, as the interim president beginning in March.

(Because Mr. Corcoran cannot serve until March, the board appointed an interim for the interim, Bradley Thiessen, the college's director of institutional research.)

Mr. Corcoran will replace Patricia Okker, a longtime English professor and college administrator who was appointed in 2021.

While expressing her love for both the college and its students, Dr. Okker called the move a hostile takeover. "I do not believe that students are being indoctrinated here at New College," she said. "They are taught, they read Marx and they argue with Marx. They take world religions, they do not become Buddhists in February and turn into Christians in March."

Governor DeSantis also announced on Tuesday that he had asked the Legislature to immediately free up $15 million to recruit new faculty and provide scholarships for New College.

In all, he requested from the Legislature $100 million a year for state universities.

"We're putting our money where our mouth is," he said.

New College is small, with nearly 700 students, but the shake-up reverberated throughout Florida, as did Mr. DeSantis's proposed overhaul.

Andrew Gothard, president of the state's faculty union, said the governor's statements on the state's system of higher education were perhaps his most aggressive yet.

"There's this idea that Ron DeSantis thinks he and the Legislature have the right to tell Florida students what classes they can take and what degree programs," said Dr. Gothard, who is on leave from his faculty job at Florida Atlantic University. "He says out of one side of his mouth that he believes in freedom and then he passes and proposes legislation and policies that are the exact opposite."

At the board meeting, students, parents and professors defended the school and criticized the board members for acting unilaterally without their input.

Betsy Braden, who identified herself as the parent of a transgender student, said her daughter had thrived at the school.

"It seems many of the students that come here have determined that they don't necessarily fit into other schools," Ms. Braden said. "They embrace their differences and exhibit incredible bravery in staking a path forward. They thrive, they blossom, they go out into the world for the betterment of society. This is well documented. Why would you take this away from us?"

Mr. Corcoran, a DeSantis ally, had been mentioned as a possible president of Florida State University, but his candidacy was dropped following questions about whether he had a conflict of interest or the appropriate academic background.

A letter from Carlos Trujillo, the president of Continental Strategy, a consulting firm where Mr. Corcoran is a partner, said the firm hoped that his title at New College would become permanent.

Not since George W. Bush ran in 2000 to be "the education president" has a Republican seeking the Oval Office made school reform a central agenda item. That may have been because, for years, Democrats had a double-digit advantage in polling on education.

But since the pandemic started in 2020, when many Democratic-led states kept schools closed longer than Republican states did, often under pressure from teachers' unions, some polling has suggested education now plays better for Republicans. And Glenn Youngkin's 2021 victory in the Virginia governor's race, after a campaign focused on "parents' rights" in public schools, was seen as a signal of the political potency of education with voters.

Mr. DeSantis's attack on diversity, equity and inclusion programs coincides with the recent criticisms of such programs by conservative organizations and think tanks.

Examples of such initiatives include campus sessions on "microaggressions" — subtle slights usually based on race or gender — as well as requirements that candidates for faculty jobs submit statements describing their commitment to diversity.

"That's basically like making people take a political oath," Mr. DeSantis said on Tuesday. He also attacked the programs for placing a "drain on resources and contributing to higher costs."


Supporters of D.E.I. programs and diverse curriculums say they help students understand the broader world as well as their own biases and beliefs, improving their ability to engage in personal relationships as well as in the workplace.

Mr. DeSantis's embrace of civics education, as well as the establishment of special civics programs at several of the state's 12 public universities, dovetails with the growth of similar programs around the country, some partially funded by conservative donors.

The programs emphasize the study of Western civilization and economics, as well as the thinking of Western philosophers, frequently focusing on the Greeks and Romans. Critics of the programs say they sometimes gloss over the pitfalls of Western thinking and ignore the philosophies of non-Western civilizations.

"The core curriculum must be grounded in actual history, the actual philosophy that has shaped Western civilization," Mr. DeSantis said. "We don't want students to go through, at taxpayer expense, and graduate with a degree in Zombie studies."

The shake-up of New College, which also included the election of a new board chairwoman, may be ongoing and dramatic, given the new six board members appointed by Mr. DeSantis.

They include Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute who is known for his vigorous attacks on "critical race theory," an academic concept that historical patterns of racism are ingrained in law and other modern institutions.

At the time of his appointment, Mr. Rufo, who lives and works in Washington State, tweeted that he was "recapturing" higher education.

Another new board member is Eddie Speir, who runs a Christian private school in Florida. He had recommended in a Substack posting before the meeting that the contracts of all the school's faculty and staff be canceled.

The other new appointees include Matthew Spalding, dean of the Washington, D.C., campus of Hillsdale College, a private college in Michigan known for its conservative and Christian orientations. An aide to the governor has said that Hillsdale, which says it offers a classical education, is widely regarded as the governor's model for remaking New College.

In addition to the governor's six new appointees, the university system's board of governors recently named a seventh member, Ryan T. Anderson, the head of a conservative think tank, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which applies the Judeo-Christian tradition to contemporary questions of law, culture, and politics. His selection was viewed as giving Mr. DeSantis a majority vote on the 13-member board.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 01, 2023, 08:18:33 AM
Sounds like his own program of ideological conformity.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on February 01, 2023, 08:29:46 AM
DeSantis believes that everyone shoud be free to believe whatever they want, so long as they believe in the same things he does.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on February 01, 2023, 08:41:41 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 01, 2023, 08:11:28 AMcourses in Western civilization would be mandated

Would liking kitsch statues be required to pass? :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 01, 2023, 11:48:39 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn0YzxbWIBUY9iz?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2023, 04:23:03 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlb3NJW310w

Apparently MyPillow is running for head of the RNC. :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2023, 02:35:12 PM
Yeah I keep hearing prophets of doom insisting that the Republicans are going to become sane again and then they will easily reconquer Arizona and Georgia and then we will be vanquished by a new era of red glory.

Well not looking like sanity is going to prevail any time soon.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 02, 2023, 02:43:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2023, 02:35:12 PMYeah I keep hearing prophets of doom insisting that the Republicans are going to become sane again and then they will easily reconquer Arizona and Georgia and then we will be vanquished by a new era of red glory.

Well not looking like sanity is going to prevail any time soon.

I'm going to quibble with the word "insane".

There is a string of what appears to be legit mental illness running through the GOP.  It starts with Trump of course, but includes figures like MTG, Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Herschel Walker.

But then you have a bunch of politicians who are taking policy decisions I don't like, and are happy to saddle up to the crazy, but don't appear to be crazy themselves.  DeSantis, McCarthy and a lot of others in this category.

I think the GOP will push back more against the crazy when Trump is well and truly done (whenever that may be) - but the GOP or Reagan and the Bushes is not coming back.  The new GOP is going to take a lot of lessons from this era - it'll be more nativist, more concerned with "culture wars", less interested in fiscal policy - but more sane.

Take whatever hope and/or fear from that you will.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on February 02, 2023, 02:47:27 PM
(https://i.redd.it/ohv3vsrkgsfa1.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2023, 02:48:42 PM
(https://media.tenor.co/images/a84ddcc735aec20979d0eef871aa2937/raw)

I will believe it when I see it.

The problem is the crazy sells. The people hate the billionaires and the big corporations and the government and how they are all in bed together, so the anti-establishment paranoid shit gets votes. The culture war stuff is a big winner inside the 30% or so of the country that is culturally conservative but that is an ever shrinking group. They can't win without the crazy. Probably can't win with it either, but there we go.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 02, 2023, 02:56:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2023, 02:48:42 PMI will believe it when I see it.

The problem is the crazy sells. The people hate the billionaires and the big corporations and the government and how they are all in bed together, so the anti-establishment paranoid shit gets votes. The culture war stuff is a big winner inside the 30% or so of the country that is culturally conservative but that is an ever shrinking group. They can't win without the crazy. Probably can't win with it either, but there we go.

"The crazy" doesn't sell.  But yes, the anti-establishment, anti-big corporations, culture war stuff does.  Oh and don't forget the performative cruelty - that also sells.

And to be clear - this isn't the kind of evolution I want in right-wing politics!  But it is what I think we will get.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2023, 02:59:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2023, 02:56:01 PM"The crazy" doesn't sell.  But yes, the anti-establishment, anti-big corporations, culture war stuff does.  Oh and don't forget the performative cruelty - that also sells.

I guess I have a hard time imagining a non-crazy version of this. I guess that is DeSantis isn't it? I think he is going down hard in the Primary, I guess time will tell. But even DeSantis has to at least pretend he thinks the elections are rigged right?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 02, 2023, 03:04:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2023, 02:59:47 PMI guess I have a hard time imagining a non-crazy version of this. I guess that is DeSantis isn't it? I think he is going down hard in the Primary, I guess time will tell. But even DeSantis has to at least pretend he thinks the elections are rigged right?
I think he just had a line about the difference between him and Trump is that he gets re-elected - which doesn't work if he's still saying the election was rigged.

And I think weak and loser are the right attack lines against Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 02, 2023, 03:06:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2023, 02:59:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2023, 02:56:01 PM"The crazy" doesn't sell.  But yes, the anti-establishment, anti-big corporations, culture war stuff does.  Oh and don't forget the performative cruelty - that also sells.

I guess I have a hard time imagining a non-crazy version of this. I guess that is DeSantis isn't it? I think he is going down hard in the Primary, I guess time will tell. But even DeSantis has to at least pretend he thinks the elections are rigged right?

I don't think we'll see a President DeSantis - or even a GOP nominee DeSantis.

But yes, I think he's showing the way.

You'll note than in the mid-terms, almost all losing GOP candidates accepted their results.  Kari Lake in Arizona (who is definitely in the crazy wing) is the only one claiming she won.  Election denying is part of the "crazy".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 02, 2023, 04:57:48 PM
It'd be an improvement if accepting the outcome of elections becomes standard for the GOP again.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 02, 2023, 05:02:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 02, 2023, 04:57:48 PMIt'd be an improvement if accepting the outcome of elections becomes standard for the GOP again.

But it'll come with attempting to restrict access to voting...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 02, 2023, 07:20:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2023, 05:02:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 02, 2023, 04:57:48 PMIt'd be an improvement if accepting the outcome of elections becomes standard for the GOP again.

But it'll come with attempting to restrict access to voting...

The weird part about that is they are currently throwing a fit about mail-in voting. Making big moves to keep rural voters, elderly, and military service people from voting? Are they nuts?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 05, 2023, 12:25:41 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/billionaire-charles-koch-backed-group-will-push-gop-to-move-past-donald-trump-11675570703

QuoteBillionaire Charles Koch-Backed Group Will Push GOP to Move Past Donald Trump

Americans for Prosperity wants presidential candidate 'who can win' in 2024

WASHINGTON—A group funded by billionaire Charles Koch will work to support a Republican presidential nominee other than Donald Trump, concluding in a strategy memo that "we need to turn the page on the past."

The organization, Americans for Prosperity, has stayed out of the last two presidential cycles but has concluded it needs to engage now as Mr. Trump mounts his third consecutive White House run. The memo released Sunday doesn't mention the former president by name but is unambiguous in its purpose.

"To write a new chapter for our country, we need to turn the page on the past," the document reads. "So the best thing for the country would be to have a president in 2025 who represents a new chapter. The American people have shown that they're ready to move on, and so AFP will help them do that."

A spokesman for Mr. Trump didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Trump is the only declared Republican candidate but former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is expected to enter the race on Feb. 15 with more expected to follow, likely including former Vice President Mike Pence and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, among others. The former president remains the front-runner but some polls have shown Mr. DeSantis especially strong in a hypothetical primary.

AFP didn't say how much it would spend but boasts of a large grass-roots and data operation. "The states with some of our strongest and most effective state chapters are the same ones that will play a crucial role in nominating the next Republican presidential candidate," reads the memo, written by CEO Emily Seidel.

A related super political-action committee, AFP Action, "is prepared to support a candidate in the Republican presidential primary who can lead our country forward, and who can win," the memo stated.

AFP was founded in 2004 by businessmen Charles and David Koch and has been one of the best-funded political organizations since then, helping fuel the tea party movement that preceded Mr. Trump's rise. David Koch died in 2019.

Mr. Trump has been critical of the Kochs, branding them globalists and a "total joke," within a GOP he infused with more populist and isolationist policies.

The group also said it would wade into congressional primaries earlier than it has in the past, arguing the GOP is "nominating bad candidates who are advocating for things that go against core American principles" while Democrats yield more to liberals who now animate the party. Trump-backed candidates lost some key Senate and governor races in 2022 after winning competitive GOP primaries.

"This means the country is in a downward spiral, with both parties reinforcing the bad behavior of the other," the memo reads. "And to make matters worse, very few voters participate in primaries—and that's where these candidates are chosen. This makes it impossible to get good things done in Washington."

AFP Action spent roughly $80 million in the 2022 election cycle, according to the campaign finance tracking website OpenSecrets.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 05, 2023, 11:22:58 PM
Oh boy it's that asshole again.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 08, 2023, 10:42:19 AM
Democrat Josh Harder:

https://twitter.com/JoshHarder/status/1622777880257216525

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoWrvqYWAAIjhlO?format=jpg&name=900x900)

 :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 08, 2023, 10:55:23 AM
One has to wonder what is it that they were trying to achieve with that tweet.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on February 08, 2023, 12:20:30 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 08, 2023, 10:42:19 AMDemocrat Josh Harder:

(snip)

 :lol:

Indeed, the GOP is the only group of people who understand that no food comes from any coastal state.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 09, 2023, 03:06:17 AM
https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2023/02/02/utah-schools-financial-literacy-superior-capitalism

QuoteUtah schools could be required to tout "superior" U.S. capitalism

Utah high schoolers would be required to learn about the "superiority" of American free markets under new guidelines the state school board is considering this week.

Driving the news: Teachers would have to "explain why free market systems are superior and have made America the most free and prosperous country in the world" under new standards proposed for financial literacy courses.

All students are required to take the class to graduate from public high schools in Utah.
The big picture: The claims in the proposed standards are controversial among economists, social scientists and the public.

While polling suggests most Americans think the country is "among" the greatest, only a small minority believe it's the best. Nearly 60 countries got higher "freedom" ratings under the Freedom House Index, and the nation ranked 20th for prosperity, according to the investment firm Legatum.

Half of Americans surveyed by Pew in 2020 said the U.S. economic system needed "major" changes, and while "free enterprise" is popular, multiple polls indicate enthusiasm for capitalism is declining.

Of note: Many economists say that America is not truly a "free market" economy, pointing to limits created both by government regulation and corporate monopolies
.

Between the lines: Those disagreements are what conservative State Board of Education member Natalie Cline said she wanted to elide by adding the provision in a January committee meeting.

Cline pointed to a state law requiring civics classes to teach "the benefits of a free enterprise system."
The addition will "make sure ... [students] walk away without any question in their mind, regardless of how it might have been presented ... that this is the superior system," Cline said.

Details: Under state law, the board must review statewide standards for financial literacy courses every three years.

Current guidelines, adopted in 2019, only require students to learn how different economic systems affect growth and don't address the "superiority" of any one system.

What they're saying: "It feels like ... telling students what to believe ... rather than helping them understand our free market and why it's beneficial to Americans," said Democrat Sarah Reale, who represents Salt Lake City on the board and has taught political science at Salt Lake Community College.

Reale, the only member who voted against the measure in committee, described it as "a statement that could be considered opinion."

Catch up quick: Utah's financial literacy classes, which the Legislature began requiring in 2007, have drawn scrutiny for outdated advice and occasional forays into non-financial, personal subject matter.

Salt Lake City students in 2017 received checklists of gender-specific dating advice, exhorting girls to "be feminine and lady-like."

A few months later, students in Roy were given "purity tests" in the class, with points for French kissing, having an abortion or answering yes when asked: "Even though you are straight, would you go kinky to see what it's like?"


What's next: The board could approve the new standards as early as Thursday.


Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 09, 2023, 04:48:34 AM
"Go kinky"  :perv:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on February 09, 2023, 06:00:43 AM
What's the connection between straight/non-straight and kinky/non-kinky?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: ulmont on February 09, 2023, 01:36:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 09, 2023, 06:00:43 AMWhat's the connection between straight/non-straight and kinky/non-kinky?

Not much, at least per Pansy Division: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DFRjyJgXIY
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 09, 2023, 01:49:15 PM
Yeah Texas has requirements to make sure the students know Christian Western Capitalistic Civilization is objectively best.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 09, 2023, 02:18:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2023, 01:49:15 PMYeah Texas has requirements to make sure the students know Christian Western Capitalistic Civilization is objectively best.

So I mean I think it's okay to teach that liberty and freedom are objectively good and superior.  These are concepts embedded in the founding of the USA after all.  And since economic freedom, like freedom to contract and freedom to own property, is an intrinsic part of those freedoms, teaching that capitalism is superior to other economic systems also seems also okay.

"Western Civilization" is tricky.  Ideas of individual liberty are certainly tied up with the enlightenment, english common law, and the like - all based from Western Europe.  Those ideas are not exclusive to western europe of course, but to a certain limited extent teaching that "western civilization" is better is probably okay.  It's fraught with pitfalls though, as you don't want to start saying that other aspects of western civilization are necessarily superior - as that can quickly run smack-dab into racism.

"Christian" of course is right out.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 09, 2023, 03:18:27 PM
That would make for remarkably mediocre teaching.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 09, 2023, 03:23:17 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 09, 2023, 03:18:27 PMThat would make for remarkably mediocre teaching.

If you assume that they want teaching rather than indoctrination.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on February 09, 2023, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 09, 2023, 03:18:27 PMThat would make for remarkably mediocre teaching.
They'll leave it up to the football coach.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 09, 2023, 04:45:43 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 09, 2023, 03:18:27 PMThat would make for remarkably mediocre teaching.

I don't think so.

The couple of examples that come to mind were religion class in my jesuit high school, and some of my law school classes. At the end of the day the teacher/professor had a definite opinion and point of view on certain issues, but all sides were taught and analyzed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 09, 2023, 05:56:16 PM
Were those lessons mandated by the state, too?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 09, 2023, 06:12:29 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 09, 2023, 05:56:16 PMWere those lessons mandated by the state, too?

High school religion class, no.

Law school constitutional law class?  Yes - if you want to be a lawyer.  And there the example is worse as the professor I was thinking of was an ex-communist, so was very much let you know his own personal opinion.

But let's think of the US.  The very words of the Declaration of Independence was that "all men are created equal".  I have zero issue with the state mandating that people, in fact, be taught that "all men are created equal".  Or to be taught that freedom of speech is an important value.  These are concepts important to the entire idea of the USA.

Or Canada - our country was founded on the principles of "the supremacy of God and the rule of law".  I think the state can teach as a positive value about the importance of the rule of law and the supremacy of God.


The thing is - those positive values I'm talking about go a lot less far than apparently Utah and Texas curriculums want to go.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 09, 2023, 06:15:22 PM
It's a bit of a stretch to claim that "capitalism [subtext, as it exists in the US today] is the pinnacle of individual and economic freedom," and that's what seems to be state mandated.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 09, 2023, 06:18:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 09, 2023, 06:12:29 PMLaw school constitutional law class?  Yes - if you want to be a lawyer.  And there the example is worse as the professor I was thinking of was an ex-communist, so was very much let you know his own personal opinion.
:lol: In law school my equities and trusts lecturer was very old - but very fun (as much as the subject allowed) - so old that he was John Cleese's law tutor in the 60s.

He was not shy about letting us know the damage "Mr Blair's" Charities Act 2006 had wrought on the country. Also very, very passionate about public schools retaining their charitable status.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2023, 06:25:10 PM
I think any sort of classroom indoctrination is suspect.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on February 09, 2023, 06:34:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 09, 2023, 06:15:22 PMIt's a bit of a stretch to claim that "capitalism [subtext, as it exists in the US today] is the pinnacle of individual and economic freedom," and that's what seems to be state mandated.

Yes.  The state of Utah wants students to be free to make up their own minds:  do they agree that capitalism is the peak of freedom, or do they mindlessly agree that capitalism is the peak of freedom?

We do have to keep in mind that Utah is run by one of the creepiest cults in America. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on February 09, 2023, 07:44:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2023, 06:34:25 PMWe do have to keep in mind that Utah is run by one of the creepiest cults in America. 

The GOP? :unsure: :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on February 10, 2023, 01:51:40 PM
Another fake republican Jew, Anna Paulina Luna. Extra spice, her granddaddy was a nazi.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on February 10, 2023, 01:52:15 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 10, 2023, 01:51:40 PMAnother fake republican Jew, Anna Paulina Luna. Extra spice, her granddaddy was a nazi.

But he killed Hitler?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on February 10, 2023, 02:00:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 10, 2023, 01:52:15 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 10, 2023, 01:51:40 PMAnother fake republican Jew, Anna Paulina Luna. Extra spice, her granddaddy was a nazi.

But he killed Hitler?

The only nazi man enough to kill hitler was hitler :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 10, 2023, 02:06:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2023, 06:25:10 PMI think any sort of classroom indoctrination is suspect.

But all kinds of classroom indoctrination already happens.

Kids are being taught that respect for authority (teachers, parents) is good.  Timeliness is good.  Kids are being taught to recycle, that all kids are created equal.  And I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

I mean - I'm very much opposed to the idea that we present Nazism as a perfectly valid political ideology!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2023, 07:55:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2023, 02:06:35 PMBut all kinds of classroom indoctrination already happens.

Kids are being taught that respect for authority (teachers, parents) is good.  Timeliness is good.  Kids are being taught to recycle, that all kids are created equal.  And I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

I mean - I'm very much opposed to the idea that we present Nazism as a perfectly valid political ideology!

You may think I'm splitting hairs but I see a difference between basic life lessons like punctuality and respect for people in general, without which your life will be more difficult, and positions that involve more personal judgement.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 12, 2023, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 09, 2023, 06:12:29 PMLaw school constitutional law class?  Yes - if you want to be a lawyer.  And there the example is worse as the professor I was thinking of was an ex-communist, so was very much let you know his own personal opinion.

I don't understand how you cannot see the difference. What you describe has nothing to do with the book burning and state control that DeSantis is now imposing on Florida.

Law is obviously a normative topic. You have to know the norms in order to practice law. Your professor can certainly say whatever they want on the topic - unless they secretly control the Canadian Parliament, or the US Congress, that opinion has no bearing on what the law is. Now, when you get into building legal reasoning, or political philosophy, this gets a lot more blurry, because you can teach it in a way that aims at "winning" an argument, or you can teach it as a way to justify a position.

But none of those latter elements - their *conclusions* - are state-mandated. If your law school professor teaches false things about the state of the law, students will either fail the bar, or lose cases. What DeSantis is doing, applied to law, is mandating an ideological conclusion about the rationale behind the law - that, for instance, it's the best possible form of jurisdiction and cannot possibly produce any form of injustice. A professor can certainly *say* these things, but they are not state-*mandated* to say these things.

DeSantis and his acolytes have picked a version of "history" from which deviations are measured, and sanctioned. No professor of history starts out having, as a goal, to arrive at these sorts of moronic conclusions: the United States is the freest country in the world, the bestest, that racism doesn't exist in the US, etc. That is why I said dogma make for mediocre teaching, especially when taken at face-value. But there is a world of difference between teaching orthodoxy to recognize it in our world ("we rarely question the existence of private property"), orthodoxy taught historically ("why do we tend to think property leads to liberty"), orthodoxy taught in relations to exterior norms ("here is what Canadian law says about property"), and dogma ("property is liberty"), or state ideology ("Property is liberty. Glory to Arztozka").

What DeSantis & Co. promote isn't an equally valid reading of history (or the present). It's a collection of moronic myths to appease a political constituency - and they are not *promoting* them. They are *enforcing* them.

And yes, at its core, the humanities all have a commitment to certain values, notably, the dignity of the person. It is a political truism. But even that isn't mandated and enforced by state legislatures rooting through emails, and syllabi, and examining the content of school libraries to remove offending books. Even cherished notions like equality gets routinely discussed, and examined, and debated: this is why Yale is apparently capable of churning out all those highly-educated fascists.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 13, 2023, 12:22:14 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 12, 2023, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 09, 2023, 06:12:29 PMLaw school constitutional law class?  Yes - if you want to be a lawyer.  And there the example is worse as the professor I was thinking of was an ex-communist, so was very much let you know his own personal opinion.

I don't understand how you cannot see the difference. What you describe has nothing to do with the book burning and state control that DeSantis is now imposing on Florida.

Law is obviously a normative topic. You have to know the norms in order to practice law. Your professor can certainly say whatever they want on the topic - unless they secretly control the Canadian Parliament, or the US Congress, that opinion has no bearing on what the law is. Now, when you get into building legal reasoning, or political philosophy, this gets a lot more blurry, because you can teach it in a way that aims at "winning" an argument, or you can teach it as a way to justify a position.

But none of those latter elements - their *conclusions* - are state-mandated. If your law school professor teaches false things about the state of the law, students will either fail the bar, or lose cases. What DeSantis is doing, applied to law, is mandating an ideological conclusion about the rationale behind the law - that, for instance, it's the best possible form of jurisdiction and cannot possibly produce any form of injustice. A professor can certainly *say* these things, but they are not state-*mandated* to say these things.

DeSantis and his acolytes have picked a version of "history" from which deviations are measured, and sanctioned. No professor of history starts out having, as a goal, to arrive at these sorts of moronic conclusions: the United States is the freest country in the world, the bestest, that racism doesn't exist in the US, etc. That is why I said dogma make for mediocre teaching, especially when taken at face-value. But there is a world of difference between teaching orthodoxy to recognize it in our world ("we rarely question the existence of private property"), orthodoxy taught historically ("why do we tend to think property leads to liberty"), orthodoxy taught in relations to exterior norms ("here is what Canadian law says about property"), and dogma ("property is liberty"), or state ideology ("Property is liberty. Glory to Arztozka").

What DeSantis & Co. promote isn't an equally valid reading of history (or the present). It's a collection of moronic myths to appease a political constituency - and they are not *promoting* them. They are *enforcing* them.

And yes, at its core, the humanities all have a commitment to certain values, notably, the dignity of the person. It is a political truism. But even that isn't mandated and enforced by state legislatures rooting through emails, and syllabi, and examining the content of school libraries to remove offending books. Even cherished notions like equality gets routinely discussed, and examined, and debated: this is why Yale is apparently capable of churning out all those highly-educated fascists.

Oex, I feel like you aren't reading what I'm saying, and just interpreting through the US political landscape.

My former law school constitutional law prof - he wasn't secretly in control of anything - he was literally the former Justice Minister and Attorney General of Manitoba.  And I'm not being cute in calling him being a former communist - he literally was.

And he wound up as my law school academic reference.  I grudgingly admired the man, even though I disagreed with his politics.

As you say - there are certain values the humanities / liberal society upholds.  That's all I'm saying that schools should be unapologetic about promoting.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 13, 2023, 05:27:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 09, 2023, 06:12:29 PMOr Canada - our country was founded on the principles of "the supremacy of God and the rule of law".  I think the state can teach as a positive value about the importance of the rule of law and the supremacy of God.

That is not actually the quote.  The Preamble to the Charter does not say Canada was founded on the principle of the supremacy of God.

The actual quote is, "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the
supremacy of God and the rule of law". 

It is not surprising at all that the principles that recognize the rule of law had and continue to have a significant impact on the development of our law.

It is also not surprising that there are actually no principles related to the supremacy of God in our law, and that the addition of that language was a political sop to get support to get the Charter passed.  As a result the preamble has become a dead letter of the law.


Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 14, 2023, 06:18:49 AM
As I saw mentioned in another news article, the current GOP's war is on energy efficiency.

QuoteWhy does Ted Cruz think your Xbox is woke?
A new power-saving mode has drawn the attention of right-wing culture warriors

There's a surprising new talking point for American conservative media and politicians: Xbox. On Monday, U.S. senator and former presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted, "First gas stoves, then your coffee, now they're gunning for your Xbox," linking to an article on right-wing site Blaze News. Within hours, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) had paraphrased Cruz's tweet (throwing guns in to spice it up a bit); Fox News had run an article with a headline claiming, "Woke brigade is after video games"; and a Fox & Friends host had said, "They're going after the children!"

What is it that has these culture warriors so exercised? A new "carbon aware" power-saving mode that Microsoft is rolling out for Xbox consoles, along with some changes to their default settings intended to reduce their environmental impact.

WHY HAVE CONSERVATIVES SUDDENLY DECIDED TO TARGET XBOX?
There's never a good answer to this kind of question, although as Cruz's tweet hints, the Xbox news (which broke two weeks ago) fits into a narrative that the right has been constructing about progressive forces seeking to curtail personal conveniences and comforts amid the climate crisis. In recent weeks, right-wing media and commentators have seized on an academic study into the carbon footprint of coffee and on regulatory concerns about the public health impact of gas stoves. Attacking Microsoft's new green settings is a convenient way to keep the subject rolling, garlanded with a recognizable brand and some youth-audience appeal.

Also, Cruz is known to be a bit of a gamer, which may help explain him tackling this topic.

WHAT DOES THE 'CARBON AWARE' MODE DO?
Being "carbon aware" means that your Xbox, as long as it has an internet connection, will adjust when it does updates and downloads to times when the local power grid uses the most renewable energy and is least reliant on fossil fuels. It determines the right time by checking regional carbon intensity data online. The carbon-aware mode is on by default, but it works only when a console has been powered down using the Shutdown setting, not Sleep mode. (More about these later.)

Though new to Xbox, carbon awareness is not a brand-new initiative— all Windows 11 updates became carbon aware last year. (Microsoft intends to be carbon negative by 2030, not only in its own operations but through how its products are used.)

Right-wingers have targeted the carbon-aware mode for the same reason that Microsoft chose to headline its news release with it — it has a hip, progressive-sounding name. But in fact, another change Microsoft is making at the same time will have a far bigger environmental impact.

IS MICROSOFT FORCING PLAYERS TO POWER DOWN THEIR XBOXES?
No — Microsoft isn't "forcing" anyone to do anything other than accept the "carbon aware" update, which has zero impact on the user experience, as it only affects the timing of downloads and updates when the console is switched off.

However, Microsoft is updating all Xbox consoles to use the Shutdown (aka "energy saving") setting by default, rather than Sleep. While Sleep mode still exists as an option, people who want to use it will need to go into the settings and reselect it after the update.

Shutdown draws up to 20 times less power than Sleep, so the cumulative power-saving effect of Microsoft moving every Xbox to Shutdown by default is considerable. Even if some users choose to reverse the decision — a minor inconvenience, at worst — this update should have a meaningful impact on the carbon footprint of Xbox gaming worldwide.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHUTDOWN AND SLEEP?
The "degradation" of the user experience in the name of climate politics that conservative culture warriors are complaining about amounts to longer boot times, mostly. According to Microsoft, a console can take up to 45 seconds to boot from Shutdown mode, whereas booting up from Sleep mode is much faster. Also, features that allow the Xbox to be woken remotely or with your voice are no longer available in Shutdown — you have to physically press a button on the Xbox or the controller to turn on the console.

Crucially, the Quick Resume feature that allows games to be picked up exactly where they were left off still works with Shutdown.

SHOULD I LEAVE MY XBOX ON SHUTDOWN MODE?
It's up to you! But even aside from its impact on the climate emergency, the mode offers considerable power savings that could help reduce your electricity bills during this time of soaring power costs. So it's a fiscally sensible as well as environmentally responsible option, with only a minor downside — unless you cannot live without remote wake, or you find 45 seconds to be an unbearably long period of time.

Or unless you like paying the power company extra to own the libs.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 14, 2023, 08:33:40 AM
 :wacko:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 14, 2023, 11:57:54 AM
Florida and Texas ban banks employing ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance) criteria for their investments from getting involved in pension funds for local and state workers, as well as public debt underwriting. You'll never guess what happens next:

QuoteTexas & Florida Paying Hundreds Of Millions More In Bond Interest Because Of ESG Bans

The governors of Texas and Florida have declared war on Wall Street bankers who dare to consider environmental, social, and governance factors in making their business decisions. Companies committed to ESG favor protection of natural resources, human rights, health and safety, and community engagement.
(...)
Since it began its assault on ESG in 2022, Texas, with its perfect AAA credit rating, is paying 19 basis points more in yield (the equivalent of $1.9 million on every $1 billion of bonds sold) than AA-rated California on routine borrowings, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The city of Anna, Texas, paid more than it should have last September on two bond sales totaling almost $100 million when it rejected the most competitive bid from Citigroup because of the Republican-backed state law that punishes financial firms for promoting gun safety. Do the people of Anna know? That's doubtful.

In Florida, DeSantis' attacks on money managers and securities underwriters who oppose fossil fuels, voter suppression, and the criminalizing of reproductive rights as part of their investment strategies are poisoning the market for AAA rated Florida debt. Without the liquidity that comes from a robust group of underwriters, Florida now pays 43 basis points more in yield (or $4.3 million for every $1 billion of bonds sold) than California, which has a AA rating. That's only 0.35% more than prior to 2022, but when billions in public borrowing is involved, that small difference can cost the state's taxpayers tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in higher borrowing costs.
(...)
JPMorgan Chase has 25,500 employees in Texas, but has been barred from doing business with the state because of its support for gun safety regulations and alternative energy. It contributed more than $17.5 million to nonprofit workforce readiness programs, community development, and neighborhood revitalization in 2019 and continues to expand its main Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio workforce at 130 Texas locations throughout the state.

Citigroup and Goldman Sachs have also been banned. Together with JPMorgan, they managed $540 billion worth of municipal offerings during the past five years. That represents 25% of the market for new issues according to data compiled by Bloomberg. On average, they charged a fee of 0.38% on those bond offerings, which is 0.11 percentage points lower than the average for the other 145 underwriters who provide similar services.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on February 14, 2023, 01:00:01 PM
Ah, the party of free markets.  :alberta:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 14, 2023, 01:02:47 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 14, 2023, 01:00:01 PMAh, the party of free markets.  :alberta:

Free Markets are like Free Speech - for the right wing, they are free when they operate as desired.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on February 14, 2023, 01:24:01 PM
It is so ridiculous that a few posts back we read that Utah schools must tout American capitalism and now we read that Texas boycotts Goldman Sachs, the very embodiment of that American capitalism. But somehow the culture war allows their supporters to ignore that hypocrisy. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 14, 2023, 01:29:29 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 14, 2023, 01:24:01 PMIt is so ridiculous that a few posts back we read that Utah schools must tout American capitalism and now we read that Texas boycotts Goldman Sachs, the very embodiment of that American capitalism. But somehow the culture war allows their supporters to ignore that hypocrisy. 

 :yes:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 14, 2023, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 14, 2023, 01:24:01 PMIt is so ridiculous that a few posts back we read that Utah schools must tout American capitalism and now we read that Texas boycotts Goldman Sachs, the very embodiment of that American capitalism. But somehow the culture war allows their supporters to ignore that hypocrisy. 
Isn't their argument that ESG investing, stakeholder capitalism etc are subversions of American capitalism? Actually all Goldman Sachs should care about is turning a profit for their investors not ESG criteria.

I think from someone who supports ESG objectives that the state should use its financial power placing debt (and with public sector pensions) to prioritise finance with ESG criteria. If you oppose those criteria I don't really see an issue with directing the state's financial power away from it.

Also it doesn't seem mad to me that if you're in a state and your politics are in support of limiting abortion or expansive gun rights that you don't want to do business with companies campaigning against you on those issues - especially if that effectively means they're directing money away from your state. I'm not sure Texas, for example, benefits from financial power "who oppose fossil fuels, voter suppression, and the criminalizing of reproductive rights as part of their investment strategies". Feels a little bit turkey voting for Christmas.

Edit: And on the other hand I might back ESG investments - but progress will not be delivered at the hands of fund managers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on February 14, 2023, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2023, 01:39:13 PMIsn't their argument that ESG investing, stakeholder capitalism etc are subversions of American capitalism? Actually all Goldman Sachs should care about is turning a profit for their investors not ESG criteria.

But Goldman Sachs is competing in a marketplace, and clearly believes that ESG-aware policies will increase their appeal.  That's the essence of a free market.
 
QuoteI think from someone who supports ESG objectives that the state should use its financial power placing debt (and with public sector pensions) to prioritise finance with ESG criteria. If you oppose those criteria I don't really see an issue with directing the state's financial power away from it.

Also it doesn't seem mad to me that if you're in a state and your politics are in support of limiting abortion or expansive gun rights that you don't want to do business with companies campaigning against you on those issues - especially if that effectively means they're directing money away from your state. I'm not sure Texas, for example, benefits from financial power "who oppose fossil fuels, voter suppression, and the criminalizing of reproductive rights as part of their investment strategies". Feels a little bit turkey voting for Christmas.

But if you are a state official, your personal interests shouldn't drive your decision-making.  You should do what's best for your constituents, which isn't paying more for loans because you personally don't like some policies of the lender.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 14, 2023, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2023, 03:14:53 PMBut Goldman Sachs is competing in a marketplace, and clearly believes that ESG-aware policies will increase their appeal.  That's the essence of a free market.
Sure. But I don't think that necessarily meets their idea of what is American capitalism in that Utah bill.

There is a market for ESG, there is a market for "woke capital" and companies that emote - that's why they do it. Either because it helps them in their market or it helps them recruit.

Though that is delivered by the market, I think for Utah Republicans or Desantis that is a subversion/"wokifying" of American capitalism which is red in tooth and claw and only focused on the bottom line. Although I'd query if that ever really existed or if it is just a construct.
 
QuoteBut if you are a state official, your personal interests shouldn't drive your decision-making.  You should do what's best for your constituents, which isn't paying more for loans because you personally don't like some policies of the lender.
They're elected officials - both of them from what I understand on platforms that are keen on fossil fuels, voter suppression and anti-abortion policies. That's their mandate - not simply delivering the best return on public pension funds or getting the lowest rate for debt.

I don't really see an issue with them using finance to deliver any more than I'd have an issue with a left-wing Governor directing their treasury to only work with funds that have certain ESG or certified labour rights standards - even if that also meant there was a lower return or a higher rate.

Both would be attempts to use the heft of their states to shift the behaviour of the market to favour their political agenda.

If someone wants to actually run on actual capitalism and just getting the best deals on the market they can - not sure how well that platform would do though.

Edit: And I think this is also a big part of the GOP's project now - taking power and using all levers of the state (financial as well as legislative and regulatory) to deliver the culture war stuff they want - and I think a lot of it is directly inspired by Orban
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 14, 2023, 06:24:46 PM
I see most of your points Sheilbh, but I don't think "delivering on a platform of voter suppression" is acceptable.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 14, 2023, 06:33:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2023, 06:24:46 PMI see most of your points Sheilbh, but I don't think "delivering on a platform of voter suppression" is acceptable.
Oh I totally agree - they're wrong. And their platform is bad to be really clear :lol: I think Desantis especially is dangerous (precisely because of stuff like this - I think he knows how to use power and whatever leverage is available).

But I don't think there's an issue with elected officials using the state's purchasing power as well as law-making to try to deliver on the change they want - or think that the state should just chase the best deal regardless of the political implications. And I don't think it necessarily contradicts forcing schools to teach that American capitalism's the peak of human society.

As I say I think it's reverse of lefties calling for state investments to focus on ESG/divest from fossil fuels - I think that's a good idea and I don't think it necessarily means they're now accepting that capital is their preferred solution.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 16, 2023, 06:56:50 AM
The first one to mention the Handmaid's Tale gets a cookie.

QuoteVirginia governor clears path for 'extreme' bill allowing police to seek menstrual histories
Glenn Youngkin blocks bill passed in Democratic-led state senate to ban search warrants for menstrual data on tracking apps

The Republican governor of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, appears to have thwarted an attempt to stop law enforcement obtaining menstrual histories of women in the state.

A bill passed in the Democratic-led state senate, and supported by half the chamber's Republicans, would have banned search warrants for menstrual data stored in tracking apps on mobile phones or other electronic devices.

Advocates feared private health information could be used in prosecutions for abortion law violations, after a US supreme court ruling last summer overturned federal protections for the procedure.

But Youngkin, who has pushed for a 15-week abortion ban to mirror similar measures in several Republican-controlled states, essentially killed the bill through a procedural move in a subcommittee of the Republican-controlled House.

Citing unspecified future threats to the ability of law enforcement to investigate crime, Maggie Cleary, Youngkin's deputy secretary of public safety, told the courts of justice subcommittee it was not the legislature's responsibility to restrict the scope of search warrants.

"While the administration understands the importance of individuals' privacy ... this bill would be the very first of its kind that I'm aware of, in Virginia or anywhere, that would set a limit on what search warrants can do," she said, according to the Washington Post.

"Currently any health information or any app information is available via search warrant. And we believe that should continue to be the case."

The panel voted on party line to table the bill, meaning it is unlikely to resurface during the current legislative session.

Abortion rights advocates contend that with Youngkin's efforts to push a 15-week abortion ban, with limited exceptions, failing to advance in either legislative chamber, the governor is looking for other avenues.

"The Youngkin administration's opposition to this commonsense privacy protection measure shows his real intentions, to ban abortion and criminalise patients and medical providers," said Tarina Keene, executive director of Repro Rising Virginia, in a statement provided to the Guardian.

Youngkin has insisted that any abortion restrictions would target doctors, not women who have the procedure.

The administration has also attempted to portray a united front among Republicans for abortion restrictions, arguing it is a consensus issue. But the defection of the nine senate Republicans over the menstrual data bill follows one of their number, Siobhan Dunnavant, speaking out last month against Youngkin's 15-week proposal.

Dunnavant, an ob-gyn doctor, condemned the bill as "extreme", according to the Virginia Mercury, and said she could not support it unless it contained an exception for severe fetal abnormalities to 24 weeks. Under current Virginia law, the procedure is legal for all women until the 27th week of pregnancy.

The wrangle over menstrual data tracking has parallels with a controversy in Florida, in which high school athletics officials last week backed away from a "humiliating" proposal requiring girls who wanted to play sports to answer questions about menstruation on medical forms.

Critics said the requirement aligned with a push by the Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, to curtail transgender rights, an allegation denied by high school officials.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 16, 2023, 06:59:57 AM
Also in the news recently, the Bible as basis for international relations.

QuotePompeo says Israel has biblical claim to Palestine and is 'not an occupying nation'
Trump's secretary of state makes comments on podcast to defend former administration siding more openly with Israel

Mike Pompeo, the former US secretary of state, has defended Israel's decades-long control of the Palestinian territories by claiming that the Jewish state has a biblical claim to the land and is therefore not occupying it.

Pompeo told the One Decision podcast that his religious beliefs, US strategic interests and his view of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, as a "known terrorist" underpinned his support as the Trump administration's top diplomat for the shift in US policy away from mediating a two-state solution and toward more openly siding with Israel.

"[Israel] is not an occupying nation. As an evangelical Christian, I am convinced by my reading of the Bible that 3,000 years on now, in spite of the denial of so many, [this land] is the rightful homeland of the Jewish people," he said.

Pompeo, who referred to the occupied West Bank by its Israeli name of Judea and Samaria, declined to support a two-state solution of an independent Palestine alongside Israel – an increasingly diminishing prospect after years of failed negotiations and the rise to power of politicians in Israel who advocate annexing the occupied territories.

"I'm for an outcome that guarantees Israeli security and makes the lives better for everyone in the region," he said.

Pompeo, who once suggested that God sent Trump to save Israel, was speaking ahead of publication of a book, Never Give an Inch: Fighting for the America I Love, that has fuelled speculation he is laying the groundwork for a presidential run.

As secretary of state he reversed a number of longstanding US policies, including overturning legal advice from 1978 that declared Israel's settlements in the West Bank "inconsistent with international law". Most western governments, such as the UK, say the settlements and Israel's annexation of occupied East Jerusalem are a breach of the Geneva conventions and are therefore illegal.

Pompeo was Trump's CIA director before his appointment as secretary of state in 2018. He played an instrumental role in an administration that recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moved the US embassy to that city from Tel Aviv. The move was widely criticised, including by Washington's allies, as pre-empting a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Pompeo said it is in the US's interests to back Israel whatever its policies, and he blamed the Palestinians for the failure of peace negotiations.

"What's in America's best interest? Is it to sit and wait for Abu Mazen [Abbas], a known terrorist who's killed lots and lots of people, including Americans ... to draw a line on a map? That's what the state department would do," he said.

"The previous secretary of state ran back and forth from Tel Aviv to Ramallah and tried to draw lines on a map. We said: 'That's not in America's best interest. Let's go create peace,' and we did."

Pompeo was part of the Trump administration team that negotiated the Abraham accords normalisation agreements between Israel and several formerly hostile countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Sudan. At the time he said the accords were part of the administration's efforts to ensure that "that this Jewish state remains".

"I am confident that the Lord is at work here," he said.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 16, 2023, 01:23:00 PM
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/15/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-department/index.html

QuoteFirst on CNN: DOJ officially decides not to charge Matt Gaetz in sex-trafficking probe

The Justice Department has informed lawyers for Rep. Matt Gaetz and multiple witnesses that it will not bring charges against the Florida Republican after a yearslong federal sex-trafficking investigation.

Senior officials reached out to lawyers for multiple witnesses on Wednesday, a source familiar with the matter told CNN, to inform them of the decision not to prosecute Gaetz.

The final decision was made by Department of Justice leadership after investigators recommended against charges last year.

"We have just spoken with the DOJ and have been informed that they have concluded their investigation into Congressman Gaetz and allegations related to sex trafficking and obstruction of justice and they have determined not to bring any charges against him," Gaetz's lawyers, Marc Mukasey and Isabelle Kirshner, said in a statement.

Tim Jansen, a high-powered lawyer representing the congressman's ex-girlfriend, said that DOJ officials reached out to him Wednesday and told him they would not be charging Gaetz. The ex-girlfriend was a key witness in the case and had testified before the grand jury in Orlando last year.

The congressman's office said in a separate statement that the department informed them the investigation has ended and no charges will be brought.

The DOJ's formal decision not to charge Gaetz, who has been serving in Congress since 2017, marks the end of a long-running investigation into allegations that the congressman violated federal law by paying for sex, including with women who were younger than 18 years old.

Gaetz has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

Prosecutors working on the case recommended against charging Gaetz in September, in part, because of questions over whether central witnesses in the investigation would be perceived as credible before a jury, CNN reported at the time.

But the final decision not to move forward with charges came from senior department officials. The DOJ declined to comment.

The investigation into Gaetz began in late 2020 under then-Attorney General Bill Barr, but ramped up significantly after Gaetz's close friend, Joel Greenberg, pleaded guilty to six federal crimes, including a sex-trafficking charge, and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. Greenberg's cooperation led investigators to look at Gaetz, along with other allies of Greenberg, for any alleged sex trafficking or obstruction of justice.

The investigation also scrutinized several Gaetz associates including Dr. Jason Pirozzolo, who accompanied Gaetz on a 2018 trip to the Bahamas that was a key focus of investigators. Pirozzolo was pushed out of his medical practice after his name surfaced in some reports about the investigation.

In a statement, his attorney, David Haas, said, "Today we were informed by the Department of Justice that it is ending its investigation... Dr. Pirozzolo requests that he and his family's privacy be respected as the last few years have been extremely difficult to endure."

Two other people in Gaetz's orbit also became key cooperators, including the ex-girlfriend who worked on Capitol Hill and has been linked to Gaetz as far back as the summer of 2017, and a Florida radio host who began cooperating after pleading guilty in a separate bribery scheme.

Then, by late 2022, there were several signs that the Justice Department's case had nearly ground to a halt. The most obvious indicator was that prosecutors finally agreed to schedule a sentencing date for Greenberg after months of delays while he continued to cooperate with the ongoing Gaetz probe.

Greenberg was sentenced to 11 years in prison in December.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 17, 2023, 05:50:49 AM
As one could expect, not even Fox News really believes their own lies.

QuoteCarlson and Hannity among Fox hosts who didn't believe election fraud claims – court filings
Number of conservative political commentators expressed doubts about claims being aired on their network

Hosts at Fox News didn't believe the allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election that were being aired on their programmes by supporters of former president Donald Trump, according to court filings in a $1.6bn defamation lawsuit against the network.

"Sidney Powell is lying," about having evidence for election fraud, Tucker Carlson wrote in a message on 16 November 2020, according to an excerpt from an exhibit that remains under seal.

The internal communication was included in a redacted summary judgment brief filed on Thursday by attorneys for Dominion Voting Systems.

Carlson also referred to Powell in a text as an "unguided missile," and "dangerous as hell". Fellow host Laura Ingraham told Carlson that Powell was "a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy," referring to former New York mayor and Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani.

Sean Hannity, meanwhile, said in a deposition "that whole narrative that Sidney was pushing, I did not believe it for one second," according to Dominion's filing.

Dominion, which sells electronic voting hardware and software, is suing both Fox News and parent company Fox Corporation. Dominion says some Fox News employees deliberately amplified false claims that Dominion had changed votes in the 2020 election, and that Fox provided a platform for guests to make false and defamatory statements.

Attorneys for the cable news giant argued in a counterclaim that the lawsuit is an assault on the first amendment. They said Dominion has advanced "novel defamation theories" and is seeking a "staggering" damage figure aimed at generating headlines, chilling protected speech and enriching Dominion's private equity owner, Staple Street Capital Partners.

"Dominion brought this lawsuit to punish FNN for reporting on one of the biggest stories of the day – allegations by the sitting president of the United States and his surrogates that the 2020 election was affected by fraud," the counterclaim states. "The very fact of those allegations was newsworthy."

Fox attorneys also said that Carlson repeatedly questioned Powell's claims in his broadcasts. "When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her," Carlson told viewers on 19 November 2020.

Fox attorneys say Dominion's own public relations firm expressed skepticism in December 2020 as to whether the network's coverage was defamatory. They also point to an email from just days before the election, in which Dominion's director of product strategy and security complained that the company's products were "just riddled with bugs".

In their counterclaim, Fox attorneys wrote that when voting-technology companies denied the allegations being made by Trump and his surrogates, Fox News aired those denials, while some Fox News hosts offered protected opinion commentary about Trump's allegations.

Fox's counterclaim is based on New York's "anti-SLAAP" law. Such laws are aimed at protecting people trying to exercise their first amendment rights from being intimidated by "strategic lawsuits against public participation", or Slapps.

"According to Dominion, FNN had a duty not to truthfully report the president's allegations but to suppress them or denounce them as false," Fox attorneys wrote. "Dominion is fundamentally mistaken. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press would be illusory if the prevailing side in a public controversy could sue the press for giving a forum to the losing side."

Fox attorneys warn that threatening the company with a $1.6bn judgment would cause other media outlets to think twice about what they report. They also say documents produced in the lawsuit show that Dominion has not suffered any economic harm and do not indicate that it lost any customers as the result of Fox's election coverage.

A trial is set to begin in mid-April.

And to think that this is only being aired because the company that makes the voting machines decided to sue the pants off of them...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on February 17, 2023, 07:11:44 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 16, 2023, 01:23:00 PMhttps://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/15/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-department/index.html

QuoteFirst on CNN: DOJ officially decides not to charge Matt Gaetz in sex-trafficking probe

Does DOJ ever charge anyone with anything?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on February 17, 2023, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 17, 2023, 07:11:44 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 16, 2023, 01:23:00 PMhttps://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/15/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-department/index.html

QuoteFirst on CNN: DOJ officially decides not to charge Matt Gaetz in sex-trafficking probe

Does DOJ ever charge anyone with anything?


Only if they are innocent.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 20, 2023, 05:47:54 AM
So now the Trump backed candidates are not even the crazy(er) ones...

QuoteFar-right election denier beats Trump's pick for Michigan GOP
Kristina Karamo, who refused to concede her run for secretary of state, beat Donald Trump's choice for state chair in a chaotic convention

LANSING, Mich. — Republicans here, reeling from a midterm election rout that many blamed on the influence of former president Donald Trump, responded Saturday by spurning the former president's choice for state party chair — and choosing someone even more extreme.

Kristina Karamo, who refused to concede her 14-point loss for secretary of state in 2022, beat former attorney general candidate Matt DePerno, who had Trump's endorsement, in three rounds of contentious voting. The chaotic 11-hour convention, featuring a rowdy standoff over voting procedures and 10 candidates who all ran under a pro-Trump banner, left no doubt that the bulk of the party's activists in this key battleground state remain firmly committed to election denial and showed no interest in moderating their message to appeal to the political center.

"Conceding to a fraudulent person is agreeing with the fraud, which I will not do," Karamo said to cheers in her campaign speech on Saturday.

The outcome also dealt a tactical defeat to Trump, even though all the candidates competed for aligning themselves with him. Many delegates said they discounted or even resented Trump's involvement in the race, especially after a midterm cycle that saw widespread wrangling over his down-ballot endorsements in the state.

"We love Donald Trump, but he don't live here," said Mark Forton, another candidate for chair who endorsed Karamo.

In a Thursday speech to a right-wing "patriot" group in nearby Charlotte, Karamo argued that Christianity belonged at the core of American politics, called evolution "one of the biggest frauds ever perpetuated on society," and asserted the existence of demons.

"When we start talking about the spiritual reality of the demonic forces, it's like, 'Oh, my God, this is crazy, we can't go there,'" Karamo said. "No. It's like, did you read the Bible? Didn't Jesus perform exorcisms? ... Scriptures are clear. And so if we're not operating as though the spirit realities of the world exist, we're going to fail every time."


In 2022, Democrats swept statewide races in Michigan and won control of both legislative chambers, achieving full statewide control for the first time since the 1980s. In 2024, the state is poised to host early primary contests and be a competitive presidential and Senate battleground.

"Do I think it destroyed the state party? For sure," Christine Barnes, an unsuccessful state House candidate who skipped this year's convention, said of Trump's interventions. "And the party is a hot mess right now."

The outcome here Saturday underscores the stark reality confronting Republicans across the country: Months after general election voters across the country rejected extreme, election-denying candidates such as Karamo, DePerno and former Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake, many party activists remain enthralled by them. Some Republicans have voiced concern that this trend could set the party back at the ballot box in future races.

Lake, who has yet to concede defeat in Arizona and has waged an unsuccessful legal fight to challenge the results of her 2022 race, has been traveling the country promoting false election claims, as she weighs a run for U.S. Senate in 2024. And Trump, in his third run for president, continues to promote false claims about the 2020 election.

Trump held a tele-rally for DePerno on Monday, calling him a "defender of election integrity." DePerno rose to prominence as a lawyer chasing conspiracy theories in Michigan's 2020 election; a Republican state Senate report faulted him for spreading misinformation, and he came under state investigation for allegedly tampering with voting machines.

But some delegates said they grew to doubt DePerno because, unlike Karamo, he conceded his loss in November.

"Matt ran out on us; he didn't fight for us," said Mark DeYoung, a delegate from Harrison, Mich., and chairman of the Clare County GOP.

Karamo led from the first ballot, increasing her lead with every round but needing three ballots to secure a majority. She won with 58 percent of the vote to DePerno's 42 percent.

DePerno attempted to edge her out by winning support from runners-up. His campaign had prepared fliers announcing the endorsement of JD Glaser, who received 12 percent of the vote in the first round. Glaser said DePerno secured his support by offering to make him policy director.

Between the second and third ballots, DePerno attempted to make another deal with the third runner-up, veteran GOP consultant Scott Greenlee, according to people familiar with the exchange who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues. But Greenlee walked away from the offer and opted not to endorse either finalist.

Unlike at recent party elections in Arizona and the Republican National Committee, no consensus candidate emerged who could unite the party's fractious coalition. Greenlee came closest, as an experienced operative with donor connections and pro-Trump bona fides stretching back to 2016. He also secured the endorsement of musician Ted Nugent and Ryan Kelley, a former gubernatorial candidate who has been charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

But Karamo, who turned to her bid for state chair quickly after her November loss, proved to have the strongest base of support and broadest appeal. Her campaign was vague and varied on specifics for what she would do as chair, saying in her speech on Thursday that her first priority would be to "get my hands around the operation." She made faith central to her appeal, beginning her remarks that night by saying, "My goal number one as a Christian is to bring people to Christ, and secondarily to save our country."

Many delegates interviewed named Karamo's faith as one of their primary attractions to her. Her nomination was seconded by Petoskey attorney Dan Hartman, who said, "It's not about election integrity ... I want you to understand that I changed my life and decided to serve Christ." Several other candidates prominently invoked Christianity in their campaigns.

One delegate who took exception was Marla Braun, from Jackson County, who said she was "disgusted with wrapping Christianity around Republicanism" and abstained rather than vote for either Karamo or DePerno in the last round.

"The party has to know that what we put forward here is not acceptable," Braun said.

The first several hours of the convention were taken up by an extended dispute over the how the votes would be counted, underscoring the mistrust among many delegates for both the previous party leadership and of election outcomes. "How many of us got in this fight because of flash drives and laptops?" one delegate said to cheers, arguing against using electronic equipment to record votes at the convention. With hand counts taking sometimes more than an hour for each round of voting, the convention lasted four hours longer than planned, wrapping up just before the venue was due to kick the Republicans out.

Despite his backing by the biggest name in Republican politics, DePerno ran a sluggish campaign, often seen wandering the convention hall alone. One delegate waiting to vote criticized him for using his allotted time to present a video endorsement from Trump rather than making his own speech.

DePerno also had the endorsement of Mike Lindell, the election conspiracy theorist and MyPillow CEO, and Lake. DePerno had touted Lake as a special guest at a pre-election party on Friday at a Lansing bar called the Nuthouse, but Lake did not appear. (Her aides cited a scheduling conflict.)

DePerno declined to comment.

Several members of Trump's presidential campaign team were present to observe. The campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The state was crucial to Trump's surprise election victory in 2016, but he lost Michigan to President Biden in 2020.

"People love to talk about President Trump in a loss mode, but he's a king. He's our king," outgoing GOP co-chair Meshawn Maddock, who was supporting DePerno, said in an interview. "I'm so tired of hearing that our party has moved too far to the right. The problem is we haven't moved far enough."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on February 20, 2023, 05:50:54 AM
I have to say. If I was a sensible Trumpist (I know I know) I would certainly be pushing for batshit lunatics to run so I look like the sensible moderate in between them and the crypto-socialists of the regular right.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 20, 2023, 06:37:55 AM
"We love Donald Trump, but he don't live here"
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on February 20, 2023, 12:44:55 PM
(https://i.redd.it/urgkf0y73eja1.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on February 20, 2023, 12:46:06 PM
Unfortunately they lack the skill needed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 20, 2023, 01:23:11 PM
Hey Marge what choice do you think your Biden voting state that has two Democratic Senators would make?

Anyway this is entirely ridiculous as there really isn't any such thing as a "blue" or "red" state. Even the reddest state has 1/4th of its population voting for the Democrats. There really isn't a big sectional divide like the 1850s. For the most part the cities are blue and the rural areas are red.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 20, 2023, 06:44:15 PM
MTG still thinks the Confederacy won the civil war when George Washington and Jesus dropped from jet planes and captured General Sherman.  It's possible she hasn't clearly thought out the full implications of her position.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 28, 2023, 07:25:58 AM
A new round in the Florida Vs. Higher education fight is coming.

QuoteFlorida bill would end diversity programs, ban majors, shift power at universities
The measure in the Florida House mirrors recent proposals by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

A bill filed this week in the Florida House would turn many of Gov. Ron DeSantis' wide-ranging ideas on higher education into law by limiting diversity efforts, vastly expanding the powers of university boards and altering course offerings.

House Bill 999, filed by Rep. Alex Andrade, R-Pensacola, proposes leaving all faculty hiring to boards of trustees, allowing a faculty member's tenure to be reviewed "at any time," and removing majors or minors in subjects like critical race theory and gender studies. It would also prohibit spending on activities that promote diversity, equity and inclusion and create new general education requirements.

DeSantis' administration has been alluding to legislation like this for weeks. In early January, his budget office required all universities to detail what they spend on diversity, equity and inclusion programs. And on Jan. 31, the governor held a news conference announcing a sweeping package of changes that mirror those in Andrade's bill.

Andrade was not immediately available for comment, his office said.

General education courses, the bill says, "may not suppress or distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics, such as Critical Race Theory, or defines American history as contrary to the creation of a new nation based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence." It spells out communications, humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and math courses that may count as general education credits.

"Whenever applicable," the bill says, the courses should "promote the philosophical underpinnings of Western civilization and include studies of this nation's historical documents, including the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments there to, and the Federalist Papers."


In addition to existing metrics like graduation rates and retention rates, universities also would be evaluated on how well they provide industry certifications and whether they are educating students "for citizenship of the constitutional republic."

In addition, the bill would greatly expand the role of boards of trustees at each school, which in turn would increase the governor's role in university life. The governor holds the greatest influence on who serves as a university trustee, with the ability to appoint six members to each board. The state Board of Governors can make five appointments, but that panel is also largely appointed by the governor.

The bill would require all faculty hiring to be done by boards of trustees. The boards may delegate the role to presidents, but a president would not be able to delegate the role to anyone else.

"The president and the board are not required to consider recommendations or opinions of faculty of the university or other individuals or groups," the bill says. It also would make presidents responsible for conducting performance evaluations of all employees making over $100,000.

In addition, the bill would prohibit diversity statements, which are short essays often used during the hiring or promotion process to describe a candidate's commitment to diversity and equity.

But the measure also makes clear it would not do away with every function that university diversity offices typically tend to. It would not prohibit programs for Pell Grant recipients, first generation college students, nontraditional students, transfer students, students from low-income families or students with unique abilities.

DeSantis' Jan. 31 announcement included only basic information on the "civics institutes" he proposed at three of the state's 12 public universities, but Andrade's bill offers new details.

The Florida Institute for Governance and Civics at Florida State University, established in 1981, would develop coursework about the origins of the American political system; develop resources for K-12 and college students "that foster an understanding of how individual rights, constitutionalism, separation of powers, and federalism" function; and become a national resource on polling and making civic literacy recommendations, among other duties.

The Adam Smith Center for Economic Freedom at Florida International University, funded by the Legislature in 2020, would function as a college — hiring faculty, enrolling students and awarding degrees.

The Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida, established last year, would coordinate with the other two centers, according to the bill.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on February 28, 2023, 11:13:25 AM
Yikes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 11:47:53 AM
*shrug*
Top faculty will leave, the university system will struggle to recruit replacements, the quality of the system will fall.

Florida's loss, rest of America's gain.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on February 28, 2023, 11:57:01 AM
Amazing they lash out at identity politics despite that being their entire schtick.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 12:02:55 PM
Quote from: Josquius on February 28, 2023, 11:57:01 AMAmazing they lash out at identity politics despite that being their entire schtick.

That has pretty much been the MO for American Social Conservatives for two hundred years.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on February 28, 2023, 12:49:32 PM
What surprises me is how little backlash seems to be coming from all these measures. What has happened in Florida that has turned a battleground state into the new Mecca of reactionary conservatism? De Santis squeaked by in his first election for Florida governor, but steamrolled in his second one (he went from winning by 0'4% to winning by 20%). What is exactly going on over there? How come nobody is saying enough is enough?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 28, 2023, 12:50:19 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 11:47:53 AM*shrug*
Top faculty will leave, the university system will struggle to recruit replacements, the quality of the system will fall.

Florida's loss, rest of America's gain.

Please remember that Ron DeSantis has national aspirations, and that Republican wet dream is already being discussed elsewhere.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 28, 2023, 12:52:52 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 28, 2023, 12:49:32 PMWhat surprises me is how little backlash seems to be coming from all these measures. What has happened in Florida that has turned a battleground state into the new Mecca of reactionary conservatism? De Santis squeaked by in his first election for Florida governor, but steamrolled in his second one (he went from winning by 0'4% to winning by 20%). What is exactly going on over there? How come nobody is saying enough is enough?

I think the last few years in the US has shown how these things get normalized very quickly, how collective action, especially on the left, has been undermined for years in favor of courtroom activism, and how faith in some form of magical pendulum movement will inevitably bring back sanity.

I mean - a lot of my colleagues in Florida are pissed off, and scared, and angry. Their solution: write a strongly worded letter. FFS.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on February 28, 2023, 01:10:50 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 28, 2023, 12:49:32 PMWhat surprises me is how little backlash seems to be coming from all these measures. What has happened in Florida that has turned a battleground state into the new Mecca of reactionary conservatism? De Santis squeaked by in his first election for Florida governor, but steamrolled in his second one (he went from winning by 0'4% to winning by 20%). What is exactly going on over there? How come nobody is saying enough is enough?

Money. The other side wants to raise taxes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 01:10:56 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 28, 2023, 12:50:19 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 11:47:53 AM*shrug*
Top faculty will leave, the university system will struggle to recruit replacements, the quality of the system will fall.

Florida's loss, rest of America's gain.

Please remember that Ron DeSantis has national aspirations, and that Republican wet dream is already being discussed elsewhere.

America's loss, Canada's gain?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 01:36:26 PM
I sure hope private schools do not become the future for real higher education. Talk about something only for the 1%.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 28, 2023, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 28, 2023, 12:49:32 PMWhat surprises me is how little backlash seems to be coming from all these measures. What has happened in Florida that has turned a battleground state into the new Mecca of reactionary conservatism? De Santis squeaked by in his first election for Florida governor, but steamrolled in his second one (he went from winning by 0'4% to winning by 20%). What is exactly going on over there? How come nobody is saying enough is enough?
Well I think Florida is maybe at the cutting edge of the (possible) drift rightwards of the Latino vote - possibly because there's always been the particular anti-Communist Cuban community in Florida so while the trend is national there's possibly a particular radicalising factor in Florida? Also in terms of demographics, if age and education are increasingly big divides in the US now - and again this may just be an outside impression - but isn't Florida where loads of elderly white folk move?

I also get the impression that the Florida Democrats are not great - but this is largely from regularly running Charlie Crist as a candidate :lol:

Also I wonder if - as with Missouri - the idea of what a classic swing state is might be shifting (again with the wider realignment in US politics)?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2023, 01:38:26 PM
Florida used to be purple when Jews from the Northeast retired there.  Now midwesterners are retiring there.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 01:40:45 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 28, 2023, 12:49:32 PMWhat surprises me is how little backlash seems to be coming from all these measures. What has happened in Florida that has turned a battleground state into the new Mecca of reactionary conservatism? De Santis squeaked by in his first election for Florida governor, but steamrolled in his second one (he went from winning by 0'4% to winning by 20%). What is exactly going on over there? How come nobody is saying enough is enough?

Covid. DeSantis' Covid policies were popular so he is riding that wave.

Seems like he is using his vast political capital on very stupid things. Even if this bill were to become law, I am skeptical it will be as transformative as some fear/hope.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 28, 2023, 01:48:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 01:40:45 PMSeems like he is using his vast political capital on very stupid things. Even if this bill were to become law, I am skeptical it will be as transformative as some fear/hope.
To be honest I think it's vastly worse than most of the things we've seen elsewhere - especially that bit about hiring power. My understanding from the stuff at New College is that he has a role in appointing trustees. I think the other bits are maybe a bit standard for Republican states, like the CRT stuff, but basically a direct line from the Governor's office to academics seems big.

Also I don't think this identity populism is good - but I can't help but feel that it's a bit of a shame it'a s right wing Republican doing this for cultural reasons:
QuoteThe Republican governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has signed a bill that wrests control of Walt Disney World's self-governing district, in a move seen as punishing the company for its opposition to his so-called "don't say gay" law.

"Today the corporate kingdom finally comes to an end," he said at the bill signing in Lake Buena Vista in his trademark bullish style. "There's a new sheriff in town, and accountability will be the order of the day."

But it is the sort of thing that should be done - it's an absurdity.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 01:52:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2023, 01:48:54 PMBut it is the sort of thing that should be done - it's an absurdity.

That was total BS by the way. Disney benefited economically from that.  That was performative virtue signaling the whole way. As I said he uses his power to do very stupid things.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 28, 2023, 02:04:09 PM
But if someone has to perfomatively virtue signal that corporations are not like barons of old acquiring land and privileges into perpetuity, then it should be the left doing the performative virtue signaling :contract: :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 02:21:15 PM
Sheilbh - it is 100% bullshit. 

There over 1000 special improvement districts in Florida, including ones covering Sea World and the Universal theme park.  Almost none of these will be affected. The law was drawn to target Disney specifically and leave the others untouched.  it is purely an act of retaliation for exercise of speech rights.  It is American Chavismo in action.

Although Disney is the target, Florida taxpayers are the victims.  They will have to pick up the bill for paying all the services that Disney covers out of pocket, plus the damages for Disney breach of contract suit against the State.  Disney will still lose though, because although it will save tens of millions in costs, it will have to stand by and watch as DeSantis' shitty "shallow state" screws up the sewage systems, roads, etc. feeding the parks.   
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on February 28, 2023, 02:21:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2023, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 28, 2023, 12:49:32 PMWhat surprises me is how little backlash seems to be coming from all these measures. What has happened in Florida that has turned a battleground state into the new Mecca of reactionary conservatism? De Santis squeaked by in his first election for Florida governor, but steamrolled in his second one (he went from winning by 0'4% to winning by 20%). What is exactly going on over there? How come nobody is saying enough is enough?
Well I think Florida is maybe at the cutting edge of the (possible) drift rightwards of the Latino vote - possibly because there's always been the particular anti-Communist Cuban community in Florida so while the trend is national there's possibly a particular radicalising factor in Florida?

This strain of ignorance really annoys me.
Cuba is ran by a undemocratic authoritarian socialist regime.... It's definitely the socialist part of that equation which is the problem. And socialist totally equals anything from the centre right leftwards. So let's vote for the increasingly undemocratic authoritarian capitalist party!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 02:21:26 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2023, 02:04:09 PMBut if someone has to perfomatively virtue signal that corporations are not like barons of old acquiring land and privileges into perpetuity, then it should be the left doing the performative virtue signaling :contract: :(

Sure. But there hasn't been a Democratic Governor of this "purple state" in 24 years. Kind of hard to do virtue signaling when you have no power.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 02:29:24 PM
Quote from: Josquius on February 28, 2023, 02:21:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2023, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 28, 2023, 12:49:32 PMWhat surprises me is how little backlash seems to be coming from all these measures. What has happened in Florida that has turned a battleground state into the new Mecca of reactionary conservatism? De Santis squeaked by in his first election for Florida governor, but steamrolled in his second one (he went from winning by 0'4% to winning by 20%). What is exactly going on over there? How come nobody is saying enough is enough?
Well I think Florida is maybe at the cutting edge of the (possible) drift rightwards of the Latino vote - possibly because there's always been the particular anti-Communist Cuban community in Florida so while the trend is national there's possibly a particular radicalising factor in Florida?

This strain of ignorance really annoys me.
Cuba is ran by a undemocratic authoritarian socialist regime.... It's definitely the socialist part of that equation which is the problem. And socialist totally equals anything from the centre right leftwards. So let's vote for the increasingly undemocratic authoritarian capitalist party!

Look obviously I want the Democrats to fight for Florida.

But the entire US foreign policy being held hostage by Cuban Floridians is not something I miss. The more red the state gets the more irrelevant this group is in national politics. Neither party would have any reason to really give a shit what they think. While obviously I would rather the Cubans still be in play for the Democrats, it isn't entirely a bad thing.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 28, 2023, 04:38:23 PM
I seem to recall that De Santis has visited Orban... is there a connection there as well?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 28, 2023, 04:46:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2023, 04:38:23 PMI seem to recall that De Santis has visited Orban... is there a connection there as well?
Oh he's 100% playing the Orban strategy - especially on universities. Appointing trustees who are aligned politically (on absolutely massive salaries) and now giving them power over hiring plus shaping the curriculum - plus enforcing those values using the power of the state over corporations.

I think he is, by far, the most worrying figure in the US because he actually knows what levers do things.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2023, 04:38:23 PMI seem to recall that De Santis has visited Orban... is there a connection there as well?

Republicans, or at least the very conservative hardcore of them, are big fans of Orban in his big success of fighting the culture war.

Though I am not sure Hungary is really the shining beacon of success they seem to think it is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 07:17:04 PM
Quote from: Josquius on February 28, 2023, 02:21:19 PMThis strain of ignorance really annoys me.
Cuba is ran by a undemocratic authoritarian socialist regime.... It's definitely the socialist part of that equation which is the problem. And socialist totally equals anything from the centre right leftwards. So let's vote for the increasingly undemocratic authoritarian capitalist party!
The same dynamic happens with Soviet immigrants.  The unfortunate reality is that living in the Soviet Union is likely to make you personally authoritarian, which explains why the older generation of Soviet immigrants on the whole is virulently Trumpist.  Just like children growing up in an authoritarian household are more likely to become authoritarian parents, people growing up in an authoritarian society are more likely to be authoritarian in their personal life and their worldview.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 07:31:01 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 28, 2023, 12:49:32 PMWhat surprises me is how little backlash seems to be coming from all these measures.
It doesn't surprise me, because wokism is an unsympathetic victim.  Wokism is the gift that keeps on giving for the Republicans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 28, 2023, 08:18:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 07:31:01 PMIt doesn't surprise me, because wokism is an unsympathetic victim.

Is wokeism the victim here?

QuoteWokism is the gift that keeps on giving for the Republicans.

Indeed. It's so useful that if it didn't already exist, the Republicans would have to invent it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 08:34:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 07:31:01 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 28, 2023, 12:49:32 PMWhat surprises me is how little backlash seems to be coming from all these measures.
It doesn't surprise me, because wokism is an unsympathetic victim.  Wokism is the gift that keeps on giving for the Republicans.

Well we can't just throw ethnic minorities and LGBT people under the bus. They are key pillars of our party.

So "wokism", whatever the fuck it is, will just continue being a gift for them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2023, 08:46:42 PM
That part in the bill that talks about "promoting the philosophical underpinnings of Western civilization" could and should come back to bite them in the ass.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 09:16:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 08:34:18 PMWell we can't just throw ethnic minorities and LGBT people under the bus. They are key pillars of our party.

So "wokism", whatever the fuck it is, will just continue being a gift for them.
We can protect them with persuasion rather than sledgehammer.  In fact, we'll probably protect them better that way, because we can't protect them if we help getting GOP elected.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on February 28, 2023, 09:29:00 PM
Wokism, that's the true enemy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 09:34:12 PM
It's one of the two fronts on the war on liberalism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 09:48:34 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 28, 2023, 09:29:00 PMWokism, that's the true enemy.

Better Hitler than Blum
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2023, 09:50:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 09:48:34 PMBetter Hitler than Blum

As DGuller pointed out, we're allowed more than one per customer.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 09:53:21 PM
Just because you want Hitler defeated doesn't mean that you should embrace Stalin.  Maybe at some point you'll have no choice, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't talk about what a shitty situation you wound up in, while you're still allowed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 09:57:03 PM
Wokism is a bogeyman, it has no institutional power.  What branch of government is under its sway?  But the hard right has the Speaker of the House by the balls, its hands on the throat of the Supreme Court, and is in striking distance of the White House.  3 strikes, democracy is out.

Wokism can barely make itself felt in the faculty lounge, but Orbanism is a real possibility in the USA in the very near future.  There is no equivalency.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2023, 10:05:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 09:57:03 PMWokism is a bogeyman, it has no institutional power.  What branch of government is under its sway?  But the hard right has the Speaker of the House by the balls, its hands on the throat of the Supreme Court, and is in striking distance of the White House.  3 strikes, democracy is out.

Wokism can barely make itself felt in the faculty lounge, but Orbanism is a real possibility in the USA in the very near future.  There is no equivalency.

There are forms of institutional power other than the government, such as academia and journalism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 10:08:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 09:57:03 PMWokism is a bogeyman, it has no institutional power.  What branch of government is under its sway?
I think liberals understand that government is not the only source of power that can be projected onto the individual.  In fact, wokists do as well, which is why trying to get someone fired is their default method of setting an example on the few so that the many will get the hint.  At least with the government you have some recourse, whereas there is no appeals court for getting canceled.

QuoteBut the hard right has the Speaker of the House by the balls, its hands on the throat of the Supreme Court, and is in striking distance of the White House.  3 strikes, democracy is out.
All the more reason to not give voters a legit gripe that will serve as a gateway into Fox News rabbit hole.
QuoteWokism can barely make itself felt in the faculty lounge, but Orbanism is a real possibility in the USA in the very near future.  There is no equivalency.
There doesn't have to be an equivalency.  When you're attacked on two fronts, one of the fronts can be a whole lot more dangerous than the other, but that doesn't mean that you can just leave the other front unmanned.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 28, 2023, 10:16:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 10:08:31 PMThere doesn't have to be an equivalency.  When you're attacked on two fronts, one of the fronts can be a whole lot more dangerous than the other, but that doesn't mean that you can just leave the other front unmanned.

How would you say you divide your effort? 50-50 between fighting wokism and fighting the reactionaries? Or are you putting more effort into one of the fronts?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2023, 10:16:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 10:08:31 PMThere doesn't have to be an equivalency.  When you're attacked on two fronts, one of the fronts can be a whole lot more dangerous than the other, but that doesn't mean that you can just leave the other front unmanned.

How would you say you divide your effort? 50-50 between fighting wokism and fighting the reactionaries? Or are you putting more effort into one of the fronts?
I'm never in a position where I have to allocate my efforts, at any given time I either face one or the other, but never both at the same time.  And in any case, one soldier rarely serves multiple fronts at the same time, and just because someone guards the lesser front doesn't mean that they don't consider the larger front unimportant.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2023, 10:05:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 09:57:03 PMWokism is a bogeyman, it has no institutional power.  What branch of government is under its sway?  But the hard right has the Speaker of the House by the balls, its hands on the throat of the Supreme Court, and is in striking distance of the White House.  3 strikes, democracy is out.

Wokism can barely make itself felt in the faculty lounge, but Orbanism is a real possibility in the USA in the very near future.  There is no equivalency.

There are forms of institutional power other than the government, such as academia and journalism.

I addressed that.  Wokism is far overrated in its influence on both, especially in journalism.  And neither of those institutions has the power and impact of the big 3 branches.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 11:26:40 PM
DG check out the posts just above re Desantis.  Even in academia, where the woke hordes have their greatest supposed power, it's far more likely that a prof will get fired for failing to satisfy the right wing ideological purity test than for getting someone's pronouns mixed up
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on February 28, 2023, 11:45:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2023, 10:05:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 09:57:03 PMWokism is a bogeyman, it has no institutional power.  What branch of government is under its sway?  But the hard right has the Speaker of the House by the balls, its hands on the throat of the Supreme Court, and is in striking distance of the White House.  3 strikes, democracy is out.

Wokism can barely make itself felt in the faculty lounge, but Orbanism is a real possibility in the USA in the very near future.  There is no equivalency.

There are forms of institutional power other than the government, such as academia and journalism.

I addressed that.  Wokism is far overrated in its influence on both, especially in journalism.  And neither of those institutions has the power and impact of the big 3 branches.
Depends where you live.  It is certainly overrated as a threat in Florida and Texas.  I have much more fear from Conservative book burnings.  Elsewhere is relative.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2023, 12:28:32 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 11:23:18 PMI addressed that.  Wokism is far overrated in its influence on both, especially in journalism.  And neither of those institutions has the power and impact of the big 3 branches.

I challenged you on your assertion that wokeism has *no* institutional power.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2023, 12:34:04 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2023, 11:26:40 PMDG check out the posts just above re Desantis.  Even in academia, where the woke hordes have their greatest supposed power, it's far more likely that a prof will get fired for failing to satisfy the right wing ideological purity test than for getting someone's pronouns mixed up
I've said this plenty of times before, but I'll say it again: the chilling effect of free speech suppression is not measured by the bodycount, it's measured by the amount of speech suppressed.  Sometimes the chilling effect is so effective and so credible that you don't actually have to set a lot of examples to make everyone comply.

I would guess that in the Soviet Union, not a whole lot of people got executed for telling Stalin to suck his own dick.  That doesn't mean that Soviet citizens were free to tell Stalin to suck his own dick.  An alternative explanation could be that they understood that it would be a dangerous thing to do even without seeing other people being executed for telling Stalin to suck his own dick, and they decided self-censor instead.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 01, 2023, 03:25:14 AM
Except we aren't talking about consequences for insulting the leader here. That sort of thing lies far more down the republican authoritarian path.
We are talking about simply not being a dick to people for being LGBT, black, women, etc...
And no, this isn't just for one time failing to use the right pronoun or whatever. It's going out of your way to be a serious dick.
I see no problem with this being understood to be a norm of behaviour.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2023, 03:43:48 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 01, 2023, 03:25:14 AMWe are talking about simply not being a dick to people for being LGBT, black, women, etc...
And no, this isn't just for one time failing to use the right pronoun or whatever. It's going out of your way to be a serious dick.
I see no problem with this being understood to be a norm of behaviour.



a serious dick according to who?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 04:25:48 AM
(https://y.yarn.co/316762b7-b038-4d35-889b-8ee2074c30b3_text.gif)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2023, 04:26:23 AM
Rather than just look at our standard re-hash, I went in search of other sources. I thought the following were interesting to look at.

Research done about American awareness and attitudes toward cancel culture ahead of the 2020 election:
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/

Right wing take on cancel culture:
https://www.thebulwark.com/our-nasty-stupid-frivolous-cancel-culture-fights-that-were-lucky-enough-to-have/

Two people debating cancel culture:
https://reason.com/2020/08/04/whats-the-best-way-to-protect-free-speech-ken-white-and-greg-lukianoff-debate-cancel-culture/

On that last one, I think this bit best aligns with my thinking:
QuoteGreg asserts that free speech culture "gave us the First Amendment in the 18th century" and "kept free speech alive." That culture has always been more aspirational than actual. The free speech culture that produced the First Amendment also promptly produced the Alien and Sedition Acts. The dawn of the modern age and mass media gave us broad justifications for censorship of political speech, cultural repression, and suppression of minority views and values.

Though Americans support free speech in the abstract, that support often breaks down when we are confronted with specific examples of speech we don't like. The history of the First Amendment is a history of Americans struggling mightily against other Americans trying to silence them. If free speech is in our national DNA, so is censorship.

That's a fundamental flaw in the current popular cancel culture narrative. It suggests, expressly or implicitly, that America enjoyed some golden age of cultural tolerance for speech. But did we? Did we really? If so, when was it? I submit that there was never such an age, and that unpopular views have always met with social and economic repercussions in America.

We can strive to do better, but we shouldn't distort history by claiming that people now are more censorious than they were before. We can argue, for instance, that Americans should be able to express disapproval of gay marriage without losing their jobs—but that shouldn't lead us to suggest that America was previously a safe place to express pro-gay views, when it manifestly was not.

Why does this matter? It matters because the loudest voices condemning cancel culture in America are not people of good faith like Greg. The loudest voices are using the issue as a cynical political wedge from the right to attack the left.

They're the same voices who try to get people fired for speech when that speech is offensive to them, when that speech comes from the left. The "golden era" concept—the suggestion that there was a better time for social tolerance of speech in America, and it's now been spoiled by millennials and progressives—is not just wrong, it's nakedly partisan, and it's part of the same effort to make free speech culture into a political weapon.

...

So, for instance, if you're concerned that widespread condemnation of a professor's column chills speech, you might ask at the same time whether the professor's description of student activists as a "terrorist organization" was also chilling. More speech is free speech, entitled to the same legal and cultural protection as the speech to which it responds. A philosophy that criticizes one to the exclusion of the other will not convince Americans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 04:29:43 AM
I think the argument that things were bad before therefore it's OK if things are bad today is fairly weak.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 01, 2023, 04:33:37 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2023, 03:43:48 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 01, 2023, 03:25:14 AMWe are talking about simply not being a dick to people for being LGBT, black, women, etc...
And no, this isn't just for one time failing to use the right pronoun or whatever. It's going out of your way to be a serious dick.
I see no problem with this being understood to be a norm of behaviour.



a serious dick according to who?

The typical empathy of a regular functional human adult.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2023, 04:37:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 04:29:43 AMI think the argument that things were bad before therefore it's OK if things are bad today is fairly weak.

But that's not what he said. :huh:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2023, 04:41:31 AM
I also saw this:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X221087601

From a quick look seems they were looking at connection between free speech support and cancel culture rhetoric by partisan affiliation through use of vignettes where they alternated antifa and proud boys.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 04:45:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2023, 04:37:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 04:29:43 AMI think the argument that things were bad before therefore it's OK if things are bad today is fairly weak.

But that's not what he said. :huh:

The "free speech has always been restricted so STFU" argument has made the rounds, and the people making it read stuff like this as support.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on March 01, 2023, 04:49:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 04:45:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2023, 04:37:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 04:29:43 AMI think the argument that things were bad before therefore it's OK if things are bad today is fairly weak.

But that's not what he said. :huh:

The "free speech has always been restricted so STFU" argument has made the rounds, and the people making it read stuff like this as support.

I guess if people only want to partially read what he said (or what anyway says), they are always free to do so.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 01, 2023, 07:21:45 AM
Two thoughts.

I'm not sure which front of the woke wars "don't say gay"/section 28 style laws are on. It seems straightforwardly retrogressive rather than in a reaction to any particular woke outrage.

On cancel culture, the thing I've been thinking about recently is whether it works on its own terms? Does it achieve what it is trying to?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2023, 08:39:25 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 01, 2023, 03:25:14 AMWe are talking about simply not being a dick to people for being LGBT, black, women, etc...
I guess it depends on how you define being a dick.  The woke often seem to take great liberties in defining who the dicks are, and even questioning what makes one a dick can get you classified as a dick.  It's almost like it's used as means to suppress discussion and protect their monopoly on defining what makes one a dick.

In addition to that, note how you said nothing about not being dicks to people who are not "LGBT, black, women".   That's also very revealing, it's not "don't be a dick to people based on their ethnicity, race, gender, etc.", it's don't be a dick to certain categories. 

Lastly, it's not just about classifying whether you're a dick, but also about accepting what punishment is appropriate once it is established.  To the woke, it seems like a person who slipped up and revealed themselves to be racist is fair game for destruction, regardless of what actual actions they committed or didn't commit.  The thought is the crime, not the action.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 01, 2023, 08:46:49 AM
I wonder if those who think that "wokism" is as much of a threat to liberal liberal democracy as Orbanism can tell us what wokism is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 01, 2023, 09:21:30 AM
QuoteI wonder if those who think that "wokism" is as much of a threat to liberal liberal democracy as Orbanism can tell us what wokism is.
:yes:

Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2023, 08:39:25 AMfine being a dick.  The woke often seem to take great liberties in defining who the dicks are, and even questioning what makes one a dick can get you classified as a dick. 
No it can't.

QuoteIt's almost like it's used as means to suppress discussion and protect their monopoly on defining what makes one a dick.
Who are 'they' holding this monopoly?
This is an interesting facet of the views of some on the right as its viewing the left through a firmly right wing scope.
One of the defining characteristics of the left. Mocked since time immemorial. Is that they can't agree on anything. The Judean Peoples Front bit was hilarious as its so very true.
Yet the left gets presented as this all powerful centralised united group plotting what part of western culture to destroy this week.
QuoteIn addition to that, note how you said nothing about not being dicks to people who are not "LGBT, black, women".   That's also very revealing, it's not "don't be a dick to people based on their ethnicity, race, gender, etc.", it's don't be a dick to certain categories. 

I'd say this is more revealing about the anti-woke crowd than it about those they deem woke.
They see being told not to be a racist, homophobic, chauvinist as somehow an act against straight white guys. Its like respect is a limited resource and treating everyone decently suddenly means less respect for those who already have it.
Obviously being racist against white guys, sexist against men, or straightphobic would be bad too. But in the western world of today these aren't issues on anything remotely like the same level as the stuff I mentioned.
If Neil Patrick Harris suddenly started going off on how straights should be herded into death camps you can bet his cancellation would be swift.

QuoteLastly, it's not just about classifying whether you're a dick, but also about accepting what punishment is appropriate once it is established.  To the woke, it seems like a person who slipped up and revealed themselves to be racist is fair game for destruction, regardless of what actual actions they committed or didn't commit.  The thought is the crime, not the action.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
If you're a popular singer and you decide to talk about how more men should beat their wives and then suddenly nobody is coming to your concerts anymore.... Well boo hoo for you. Pretty logical and straight forward outcome for this person revealing themselves to be a massive dick.
It absolutely is the action, not the thought which is a problem.
Maybe Tom Hanks really really hates Mexican people?- He's certainly said nothing about this though so he has faced no consequences.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2023, 09:44:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2023, 12:34:04 AMI've said this plenty of times before, but I'll say it again: the chilling effect of free speech suppression is not measured by the bodycount, it's measured by the amount of speech suppressed.  Sometimes the chilling effect is so effective and so credible that you don't actually have to set a lot of examples to make everyone comply.

I know you (and others e.g. Berkut) have said this before, but as I see it the chilling effect isn't measured at all.  It's just stated through assertion.  My own impression from interacting with the corporate world is that laddism is still quite alive and well and considerable more prevalent than the attitudes of Garden Court Chambers.  But that's just more argument by anecdote.

QuoteI would guess that in the Soviet Union, not a whole lot of people got executed for telling Stalin to suck his own dick.  That doesn't mean that Soviet citizens were free to tell Stalin to suck his own dick.  An alternative explanation could be that they understood that it would be a dangerous thing to do even without seeing other people being executed for telling Stalin to suck his own dick, and they decided self-censor instead.

People self-censored under Stalin because Stalin DID have enormous numbers of people killed or sent to gulags.  It's a bad analogy for this argument because it just highlights the lack of comparable Wokist victim body count.

If you look at "elite" US universities today, the notion that conservatives are cowed and silenced just doesn't hold water.  The US Senate is filled to the brim now with far right zealots with Ivy League credentials, joined by Commissar DeSantis.  Sheilbh's buddy Vermueule is openly promoting neo-Falangist propaganda at the heart of Harvard Law School, with the only consequences being book deals and speaker invitations.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on March 01, 2023, 10:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2023, 09:44:01 AMI know you (and others e.g. Berkut) have said this before, but as I see it the chilling effect isn't measured at all.  It's just stated through assertion.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Djf-zdQUYAAhPkQ.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2023, 10:52:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 09:16:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2023, 08:34:18 PMWell we can't just throw ethnic minorities and LGBT people under the bus. They are key pillars of our party.

So "wokism", whatever the fuck it is, will just continue being a gift for them.
We can protect them with persuasion rather than sledgehammer.  In fact, we'll probably protect them better that way, because we can't protect them if we help getting GOP elected.

Ok. What are the sledgehammer laws being passed? They were certainly not passed in Florida which has been under Republican control for almost 30 years, and prior to that the Democrats were quite socially conservative at least by today's standards. So are these federal woke sledgehammer laws?

Or are there woke sledgehammer laws in other states that are scaring Florida? I don't know. Which laws are being passed and implemented do you consider "sledgehammer" laws?

Also you have to define "woke" for me because it can mean mean you have opinions slightly to the left of militant conservatives in some contexts and a participant in insane twitter discourse in others.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2023, 10:54:45 AM
I guess I would also suggest these reactionary laws being passed, or at least introduced, in places like Florida are also a political gift. But we'll see.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2023, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 10:08:31 PMI think liberals understand that government is not the only source of power that can be projected onto the individual.  In fact, wokists do as well, which is why trying to get someone fired is their default method of setting an example on the few so that the many will get the hint.  At least with the government you have some recourse, whereas there is no appeals court for getting canceled.

I agree that nutballs trying to get people fired and other idiocy is very bad. But this is a tiny number of people who are accountable to nobody. One of the great "gifts" of social media is that it can make a small hardcore number of idiots very powerful indeed.

If they are accountable to nobody and get their power via a platform that is privately controlled and managed and also accountable to no elected official...what can be done about it? Hunting everybody down?

And by the way it is not like this is just a leftwing deal. When I was on twitter I certainly saw plenty of remarkably brutal harassment by rightwing people. Interesting that none of that is considered "wokism" or "cancel culture."

Presuming by "wokism" you mean this kind of mob justice. Mob justice is always bad justice even if I agree with the cause.

Do the Democrats need to hunt down and silence people in the name of free speech so they will not be unwittingly used by Republicans?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 01, 2023, 11:18:00 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2023, 09:44:01 AMIf you look at "elite" US universities today, the notion that conservatives are cowed and silenced just doesn't hold water.  The US Senate is filled to the brim now with far right zealots with Ivy League credentials, joined by Commissar DeSantis.  Sheilbh's buddy Vermueule is openly promoting neo-Falangist propaganda at the heart of Harvard Law School, with the only consequences being book deals and speaker invitations.
:lol: To be clear I don't agree with or like Vermeule - I just think he might be what's coming next in the conservative legal movement and worth watching and understanding now.

Although on that - it doesn't necessarily apply to Vermeule - but I think there is a difference in impact of "wokism" for conservatives. This is part of why I wonder if the strategy is working on its own terms. I think especially in the US the conservative movement/right has created a material, financial basis for proclaiming their views.

They don't really need to worry about being "cancelled" because there is a well funded conservative ecosystem with plenty of sinecure their media, the speaking circuit, think tank gigs, impressive sounding "schools" and "institutes" at well credentialed universities that are all flush with cash. Again it's why I ask that question is that it seems like the only people who are "cancelled" or need to worry about it are people who don't have access to that ecosystem (partly prompted by seeing someone who was a very strong Corbyn backing, "dirtbag left" UK writer who was "cancelled" over sexual misconduct allegations now popping up in the American "post-liberal" right).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2023, 11:25:15 AM
I guess one thing I might be out of touch with by not being on twitter is that it is possible that left wing institutions and people are bowing down to the twitter nuts in a public way on that platform. That makes it look like this group has more power than they should and/or do have.

So maybe the ultimate solution is just: not be on twitter.

But on the other hand prominent Democratic leaders like Jefferies and Pelosi and Biden are at best cool, at worst antagonistic, to even polite and kind far left voices much less bowing to the angry mobs. I don't know. Many Democrats lined up to condemn socialism with barely any blowback from the left. And if the actual politicians, who need votes, can get away with it I don't see why a tenured professor or some other less accountable person wouldn't be able to.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: frunk on March 01, 2023, 11:37:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2023, 11:08:24 AMI agree that nutballs trying to get people fired and other idiocy is very bad. But this is a tiny number of people who are accountable to nobody. One of the great "gifts" of social media is that it can make a small hardcore number of idiots very powerful indeed.

Which points out the real problem.  It's not about free speech, it's about the weak labour laws in the US.  Corporations have too much power to fire people without cause, and so it's easy to make even minimal furor go away by letting someone go.  If the cost was higher to fire it would at least give them pause.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on March 01, 2023, 12:04:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2023, 08:46:49 AMI wonder if those who think that "wokism" is as much of a threat to liberal liberal democracy as Orbanism can tell us what wokism is.

Obviously there is no single definition of "wokeism".  The term woke started up on the left, got raised up as a pejorative by the right, and obviously means different things to different people.

At it's most agreeable, being "woke" means being made aware of the persistent inequality and systemic discrimination against minority groups across western society.  This is something "the right" should agree with, and promote conservative solutions to, although sadly often don't.  And yes some on the right oppose this version of wokeism.

But at it's most disagreeable, "wokeism" means using social pressure to enforce very left-wing/progressive social views, even when those views are not the majority across society.  Think of journalists being fired for discussing whether it's appropriate to use the N-word, professors being reprimanded for showing historical portraits of the Prophet Mohammed, calls for Harry Potter to be boycotted.  There are lots of examples of such behaviour, mostly involving social media, and mostly involving universities or journalism (though not limited to such areas either).

Look we can all argue who is worse - the left or the right.  That's all fair game.  And Minsky can argue that Ron de Santis is a greater threat to democracy than "wokeism".  That's all fair.

But I don't think you can deny that what I'll call "disagreeable wokeism" isn't a real thing, and that it is, well, disagreeable.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2023, 12:09:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2023, 12:04:42 PMAt it's most agreeable, being "woke" means being made aware of the persistent inequality and systemic discrimination against minority groups across western society.

Yeah that was the original meaning...I think. It only seem to have been used on the left as a positive thing in 2017. But even that is a little fuzzy. It seemed like it was used by leftists for about 10 minutes before being picked up by the right.

QuoteBut I don't think you can deny that what I'll call "disagreeable wokeism" isn't a real thing, and that it is, well, disagreeable.

Oh it is and I have spoken against it forever, long before the term "woke" became a thing in popular discourse. And I have already done all that I can think can be done about it. I left the platform that does most of this, twitter, and have said it is bad. I am not sure what else I can do. It is hard to stop a small geographically spread out group of people from doing bad things on the internet.

Of course I think hypocritically the right speaks out against it while doing the same damn shit itself.  And it is not the disagreeable parts that they are going after. They are going after all left wing social values, it doesn't matter whether the people who hold those values are into cancel culture or how reasonable or whatever. All trans people are guilty and must be stopped just because they exist. That is the bigger problem.

If people want to make laws against cancel culture and to protect free speech that is one thing, but in actuality the laws being passed seem to make cancel culture more powerful. Politicians could MORE easily fire people for having the wrong opinions with this Florida bill. Making it easier to fire people for saying the wrong thing seems an odd response if "wokism" refers to persecuting people for having "wrong think" opinions. One would think the response would be to make it harder.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 12:30:46 PM
Why the hell are we discussing whatever nebulous strawman is this "disagreeable wokeism" that we can't even agree to describe and not the fascistic drift of the GOP?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2023, 12:42:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 12:30:46 PMWhy the hell are we discussing whatever nebulous strawman is this "disagreeable wokeism" that we can't even agree to describe and not the fascistic drift of the GOP?

Because there is no excess of the reactionary right that cannot immediately be blamed on "wokeism" and indicate "that wokeism is the REAL threat."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 01, 2023, 12:57:04 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 12:30:46 PMWhy the hell are we discussing whatever nebulous strawman is this "disagreeable wokeism" that we can't even agree to describe and not the fascistic drift of the GOP?
Yeah I don't get the connection from "wokism" and "cancel culture" to "don't say gay" laws, or laws banning drag performances, or the teaching of theories in school.

I also think the nebulousness of wokeness is precisely because it's become primarily a useful tool/definition for the right. It's the old Orwell line on fascism: "the word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'". "Woke"/"wokism" is similarly empty of content.

Having said that if the left is fighting the culture war - and I'd hope it is given all of that - I think there probably should be some thought into what they're trying to achieve and if their tactics are delivering.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2023, 12:58:25 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 12:30:46 PMWhy the hell are we discussing whatever nebulous strawman is this "disagreeable wokeism" that we can't even agree to describe and not the fascistic drift of the GOP?

Because the awesome power and might of Whataboutism cannot be resisted.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 01:09:55 PM
FWIW my impression is that the GOP is about conservative/reactionary authoritarianism and not Fascism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 01:09:55 PMFWIW my impression is that the GOP is about conservative/reactionary authoritarianism and not Fascism.

Potato potahto.

Take Eco's checklist and a fair bunch of them get checked for the Trumpian GOP.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 01:20:33 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 01:09:55 PMFWIW my impression is that the GOP is about conservative/reactionary authoritarianism and not Fascism.

Potato potahto.

Take Eco's checklist and a fair bunch of them get checked for the Trumpian GOP.

Had to google it, but if this quote is correct then they are a very weak indicator according to Eco himself.

Quote"These features," writes the novelist and semiotician, "cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it."

https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 01:23:02 PM
It's not meant to be a scientific test. The thing is that you don't need people to start goosestepping before you can put the right labels on them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 01:28:08 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 01:23:02 PMIt's not meant to be a scientific test. The thing is that you don't need people to start goosestepping before you can put the right labels on them.

Er... OK. *backs away slowly*
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 01:32:08 PM
I don't bite..   :huh:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 01:34:14 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 01:32:08 PMI don't bite..   :huh:

Well I do. Into a nice juicy carrot since I'm still hungry after dinner. :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 01, 2023, 01:38:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 01:09:55 PMFWIW my impression is that the GOP is about conservative/reactionary authoritarianism and not Fascism.
I agree. I think we need more words to describe right wing authoritarianism.

There are clearly trends globally: managed democracy, crony capitalism, controlled/stage managed opposition, cultural/national chauvinism. I think there are common features in lots of these regimes or movements in many different countries (all within states that have democratic institutions), but I think there are really big differences with fascism.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: frunk on March 01, 2023, 01:41:56 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 01:23:02 PMIt's not meant to be a scientific test. The thing is that you don't need people to start goosestepping before you can put the right labels on them.

Even more important than the label is the measure of risk associated with their behavior.  If they are using the fascist playbook it means they are a danger to your society.  Quibbling about if it's officially "fascist" yet misses the point.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2023, 02:05:03 PM
Quote from: frunk on March 01, 2023, 01:41:56 PMEven more important than the label is the measure of risk associated with their behavior.  If they are using the fascist playbook it means they are a danger to your society.  Quibbling about if it's officially "fascist" yet misses the point.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 01, 2023, 02:10:34 PM
I agree it's 90% academic - but doesn't it shape the way you fight back?

For example my view is that anti-fascist politics is broad church, popular front, quite boring and don't frighten middle America; I think with Erdogan or Orban part of their attack is "they're all the same and in it for themselves", so I wonder if a clean break with the past, sharp dividing lines and aggression might be the better approach? But they are almost opposites.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 01, 2023, 02:11:44 PM
On trump being fascist, the world's leading expert on fascism who wrote the text book says... Yes.

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652

The trumpies really do check off so many of the qualifiers.

But they have their standard go to defences of "you just call everyone you don't like a fascist!" and "the left are the fascists!" (somehow) to avoid actually discussing the issue.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 01, 2023, 02:53:54 PM
I think the struggle for an open society is best served by evidence-based labelling, and a knowledge of history.

That many will go to great lengths to label stuff Fascism on the flimsiest of evidence makes me unable to shake the suspicion that they think other right-wing despotic ideologies are less bad somehow.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2023, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Josquius on March 01, 2023, 02:11:44 PMOn trump being fascist, the world's leading expert on fascism who wrote the text book says... Yes.

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652

The trumpies really do check off so many of the qualifiers.

But they have their standard go to defences of "you just call everyone you don't like a fascist!" and "the left are the fascists!" (somehow) to avoid actually discussing the issue.

... and, of course, the usual "if only the wokeists hadn't forced the Fascists to be Fascists. Let's focus on the real enemy and defeat wokeists and then maybe the Fascists will go away on their own."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 01, 2023, 02:57:05 PM
Well what does defeating the wokeists look like?

Turn back the clock to 1990s social values?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2023, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2023, 02:57:05 PMWell what does defeating the wokeists look like?

Turn back the clock to 1990s social values?

Your guess is as good as mine, but my guess is that victory against wokism rests on three pillars:

1) No one has to fear consequences for making members of marginalized groups upset, whether by accident or on purpose.

2) General agreement that there is no such thing as structural advantages and disadvantages in society, and the termination of any programs to address this (now discredited idea of) structural inequality.

3) The absence of "insane wokeist excess" stories in the media (whether social or corporate).

That'd be my guess. As you can see, that victory is far off.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on March 01, 2023, 03:27:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2023, 12:58:25 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 12:30:46 PMWhy the hell are we discussing whatever nebulous strawman is this "disagreeable wokeism" that we can't even agree to describe and not the fascistic drift of the GOP?

Because the awesome power and might of Whataboutism cannot be resisted.

Who is engaging in "whataboutism"?

I merely said "wokeism" is a real thing.



Man - since this is the Quo Vadis GOP thread, I listened to a Podcast yesterday that had an extended conversation with former Speaker Paul Ryan.  He doesn't speak publicly that much.  Man, I miss republicans like him.  I mean he said explicitly he wasn't going to second-guess Speaker McCarthy (and didn't), but was pretty clear that he labelled himself "Never-Again Trump", about the need for immigration reform (and deficit reduction!), wouldn't say anything nice about MTG and the like, called Jan 6 and insurrection...

But he also spoke out against wokeism - and in the way I agree with, not the Ron de Santis way.

Anyways, even when someone more-or-less agrees with you, but points out the areas of disagreement, it seems like the "whataboutism" is in saying "why are you even talking about that - surely your side is doing much worse?".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2023, 04:09:12 PM
BB - I didn't have a problem with what you said.

I do have a problem with accepting the rhetoric about wokism at face value when it comes from Trump-ites and with commentators treating these as equivalent problems.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2023, 04:12:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2023, 02:57:05 PMWell what does defeating the wokeists look like?

Turn back the clock to 1990s social values?

True victory will never be achieved because there will always be someone in the Dan Brown Chair of Semiotics at the  University of Obscurity oppressing some poor red-blooded American with their confusing pronouns.  The fake outrage machine need never shut down.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 01, 2023, 04:20:53 PM
Yeah. Wokeism will only be defeated if people stop caring and it stops working as a line.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 01, 2023, 05:17:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2023, 03:27:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2023, 12:58:25 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 12:30:46 PMWhy the hell are we discussing whatever nebulous strawman is this "disagreeable wokeism" that we can't even agree to describe and not the fascistic drift of the GOP?

Because the awesome power and might of Whataboutism cannot be resisted.

Who is engaging in "whataboutism"?

I merely said "wokeism" is a real thing.



Man - since this is the Quo Vadis GOP thread, I listened to a Podcast yesterday that had an extended conversation with former Speaker Paul Ryan.  He doesn't speak publicly that much.  Man, I miss republicans like him.  I mean he said explicitly he wasn't going to second-guess Speaker McCarthy (and didn't), but was pretty clear that he labelled himself "Never-Again Trump", about the need for immigration reform (and deficit reduction!), wouldn't say anything nice about MTG and the like, called Jan 6 and insurrection...

But he also spoke out against wokeism - and in the way I agree with, not the Ron de Santis way.

Anyways, even when someone more-or-less agrees with you, but points out the areas of disagreement, it seems like the "whataboutism" is in saying "why are you even talking about that - surely your side is doing much worse?".

It might be, all depends on what you mean by Wokeism.  I have yet to hear anyone who condemns it provide an answer to what it is they are condemning.

I think there is activity that can be condemned but I am not sure it falls under your definition of what being woke is.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on March 01, 2023, 05:41:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2023, 05:17:57 PMIt might be, all depends on what you mean by Wokeism.  I have yet to hear anyone who condemns it provide an answer to what it is they are condemning.

I think there is activity that can be condemned but I am not sure it falls under your definition of what being woke is.

:huh:

Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2023, 12:04:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2023, 08:46:49 AMI wonder if those who think that "wokism" is as much of a threat to liberal liberal democracy as Orbanism can tell us what wokism is.

Obviously there is no single definition of "wokeism".  The term woke started up on the left, got raised up as a pejorative by the right, and obviously means different things to different people.

At it's most agreeable, being "woke" means being made aware of the persistent inequality and systemic discrimination against minority groups across western society.  This is something "the right" should agree with, and promote conservative solutions to, although sadly often don't.  And yes some on the right oppose this version of wokeism.

But at it's most disagreeable, "wokeism" means using social pressure to enforce very left-wing/progressive social views, even when those views are not the majority across society.  Think of journalists being fired for discussing whether it's appropriate to use the N-word, professors being reprimanded for showing historical portraits of the Prophet Mohammed, calls for Harry Potter to be boycotted.  There are lots of examples of such behaviour, mostly involving social media, and mostly involving universities or journalism (though not limited to such areas either).

Look we can all argue who is worse - the left or the right.  That's all fair game.  And Minsky can argue that Ron de Santis is a greater threat to democracy than "wokeism".  That's all fair.

But I don't think you can deny that what I'll call "disagreeable wokeism" isn't a real thing, and that it is, well, disagreeable.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2023, 05:50:34 PM
I think I've said this before.  I will consider wokeism to have been defeated when people surrender the thinking that only members of protected minorities have standing to pass judgement on what constitutes unfair and unjust action against their group.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 01, 2023, 06:31:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2023, 05:50:34 PMI think I've said this before.  I will consider wokeism to have been defeated when people surrender the thinking that only members of protected minorities have standing to pass judgement on what constitutes unfair and unjust action against their group.

How many people has to surrender that thinking? Everyone? Or just a majority of people?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2023, 06:37:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2023, 06:31:44 PMHow many people has to surrender that thinking? Everyone? Or just a majority of people?

I would cease hostilities once it has been reduced to a radical delegitimized fringe.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 01, 2023, 09:47:22 PM
An example of that well-funded conservative ecosystem - the money sloshing around the Federalist Society and Supreme Court appointments:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/01/dark-money-leonard-leo-judicial-activism-00084864
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on March 01, 2023, 10:18:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2023, 05:50:34 PMI think I've said this before.  I will consider wokeism to have been defeated when people surrender the thinking that only members of protected minorities have standing to pass judgement on what constitutes unfair and unjust action against their group.

That's pretty much exactly what Bill Maher's definition of "wokism" is.  His example was his involvement in a program to house the homeless, that was fractured by a large minority that didn't believe that the homeless should be housed, but instead should simply be supported in their street living.  "The street was their home" thinking.

This is the kind of thinking that leads to "that statement/act offended a member of a protected minority, and so must be punished no matter how true or correct it was."

The concept of "woke" is very old - early 20C at the latest -in the Black American community.  It wasn't culturally appropriated until very recently, though.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 01, 2023, 11:30:42 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 12:30:46 PMWhy the hell are we discussing whatever nebulous strawman is this "disagreeable wokeism" that we can't even agree to describe and not the fascistic drift of the GOP?
I think the answer has been stated multiple times, including in the very first reply to your original question.  Wokism gets GOP elected.  You can play dumb and pretend that such a thing doesn't even exist, but yet somehow progressive mayors keep getting voted out, because maybe some policies borne out of the progressive echo chamber lead to some very real anxieties.  Maybe we ought to consider relaxing on the "consequences" for free speech, so that maybe we could get an earlier indication of the true level of support for the woke dogma.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 02, 2023, 12:06:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2023, 11:30:42 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 01, 2023, 12:30:46 PMWhy the hell are we discussing whatever nebulous strawman is this "disagreeable wokeism" that we can't even agree to describe and not the fascistic drift of the GOP?
I think the answer has been stated multiple times, including in the very first reply to your original question.  Wokism gets GOP elected.  You can play dumb and pretend that such a thing doesn't even exist, but yet somehow progressive mayors keep getting voted out, because maybe some policies borne out of the progressive echo chamber lead to some very real anxieties.  Maybe we ought to consider relaxing on the "consequences" for free speech, so that maybe we could get an earlier indication of the true level of support for the woke dogma.

There is somebody playing dumb and it isn't Larch.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 12:44:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2023, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2023, 10:08:31 PMI think liberals understand that government is not the only source of power that can be projected onto the individual.  In fact, wokists do as well, which is why trying to get someone fired is their default method of setting an example on the few so that the many will get the hint.  At least with the government you have some recourse, whereas there is no appeals court for getting canceled.

I agree that nutballs trying to get people fired and other idiocy is very bad. But this is a tiny number of people who are accountable to nobody. One of the great "gifts" of social media is that it can make a small hardcore number of idiots very powerful indeed.

If they are accountable to nobody and get their power via a platform that is privately controlled and managed and also accountable to no elected official...what can be done about it? Hunting everybody down?

And by the way it is not like this is just a leftwing deal. When I was on twitter I certainly saw plenty of remarkably brutal harassment by rightwing people. Interesting that none of that is considered "wokism" or "cancel culture."

Presuming by "wokism" you mean this kind of mob justice. Mob justice is always bad justice even if I agree with the cause.

Do the Democrats need to hunt down and silence people in the name of free speech so they will not be unwittingly used by Republicans?
I recently listened to a podcast discussing a lot of this, and why this has the effect that it does.  If you're interested, here is the link starting at the most pertinent spot, but the whole episode is a good listen:  https://youtu.be/GkZz2I6sK08?t=9083.  The segment I linked to addresses a lot of your questions, presented in a better way than I myself could manage.  The guest is not a Trump-ite "accepting the rhetoric about wokism at face value" (as if that is a remotely fair accusation against anyone here :rolleyes:), he's a liberal just like me.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2023, 04:50:38 AM
I made it about 20 minutes.  Really wished he would have brought up some specific cases.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 02, 2023, 06:04:38 AM
So a social media star talks about a lot about pop psychology, creates some odd charts which describe his own theories of how social psychology works, backed up by no evidence but a lot of assertions, and that is supposed to be somehow persuasive.

To the gullible I suppose.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 02, 2023, 06:27:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2023, 06:04:38 AMSo a social media star talks about a lot about pop psychology, creates some odd charts which describe his own theories of how social psychology works, backed up by no evidence but a lot of assertions, and that is supposed to be somehow persuasive.

To the gullible I suppose.

While I normally abhor puns, you passed up a really good one :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2023, 08:45:35 AM
There will always be people on the left saying stupid things and there will always be people on the right capitalizing for political advantage. That's a fight that can never be won.

I agree that eg people advocating subidies for homeless street living are batty. But that does not  constitute a meaningful threat to the viability of the American democratic constitutional system.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2023, 08:48:56 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 12:44:53 AMguest is not a Trump-ite "accepting the rhetoric about wokism at face value" (as if that is a remotely fair accusation against anyone here :rolleyes:)

Hans seems to have left for good so I don't think anyone is making that accusation
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 08:52:52 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2023, 08:48:56 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 12:44:53 AMguest is not a Trump-ite "accepting the rhetoric about wokism at face value" (as if that is a remotely fair accusation against anyone here :rolleyes:)

Hans seems to have left for good so I don't think anyone is making that accusation
I guess if we're just stating things that we don't accept in this thread for no particular reason, I'll say that I don't accept arguments in support of genocide.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 08:56:58 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2023, 04:50:38 AMI made it about 20 minutes.  Really wished he would have brought up some specific cases.
I don't think what he was saying required an example.  How do you even support with specific examples an assertion that protections of free speech from the government coupled with cancel culture still leads to no free speech in society?  That's a reasoning-based argument:  you either feel free for your words to match your thinking, in which case society can openly discuss how to solve problems, or you're not, regardless of what entity makes you say things different to what you're thinking.  Do you really need specific examples to see how this environment leads to suboptimal decision-making?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on March 02, 2023, 09:06:42 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2023, 04:50:38 AMI made it about 20 minutes.  Really wished he would have brought up some specific cases.

I can think of ten examples without trying very hard. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 09:23:00 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2023, 08:45:35 AMThere will always be people on the left saying stupid things and there will always be people on the right capitalizing for political advantage. That's a fight that can never be won.
I think that so utterly and completed misses the point, which has already been stated multiple times.  It's not about people saying stupid things, it's about a dynamic where people exercise the power of the twitter mob to cow structures with real power into doing the suppression of free speech for them, successfully enough that on multiple subjects there is no longer a truthful debate due to resulting self-censorship.  Whether the mob is saying stupid things or extremely sophisticated things is even beside the point.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on March 02, 2023, 09:29:50 AM
Hey Musk is doing what he can to get rid of the tyranny of twitter
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2023, 09:30:02 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 09:23:00 AMI think that so utterly and completed misses the point, which has already been stated multiple times.  It's not about people saying stupid things, it's about a dynamic where people exercise the power of the twitter mob to cow structures with real power into doing the suppression of free speech for them, successfully enough that on multiple subjects there is no longer a truthful debate due to resulting self-censorship. 

Yes you've said this multiple times but with no evidence to support that this is in anyway a real and widespread problem in the United States.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 02, 2023, 09:48:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 09:23:00 AMon multiple subjects there is no longer a truthful debate due to resulting self-censorship

In which subjects?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2023, 09:30:02 AMYes you've said this multiple times but with no evidence to support that this is in anyway a real and widespread problem in the United States.
Okay, fine, argue against my position by saying there is no evidence for it.  Don't argue against my position by ignoring the position I'm stating and instead arguing against a strawman no one is arguing against.  At least the former path has a chance of going somewhere, whereas the latter path is just another tactic to stifle effective discussion.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 09:55:21 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 02, 2023, 09:48:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 09:23:00 AMon multiple subjects there is no longer a truthful debate due to resulting self-censorship

In which subjects?
Social justice subjects, and other subjects that tie into social justice subjects.  If you ask me to explain in detail what it is that I'm self-censoring myself about, I'm going to decline answering that, but I assure you it's not virulent racism or anything of the kind.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 02, 2023, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 09:55:21 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 02, 2023, 09:48:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 09:23:00 AMon multiple subjects there is no longer a truthful debate due to resulting self-censorship

In which subjects?
Social justice subjects, and other subjects that tie into social justice subjects.  If you ask me to explain in detail what it is that I'm self-censoring myself about, I'm going to decline answering that, but I assure you it's not virulent racism or anything of the kind.

Not very explanatory...

Can you mention something in particular? A particular topic or argument that you think is not being made or brought up?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 02, 2023, 10:02:51 AMNot very explanatory...

Can you mention something in particular? A particular topic or argument that you think is not being made or brought up?
I understand that it is frustrating to have a discussion where one person goes "I'm not comfortable discussing the details".  Believe me, it's even more frustrating to not be comfortable discussing the details.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2023, 11:30:09 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 09:50:40 AMOkay, fine, argue against my position by saying there is no evidence for it. 

Such as

QuoteI know you (and others e.g. Berkut) have said this before, but as I see it the chilling effect isn't measured at all.  It's just stated through assertion.  My own impression from interacting with the corporate world is that laddism is still quite alive and well and considerable more prevalent than the attitudes of Garden Court Chambers.  But that's just more argument by anecdote.

QuoteIf you look at "elite" US universities today, the notion that conservatives are cowed and silenced just doesn't hold water . . .

?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2023, 03:06:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 08:56:58 AMI don't think what he was saying required an example.  How do you even support with specific examples an assertion that protections of free speech from the government coupled with cancel culture still leads to no free speech in society?  That's a reasoning-based argument:  you either feel free for your words to match your thinking, in which case society can openly discuss how to solve problems, or you're not, regardless of what entity makes you say things different to what you're thinking.  Do you really need specific examples to see how this environment leads to suboptimal decision-making?

The problem is that his visual aid doesn't distinguish between PC censorship and societal norms.  I assume there are people in the world who really want to say "I hate niggers" or "I hate fags."  Suppressing or punishing that speech is not what I would characterize as PC censorship.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 02, 2023, 03:44:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 02, 2023, 10:02:51 AMNot very explanatory...

Can you mention something in particular? A particular topic or argument that you think is not being made or brought up?
I understand that it is frustrating to have a discussion where one person goes "I'm not comfortable discussing the details".  Believe me, it's even more frustrating to not be comfortable discussing the details.
C'mon DG, Lay it on us.  Don't make us guess.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 02, 2023, 03:47:29 PM
That's a good observation, Yi. I think you can turn it around and say that the issue is that what the social norms are (or what they should be) is highly contested right now - perhaps more so than usual.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2023, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2023, 03:44:25 PMC'mon DG, Lay it on us.  Don't make us guess.

I'm pretty curious too.

DG, do you want to PM me so you get a first hearing with a sympathetic audience? I promise not to cancel you.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 02, 2023, 04:13:38 PM
I hate the Icelandic.  I don't care if it gets me canceled.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 06:47:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2023, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2023, 03:44:25 PMC'mon DG, Lay it on us.  Don't make us guess.

I'm pretty curious too.

DG, do you want to PM me so you get a first hearing with a sympathetic audience? I promise not to cancel you.
It's nothing all that interesting or even exceedingly controversial, I promise you.  I realize that by saying "I don't want to talk about it" I made it sound like I have some bombshell to share that would surely get me canceled, but I really just wanted to make a point that I'm not comfortable having a detailed discussion anymore on some subjects, at least not in public and not in writing.  At least in private verbal conversation I can't be taken out of context, and also in private conversations the other person is free from having to put on a performance and thus can discuss things productively.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 02, 2023, 07:14:27 PM
Let's change the subject back to more Florida shenanigans.

QuoteFlorida Bill Would Require That Bloggers Who Write About Ron DeSantis And Other Officials To Register With State Or Face Fines

A Florida lawmaker has proposed a bill that would require bloggers who write about Governor Ron DeSantis or other elected officials to register with the state of face fines.

The legislation, proposed by State Sen. Jason Brodeur, a Republican, also would require that the bloggers disclose how much they are being paid for their posts.

Brodeur did not immediately return a request for comment.

Under the terms of the bill — read it here — "if a blogger posts to a blog about an elected state officer and receives, or will receive, compensation for that post, the blogger must register with the appropriate office" within "5 days after the first post by the blogger which mentions an elected state officer."

It also requires that bloggers file monthly reports if a post is added to the blog. The reports must disclose the "individual or entity" that provided compensation for the blog post, the amount of compensation, the date of blog posts, and the website and website address. Fines are set at $25 per day per report for each day late, not to exceed $2,500.

The bill applies to bloggers who write about the governor, lieutenant governor, a cabinet officer or any member of the state legislature.

The bill defines a blogger as "a website or webpage that hosts any blogger and is frequently updated with opinion, commentary, or business content." It excludes "the website of a newspaper or any similar publication." Registration would have to be made to the Department of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

Brodeur also has proposed legislation to make it easier for plaintiffs to sue for defamation. Under the proposal, public figures in many cases would be able to prove defamation by showing negligence, rather than the current higher threshold of showing that a publication acted in malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Under the bill, anonymous sourced material would largely be presumed to be false. DeSantis held a roundtable last month in which he attacked the news media, while he reportedly is championing efforts to weaken journalists' protections. Any of the new laws would likely face a First Amendment challenge, but the idea would be to get a case to the Supreme Court and ultimately overturn nearly 60 years of precedent.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 03, 2023, 12:09:36 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 02, 2023, 06:27:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2023, 06:04:38 AMSo a social media star talks about a lot about pop psychology, creates some odd charts which describe his own theories of how social psychology works, backed up by no evidence but a lot of assertions, and that is supposed to be somehow persuasive.

To the gullible I suppose.

While I normally abhor puns, you passed up a really good one :P

I thought it was close enough.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on March 03, 2023, 12:16:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2023, 03:06:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 08:56:58 AMI don't think what he was saying required an example.  How do you even support with specific examples an assertion that protections of free speech from the government coupled with cancel culture still leads to no free speech in society?  That's a reasoning-based argument:  you either feel free for your words to match your thinking, in which case society can openly discuss how to solve problems, or you're not, regardless of what entity makes you say things different to what you're thinking.  Do you really need specific examples to see how this environment leads to suboptimal decision-making?

The problem is that his visual aid doesn't distinguish between PC censorship and societal norms.  I assume there are people in the world who really want to say "I hate niggers" or "I hate fags."  Suppressing or punishing that speech is not what I would characterize as PC censorship.

There's always a question of degree and kind to this stuff, which is what makes defining "wokeism" challenging.

Take, for example, a customer-facing employee who keeps calling customers the n-word to their face in a derogatory fashion, and is subsequently fired.  And (from a real world example) a NYT reporter in a private discussion on whether it's okay to use the n-word, says the n-word, and is then subsequently fired.

I mean both are examples of someone being fired for using the n-word - but I think most rational people think the first example is fine, and the second ridiculous.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on March 03, 2023, 12:19:24 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 02, 2023, 07:14:27 PMLet's change the subject back to more Florida shenanigans.

QuoteFlorida Bill Would Require That Bloggers Who Write About Ron DeSantis And Other Officials To Register With State Or Face Fines

So of course on the one hand it's simply a bill, and I question how likely it is to even come to a vote.

On the second hand, surely this would be struck down immediately for violating the first amendment.

And the third hand though - for fuck sakes why on earth would someone even attach their name to this?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2023, 06:47:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2023, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2023, 03:44:25 PMC'mon DG, Lay it on us.  Don't make us guess.

I'm pretty curious too.

DG, do you want to PM me so you get a first hearing with a sympathetic audience? I promise not to cancel you.
It's nothing all that interesting or even exceedingly controversial, I promise you.  I realize that by saying "I don't want to talk about it" I made it sound like I have some bombshell to share that would surely get me canceled, but I really just wanted to make a point that I'm not comfortable having a detailed discussion anymore on some subjects, at least not in public and not in writing.  At least in private verbal conversation I can't be taken out of context, and also in private conversations the other person is free from having to put on a performance and thus can discuss things productively.

I mean is this in public though? None of us really know who you are and this is an obscure forum unknown to all but a tiny group of people. Seems to me this is a safe space to try out ideas and say things you aren't sure are right, but just want somebody to talk them out.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 12:22:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2023, 12:19:24 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 02, 2023, 07:14:27 PMLet's change the subject back to more Florida shenanigans.

QuoteFlorida Bill Would Require That Bloggers Who Write About Ron DeSantis And Other Officials To Register With State Or Face Fines

So of course on the one hand it's simply a bill, and I question how likely it is to even come to a vote.

On the second hand, surely this would be struck down immediately for violating the first amendment.

And the third hand though - for fuck sakes why on earth would someone even attach their name to this?

Also the term "blog" seems weirdly anachronistic. Are blogs still getting so much traffic that people are receiving big bucks to say things on blogs? Do people still maintain websites for their blogs outside of the big social media platforms?

I guess podcasts would be the main thing that would qualify. Still kind of weird terminology to use.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 03, 2023, 12:36:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 12:20:47 PMI mean is this in public though? None of us really know who you are and this is an obscure forum unknown to all but a tiny group of people. Seems to me this is a safe space to try out ideas and say things you aren't sure are right, but just want somebody to talk them out.
Anything on the Internet is public.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 12:39:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 03, 2023, 12:36:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 12:20:47 PMI mean is this in public though? None of us really know who you are and this is an obscure forum unknown to all but a tiny group of people. Seems to me this is a safe space to try out ideas and say things you aren't sure are right, but just want somebody to talk them out.
Anything on the Internet is public.

I guess. But everything you say in person could technically be secretly recorded by somebody's cell phone and in most states in the US that is even legal to do. How much security do you need? Besides at this point in our lives I think it is a fair guess that none of us are going to be public figures that would even justify somebody's time to figure out our real identification and then start going through Languish to find juicy quotes.

Besides like 99.9% of the time I see people getting cancelled it is shit they posted on a big social media site under their real name. I hardly ever see people's reddit profile used to go after them, and Languish is hardly reddit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 03, 2023, 12:42:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 12:39:37 PMI guess. But everything you say in person could technically be secretly recorded by somebody's cell phone and in most states in the US that is even legal to do. How much security do you need? Besides at this point in our lives I think it is a fair guess that none of us are going to be public figures that would even justify somebody's time to figure out our real identification and then start going through Languish to find juicy quotes.
I would guess there is about a 0.01% chance of you being recorded in a private conversation, and the on top of that you still have to say something that with bad faith can be used against you.  There is 100% chance of being recorded in a written conversation on a public forum.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 03, 2023, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2023, 04:13:38 PMI hate the Icelandic.  I don't care if it gets me canceled.

Finally, someone with courage.   :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 12:57:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 03, 2023, 12:42:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 12:39:37 PMI guess. But everything you say in person could technically be secretly recorded by somebody's cell phone and in most states in the US that is even legal to do. How much security do you need? Besides at this point in our lives I think it is a fair guess that none of us are going to be public figures that would even justify somebody's time to figure out our real identification and then start going through Languish to find juicy quotes.
I would guess there is about a 0.01% chance of you being recorded in a private conversation, and the on top of that you still have to say something that with bad faith can be used against you.  There is 100% chance of being recorded in a written conversation on a public forum.

I don't know man. That seems excessively paranoid. Is there even a single example of a situation of anybody being cancelled for posting controversial things on a Languish equivalent?

Especially since I doubt anything you have to say is all that controversial.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 03, 2023, 12:58:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 03, 2023, 12:42:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 12:39:37 PMI guess. But everything you say in person could technically be secretly recorded by somebody's cell phone and in most states in the US that is even legal to do. How much security do you need? Besides at this point in our lives I think it is a fair guess that none of us are going to be public figures that would even justify somebody's time to figure out our real identification and then start going through Languish to find juicy quotes.
I would guess there is about a 0.01% chance of you being recorded in a private conversation, and the on top of that you still have to say something that with bad faith can be used against you.  There is 100% chance of being recorded in a written conversation on a public forum.
You really were born in the Soviet Union.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 01:07:09 PM
My main anxiety about posting stupid shit on Languish is less that I get cancelled by angry irrational internet mobs but rather that I piss somebody off so much that they leave the website.

There are dozens of examples of that happening (though only a few were the result of something I personally said). That sucks.

I don't think most of us want to offend or piss off any of our friends here, we are just talking through thoughts. It's rough though.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on March 03, 2023, 01:14:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 01:07:09 PMMy main anxiety about posting stupid shit on Languish is less that I get cancelled by angry irrational internet mobs but rather that I piss somebody off so much that they leave the website.

There are dozens of examples of that happening (though only a few were the result of something I personally said). That sucks.

I don't think most of us want to offend or piss off any of our friends here, we are just talking through thoughts. It's rough though.

That's it, I have had enough.

Purge Valmy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 01:22:04 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 03, 2023, 01:14:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 01:07:09 PMMy main anxiety about posting stupid shit on Languish is less that I get cancelled by angry irrational internet mobs but rather that I piss somebody off so much that they leave the website.

There are dozens of examples of that happening (though only a few were the result of something I personally said). That sucks.

I don't think most of us want to offend or piss off any of our friends here, we are just talking through thoughts. It's rough though.

That's it, I have had enough.

Purge Valmy.

Noooooooo! I didn't mean it!  :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on March 03, 2023, 01:32:45 PM
I'll turn the lights off. Too much of my identity is tied to this place for me to leave it permanently.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 01:36:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2023, 01:32:45 PMI'll turn the lights off. Too much of my identity is tied to this place for me to leave it permanently.

I would say I would pass it on to my children but I have a hard time imagining any of them posting on an internet forum like its 2005 or something.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on March 03, 2023, 01:36:28 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2023, 01:32:45 PMI'll turn the lights off. Too much of my identity is tied to this place for me to leave it permanently.

I've been here more than half my life. Who came before is dead. :pope:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 03, 2023, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2023, 01:36:28 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2023, 01:32:45 PMI'll turn the lights off. Too much of my identity is tied to this place for me to leave it permanently.

I've been here more than half my life. Who came before is dead. :pope:

GF and I aren't far behind you :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on March 03, 2023, 01:38:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2023, 01:36:28 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2023, 01:32:45 PMI'll turn the lights off. Too much of my identity is tied to this place for me to leave it permanently.

I've been here more than half my life. Who came before is dead. :pope:

 :pope:  :pope:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 03, 2023, 01:49:36 PM
Worth a poll on who will be last here? :p
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 03, 2023, 01:50:47 PM
Quote from: Josquius on March 03, 2023, 01:49:36 PMWorth a poll on who will be last here? :p

Mongers. With a poll about whose left :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2023, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2023, 12:16:53 PMThere's always a question of degree and kind to this stuff, which is what makes defining "wokeism" challenging.

Take, for example, a customer-facing employee who keeps calling customers the n-word to their face in a derogatory fashion, and is subsequently fired.  And (from a real world example) a NYT reporter in a private discussion on whether it's okay to use the n-word, says the n-word, and is then subsequently fired.

I mean both are examples of someone being fired for using the n-word - but I think most rational people think the first example is fine, and the second ridiculous.

I agree the first is fair and the second ridiculous, and I think a great deal of ambiguity is removed by defining racism (or transphobia or any other ism or phobia) as based in ill-will, animosity, hatred toward the entire group.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 03, 2023, 02:49:22 PM
One would think simply using a term as an illustrative or quoting somebody else for some reason (like reading a historic document in the delightful history of the United States) would logically be interpreted as different than directing them towards a people or person out of ill-will.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 03, 2023, 07:11:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2023, 12:16:53 PMThere's always a question of degree and kind to this stuff, which is what makes defining "wokeism" challenging.

Take, for example, a customer-facing employee who keeps calling customers the n-word to their face in a derogatory fashion, and is subsequently fired.  And (from a real world example) a NYT reporter in a private discussion on whether it's okay to use the n-word, says the n-word, and is then subsequently fired.

I mean both are examples of someone being fired for using the n-word - but I think most rational people think the first example is fine, and the second ridiculous.
I saw someone put it in the way which I found quite helpful that it's about the form of politics or style that "wokeism" presents.

Content, form and style all matter - and there is a side to "wokeism" of HR bureaucracy or academic critique that I just think most people don't respond well to, not least because it's something very alien to most people's lives. It's why I think there is something to the idea of capital "woke-washing" but also that I think it appeals and makes sense to people from a certain educational background/in certain sectors but not others.

And I think criticism of the form isn't the same as criticism of content - and defnece of content doesn't necessarily excuse form. My own view is I'm not convinced this form of anti-racism, anti-misogyny etc is effective at persuading or effectively censuring people who aren't already in the camp (I think it's why, for example, older, less educated minority voters when polled tend to be fairly hostile to a lot of it). And I just would like people to think what are they trying to do - in my view it should (as should all politics on the left) be about trying to inspire more solidarity, more common feeling and empathy and I'm not sure it's working.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2023, 07:46:07 PM
The corporate HR perspective I feel I understand perfectly.  They are set up to minimize legal liability to the greatest extent possible.  So they make people watch inclusion videos once a year and document every complaint seriously, no matter how ridiculous.  That's a perfectly rational response of homo economicus to an external factor.

I am actually sympathetic to wokeism in other places.  What's more altruistic than advocating for oppressed groups that you are not a member of?  Outrage at perceived social injustice is a perfectly understandable human response.  Condemnation of people people perpetrating the injustice is fair and noble.

What is not built into that system is internal audit.  Wokeism doesn't have room for well intentioned people to critique or question claims of social injustice and the ensuing outrage and condemnation.

Now I fully admit that I have never taken any class in women's studies, or black studies, etc., or read a single text, but it does seem to me that would have been an ideal place for people to apply academic rigor to this question, but alas no.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 03, 2023, 10:56:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2023, 07:46:07 PMWhat is not built into that system is internal audit.  Wokeism doesn't have room for well intentioned people to critique or question claims of social injustice and the ensuing outrage and condemnation.

I think this is fair and fairly apt too.

The problem unfortunately is that for a period people hostile to the idea of any kind of social justice used the pose of the internal audit to undermine any attempt at action. "Just asking questions" and "isn't it funny that..." was used as a deliberate sabotage technique.

It turns out it's quite difficult to distinguish between Nazi shitheads trying to disingenuously stir up shit and people asking difficult questions in good faith. I mean, individually we're all sure we're pretty good at it... but collectively it turns out to be hard to execute on consistently.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2023, 11:22:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2023, 10:56:40 PMI think this is fair and fairly apt too.

The problem unfortunately is that for a period people hostile to the idea of any kind of social justice used the pose of the internal audit to undermine any attempt at action. "Just asking questions" and "isn't it funny that..." was used as a deliberate sabotage technique.

It turns out it's quite difficult to distinguish between Nazi shitheads trying to disingenuously stir up shit and people asking difficult questions in good faith. I mean, individually we're all sure we're pretty good at it... but collectively it turns out to be hard to execute on consistently.

What period are your referring to?

The way I see it things started out benignly.  A while back someone posted a letter that MLK wrote to white supporters who advised him to go slow.  He didn't respond to them as the enemy.  He responded to them as allies to be reasoned with. 

Then things went to shit in the 70s with the rise of black militancy and feminist militancy.  Discourse with well intentioned allies disappeared and got replaced with catch phrases like sexist male pig and Uncle Tom and don't trust whitey.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 04, 2023, 12:23:49 AM
In the 1970s? Well that is ancient history by now. Most of those people are dead.

It is hard for me to look at the social dynamics of the 1960s and 1950s and see how that was this great era of thoughtful engagement. It looks like a ton of violence and irrational behavior that was more, not less, scary than today.

I have certainly seen tons of thoughtful discussions by high minded people like MLK recently as well. But as with MLK himself that kind of thing is not necessarily the rule, and I think it would be a mistake to assume it wasn't the exception in the 1960s as well.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on March 04, 2023, 06:12:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2023, 11:22:31 PMWhat period are your referring to?

The way I see it things started out benignly.  A while back someone posted a letter that MLK wrote to white supporters who advised him to go slow.  He didn't respond to them as the enemy.  He responded to them as allies to be reasoned with. 

Then things went to shit in the 70s with the rise of black militancy and feminist militancy.  Discourse with well intentioned allies disappeared and got replaced with catch phrases like sexist male pig and Uncle Tom and don't trust whitey.

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of MLK. I think his letter is highly critical of white moderates and is trying to shame people them into support by highlighting their hypocrisy. His comparison of them being worse than the clan feels like he is calling out an enemy.

Here's what the Washington Post had to say of his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/01/15/martin-luther-king-jr-s-scathing-critique-of-white-moderates-from-the-birmingham-jail/
QuoteThe day after his arrest, eight prominent white clergy members placed an ad in the Birmingham News, accusing King of being an outside agitator whose demonstrations were "unwise and untimely." Infuriated by their words, King unleashed his literary wrath on the clergymen. Writing with the light from the sun that fell through the cell's bars, King quoted from memory biblical passages and quotes from Socrates, Martin Luther, Thomas Jefferson, T.S. Eliot, Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine to bolster his argument. He wrote:

QuoteWe know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jet-like speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" — then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

...

In "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," King offered a scathing critique of "white moderates" unwilling to do the right thing that still resonates today:

QuoteFirst, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

His letter he goes on to tell clergymen they'll be irrelevant if they don't heed his words.

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
QuoteBut the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

In a similar vein the NY Times highlighted that his methods were not viewed as particulary moderate or the right way to behave by American society at the time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/civil-rights-protest-resistance.html
QuoteThanks to the sanitized images of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement that dominate our nation's classrooms and our national discourse, many Americans imagine that protests organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and countless local organizations fighting for justice did not fall victim to violent outbreaks. That's a myth. In spite of extensive training in nonviolent protest and civil disobedience, individuals and factions within the larger movement engaged in violent skirmishes, and many insisted on their right to physically defend themselves even while they proclaimed nonviolence as an ideal (examples include leaders of the SNCC and the Deacons for Defense and Justice in Mississippi).

The reality — which is underdiscussed but essential to an understanding of our current situation — is that the civil rights work of Dr. King and other leaders was loudly opposed by overt racists and quietly sabotaged by cautious moderates. We believe that current moderates sincerely want to condemn racism and to see an end to its effects. The problem is that this desire is outweighed by the comfort of their current circumstances and a perception of themselves as above some of the messy implications of fighting for liberation. This is nothing new. In fact, Dr. King's 1963 "Letter From Birmingham Jail" is as relevant today as it was then.

...

National polling from the 1960s shows that even during that celebrated "golden age" of nonviolent protest, most Americans were against marches and demonstrations. A 1961 Gallup poll revealed that 57 percent of the public thought that lunch counter sit-ins and other demonstrations would hurt integration efforts. A 1963 poll showed that 60 percent had an unfavorable feeling toward the planned March on Washington, where Dr. King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. A year later, 74 percent said that since black people had made some progress, they should stop their demonstrations; and by 1969, 74 percent said that marching, picketing and demonstrations were hurting the civil rights cause. As for Dr. King personally, the figure who current moderates most readily point to as a model, 50 percent of people polled in 1966 thought that he was hurting the civil rights movement; only 36 percent believed he was helping.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2023, 06:18:18 AM
I withdraw my comment.  I was clearly wrong.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: mongers on March 04, 2023, 07:30:53 AM
Quote from: HVC on March 03, 2023, 01:50:47 PM
Quote from: Josquius on March 03, 2023, 01:49:36 PMWorth a poll on who will be last here? :p

Mongers. With a poll about whose left :D
Penciled into my diary for March 2039.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 04, 2023, 12:12:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2023, 11:22:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2023, 10:56:40 PMI think this is fair and fairly apt too.

The problem unfortunately is that for a period people hostile to the idea of any kind of social justice used the pose of the internal audit to undermine any attempt at action. "Just asking questions" and "isn't it funny that..." was used as a deliberate sabotage technique.

It turns out it's quite difficult to distinguish between Nazi shitheads trying to disingenuously stir up shit and people asking difficult questions in good faith. I mean, individually we're all sure we're pretty good at it... but collectively it turns out to be hard to execute on consistently.

What period are your referring to?

The way I see it things started out benignly.  A while back someone posted a letter that MLK wrote to white supporters who advised him to go slow.  He didn't respond to them as the enemy.  He responded to them as allies to be reasoned with. 

Then things went to shit in the 70s with the rise of black militancy and feminist militancy.  Discourse with well intentioned allies disappeared and got replaced with catch phrases like sexist male pig and Uncle Tom and don't trust whitey.

I personally noticed the trend of "just asking questions" as a technique to undermine and oppose social justice in various forms in the 'aughts and early teens, with the assumption that questions askers were asking in bad faith becoming default in maybe the mid teens? Something like that?

It's not limited to social justice topics, of course, the rise of trolling as a form of discourse was pretty widespread - but I think it was used very deliberately by the alt right; and, I think, very effectively as the impact spread to general society. It doesn't take that many times to be subjected to a barrage of disingenuous bad faith questions before it wears you out, and it doesn't take too many times to have your good faith questions dismissed as bad faith before that sours your either.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2023, 07:50:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 04, 2023, 12:12:12 PMI personally noticed the trend of "just asking questions" as a technique to undermine and oppose social justice in various forms in the 'aughts and early teens, with the assumption that questions askers were asking in bad faith becoming default in maybe the mid teens? Something like that?

It's not limited to social justice topics, of course, the rise of trolling as a form of discourse was pretty widespread - but I think it was used very deliberately by the alt right; and, I think, very effectively as the impact spread to general society. It doesn't take that many times to be subjected to a barrage of disingenuous bad faith questions before it wears you out, and it doesn't take too many times to have your good faith questions dismissed as bad faith before that sours your either.

You're talking about professional provocateurs like Ben Shapiro?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Legbiter on March 05, 2023, 12:43:33 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2023, 07:11:04 PMContent, form and style all matter - and there is a side to "wokeism" of HR bureaucracy or academic critique that I just think most people don't respond well to, not least because it's something very alien to most people's lives. It's why I think there is something to the idea of capital "woke-washing" but also that I think it appeals and makes sense to people from a certain educational background/in certain sectors but not others.

Average Centrist Dad reaction to 1 minute of progressive Anglo-American shitlib messaging via social media...

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 05, 2023, 12:32:14 PM
Glad to see that the President Supervillain account is back in action.

https://twitter.com/PresVillain/status/1632431944557375489?t=TaG0akujpS5TbAmQcLZFjg&s=19 (https://twitter.com/PresVillain/status/1632431944557375489?t=TaG0akujpS5TbAmQcLZFjg&s=19)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqeQJQVXgAE0TQ8?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 05, 2023, 12:42:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2023, 07:50:15 PMYou're talking about professional provocateurs like Ben Shapiro?

I'm sure they figure into it, but I was more thinking more broadly. Gamergate exemplifies the democratization-of-trolling-as-political-activism, but I feel like it was widespread beyond that. And my personal recollection is that I saw the hardening of attitudes in response to that in leftist spaces in the same period.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 05, 2023, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2023, 12:43:33 AMAverage Centrist Dad reaction to 1 minute of progressive Anglo-American shitlib messaging via social media...

Do you consider yourself an Average Centrist Dad?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2023, 04:25:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2023, 12:42:42 PMI'm sure they figure into it, but I was more thinking more broadly. Gamergate exemplifies the democratization-of-trolling-as-political-activism, but I feel like it was widespread beyond that. And my personal recollection is that I saw the hardening of attitudes in response to that in leftist spaces in the same period.

Well I think the work around is to shift the focus from good faith to the merits.  Argued based on logic, reason, and evidence.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 05, 2023, 04:33:44 PM
I certainly self-censor these days in a way I didn't feel I had to earlier. I no longer defend democracy or freedom of speech under my own name online. I still feel I can do it on Languish.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on March 06, 2023, 05:39:58 PM
QuoteEyeing a run for president, Ron DeSantis wants to 'Make America Florida'
:lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 06, 2023, 09:06:21 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2023, 12:43:33 AMAverage Centrist Dad reaction to 1 minute of progressive Anglo-American shitlib messaging via social media...

Average Centrist Dad should stay off social media.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on March 06, 2023, 09:10:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2023, 09:06:21 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2023, 12:43:33 AMAverage Centrist Dad reaction to 1 minute of progressive Anglo-American shitlib messaging via social media...

Average Centrist Dad should stay off social media.

Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2023, 09:06:21 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2023, 12:43:33 AMAverage Centrist Dad reaction to 1 minute of progressive Anglo-American shitlib messaging via social media...

Average Centrist Dad should stay off social media.

Angry Old Average Centrist Dad shouts at clouds.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 06, 2023, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2023, 04:33:44 PMI certainly self-censor these days in a way I didn't feel I had to earlier. I no longer defend democracy or freedom of speech under my own name online. I still feel I can do it on Languish.
Your real name is The Brain.  I thought that was just a nickname.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 08, 2023, 08:57:39 PM
Arkansas governor to relax child labor laws (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/08/huckabee-sanders-arkansas-child-labor/)

QuoteArkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed into law this week legislation that rolls back significant portions of the state's child labor protections.

The law eliminates requirements for the state to verify the age of children younger than 16 before they can take a job.

Sanders believes the provision was "burdensome and obsolete," spokeswoman Alexa Henning said in an emailed statement. Remaining state and federal regulations are still in effect, she said. Sanders signed the Republican-backed bill on Tuesday.

Federal officials have pledged to crack down on child labor law offenses after regulators discovered hundreds of violations in meatpacking plants and after press reports emerged of children working in hazardous occupations around the country.

The Labor Department fined Packers Sanitation Services, a subcontractor for meatpacking plants, $1.5 million in February for illegally hiring children, some of whom sustained chemical burns after working with caustic cleaning agents.

Other states are also considering loosening child labor protections. A bill advancing in Iowa would allow 14- and 15-year-olds to work certain jobs in meatpacking plants and would shield businesses from civil liability if a youth worker is sickened, injured or killed on the job.

Republican leaders in Congress tapped Sanders, 40, the youngest governor in the nation, to deliver the GOP response to President Biden's State of the Union address last month.

In her remarks, the former White House press secretary for Donald Trump accused Biden of caring more about "woke fantasies" than Americans' economic concerns and called him "unfit to serve." Several times she called Biden and the Democrats "crazy" as she painted a grim version of the country under their policies, asserting that Americans' freedoms were at stake.

"In the radical left's America, Washington taxes you and lights your hard-earned money on fire, but you get crushed with high gas prices, empty grocery shelves, and our children are taught to hate one another on account of their race, but not to love one another or our great country," Sanders said. "Whether Joe Biden believes this madness or is simply too weak to resist it, his administration has been completely hijacked by the radical left. The dividing line in America is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal or crazy."

For nearly two years, Sanders was Trump's chief spokesperson, sparring with reporters over his policies and rhetoric. She also acknowledged having provided false information in his defense. The daughter of former governor Mike Huckabee used her high-profile job and family ties to realize her own political ambitions, becoming Arkansas' first female governor.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Legbiter on March 09, 2023, 06:59:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2023, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2023, 12:43:33 AMAverage Centrist Dad reaction to 1 minute of progressive Anglo-American shitlib messaging via social media...

Do you consider yourself an Average Centrist Dad?

Your biggest character flaw (aside from failing to notice this post was a drunk good-natured dunk on Sheilbhs' technocratic side), is assuming everyone who doesn't explicitly confess your Sol Invictus ideology automatically conforms to your worst fears.

Everyone still here I'd catch a bullet for, no exceptions. Keep that in mind on every weekend henceforth.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on March 09, 2023, 08:09:25 PM
 :cry:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 09, 2023, 08:43:52 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 09, 2023, 06:59:18 PMYour biggest character flaw (aside from failing to notice this post was a drunk good-natured dunk on Sheilbhs' technocratic side), is assuming everyone who doesn't explicitly confess your Sol Invictus ideology automatically conforms to your worst fears.

Sorry man, I was attempting to engage in good natured ribbing also...

I'm actually pretty laid back on Sol Invictus IRL, but the years of baggage and the roles we've cast ourselves into over the years are apparently hard to escape.

QuoteEveryone still here I'd catch a bullet for, no exceptions. Keep that in mind on every weekend henceforth.

I don't have any doubt about that.

BTW, we seem to be favouring Icelandair for our flights to Europe these days. Maybe one day I'll be able to swing a stop-over and buy you a beer or two to show you I'm less dogmatic than my perceived role here.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 09, 2023, 09:36:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2023, 08:57:39 PM
Quote"In the radical left's America, Washington taxes you and lights your hard-earned money on fire, but you get crushed with high gas prices, empty grocery shelves, and our children are taught to hate one another on account of their race, but not to love one another or our great country," Sanders said. "Whether Joe Biden believes this madness or is simply too weak to resist it, his administration has been completely hijacked by the radical left. The dividing line in America is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal or crazy."

Ah. Thanks Sanders I feel so loved. I am glad you are working so hard to get Arkansas children to love us all.

It is a weird disconnect from reality to see the governor of one the worst run and most impoverished states in the Union talk about how the rest of the country sucks. Especially with this nonsense about high gas prices and empty store shelves. Maybe you should fix Arkansas before you start talking about how you are our savior and so very normal and the rest of us are crazy?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 09, 2023, 11:56:59 PM
Any discussion of Tucker Carlson texts?  Seems like even Tucker is not immune from TDS, although being a professional that he is, you could never tell from his work product.  I predict that somehow the cognitive dissonance of Trumpists will prevail, and everyone will ignore and forget the sociopathic cynicism of everyone involved.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 10, 2023, 01:08:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2023, 11:56:59 PMAny discussion of Tucker Carlson texts?  Seems like even Tucker is not immune from TDS, although being a professional that he is, you could never tell from his work product.  I predict that somehow the cognitive dissonance of Trumpists will prevail, and everyone will ignore and forget the sociopathic cynicism of everyone involved.
What is TDS? 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 10, 2023, 01:18:46 AM
Total dissolved solids? :unsure:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 10, 2023, 02:30:41 AM
Trump Derangement Syndrome I think. I am not really sure what exactly that means but I see it tossed around a lot. I presume it refers to somebody who hates Trump to such an extreme level it makes them go a little nuts.

We used to have Obama Derangement Syndrome which meant that back in the day so I presume this is the same thing only with Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 10, 2023, 04:00:08 AM
Carlson's commitment to his performance art is comendable, if his contempt for Trump is indeed so virulent.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 10, 2023, 11:28:53 AM
What did Carlson (allegedly?) say about Trump?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on March 10, 2023, 11:37:51 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2023, 11:28:53 AMWhat did Carlson (allegedly?) say about Trump?

He said he fucking hated Trump.

And there's no allegedly about it - these were from text messages that were disclosed as part of the Fox News / Dominion VOting Machines lawsuit.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: C.C.R. on March 10, 2023, 12:09:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2023, 02:30:41 AMTrump Derangement Syndrome I think. I am not really sure what exactly that means but I see it tossed around a lot. I presume it refers to somebody who hates Trump to such an extreme level it makes them go a little nuts.

I live with somebody that had TDS for four years. It was exhausting. Any and every form of Rational Discourse was completely out the window. This was, of course, offset by others around me that had whatever the Alphabet Soup Indicator was for the people that chugged the Trump Kool-Aid - they were equally exhausting and beyond Rational Discourse. Four years of my life flushed down the shitter of people that I thought that I knew & loved more worried about Scoring Points off of each other than being Human Beings. Weird scenes inside the gold mine...

 :ccr
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 10, 2023, 12:11:25 PM
 :w00t:  :ccr  :cheers:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 10, 2023, 12:12:48 PM
CCR :w00t: :hug: :ccr:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 10, 2023, 12:22:03 PM
TDS = obsessively anti-Trump?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 10, 2023, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2023, 02:30:41 AMTrump Derangement Syndrome I think. I am not really sure what exactly that means but I see it tossed around a lot. I presume it refers to somebody who hates Trump to such an extreme level it makes them go a little nuts.

We used to have Obama Derangement Syndrome which meant that back in the day so I presume this is the same thing only with Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 10, 2023, 12:23:53 PM
Thanks
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on March 10, 2023, 12:25:35 PM
Quote from: C.C.R. on March 10, 2023, 12:09:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2023, 02:30:41 AMTrump Derangement Syndrome I think. I am not really sure what exactly that means but I see it tossed around a lot. I presume it refers to somebody who hates Trump to such an extreme level it makes them go a little nuts.

I live with somebody that had TDS for four years. It was exhausting. Any and every form of Rational Discourse was completely out the window. This was, of course, offset by others around me that had whatever the Alphabet Soup Indicator was for the people that chugged the Trump Kool-Aid - they were equally exhausting and beyond Rational Discourse. Four years of my life flushed down the shitter of people that I thought that I knew & loved more worried about Scoring Points off of each other than being Human Beings. Weird scenes inside the gold mine...

 :ccr

Well, well... look what the cat dragged in...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 10, 2023, 12:46:40 PM
CCR :ccr: :cheers:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on March 10, 2023, 12:58:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2023, 12:25:35 PMWell, well... look what the cat dragged in...

In Soviet Russia, CCR drags cat.

Great to see you posting, CCR! :w00t:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 10, 2023, 01:14:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2023, 11:37:51 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2023, 11:28:53 AMWhat did Carlson (allegedly?) say about Trump?

He said he fucking hated Trump.

And there's no allegedly about it - these were from text messages that were disclosed as part of the Fox News / Dominion VOting Machines lawsuit.
I thought he appeared on stage at one of his convention back in the day?
Ah, Republicans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on March 10, 2023, 01:29:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 10, 2023, 01:14:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2023, 11:37:51 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2023, 11:28:53 AMWhat did Carlson (allegedly?) say about Trump?

He said he fucking hated Trump.

And there's no allegedly about it - these were from text messages that were disclosed as part of the Fox News / Dominion VOting Machines lawsuit.
I thought he appeared on stage at one of his convention back in the day?
Ah, Republicans.


He's on tv 5 nights a week, and if he talks about Trump he praises him.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: C.C.R. on March 11, 2023, 02:28:28 AM
BB, grumbs, Jake, Larch & Sheilbh - love & miss you guys, too. It's kind of refreshing dropping in here now & then and seeing the same 20-30-40 peeps doing the exact same fucking thing that they were doing 20 fucking years ago. The more things change...

At any rate, half-ass trying to be Topical:

I have spent the better part of my 30-year Adult Life usually working at various positions in factories, including a Range of salaried & hourly positions. What I've really, really been encountering the past six-seven years has been a groundswell of Blue Collar, Middle American Angst where people are sick of working twelve-hour shifts to support their families and then being called Racist because they're White, Sexist because they're Male, Homophobic because they're Straight, Criminals because they own Guns & Stupid because they actually manufacture real, tangible Trade Goods for a living instead of getting Philosophy degrees from Ju-Co to end up sweeping floors, and they have basically backed Trump as a big Middle Finger, Fuck You to the American Left.

I guess my question here is if there is anybody out there on *EITHER* side of the aisle that is at least making a minimal effort at placating this voting bloc. Half a century ago these were people firmly ensconced with the Democrats, but the Dems kind of turned their back on these folk in favor of Social Justice Issues & it came back to bite them in the ass with Trump. I'm telling y'all, this is a very, very real Bloc of people that need to be courted to March Over A Road Of Bones with the Competition.

These people are kind of my Homies since I spend so much of my life with them, even though I sort of quietly hate them because they can't quite seem to think their own way out of a wet paper bag. But, you know, this is literally the voting bloc that elected Trump - albeit they came together out of their hatred of Hillary. I'm just kind of curious if anybody is really & meaningfully giving the "Joe & Jolene Sixpack" vote (thank you AmericanScipio) any kind of serious appraisal, or is everybody pretty much writing them off as Middle American Simpletons to their own peril...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 11, 2023, 02:53:27 AM
QuoteWhat I've really, really been encountering the past six-seven years has been a groundswell of Blue Collar, Middle American Angst where people are sick of working twelve-hour shifts to support their families and then being called Racist because they're White, Sexist because they're Male, Homophobic because they're Straight, Criminals because they own Guns & Stupid because they actually manufacture real, tangible Trade Goods for a living instead of getting Philosophy degrees from Ju-Co to end up sweeping floors, and they have basically backed Trump as a big Middle Finger, Fuck You to the American Left

So what you're saying is you've been seeing a large amount of chronic misinformation.

QuoteI guess my question here is if there is anybody out there on *EITHER* side of the aisle that is at least making a minimal effort at placating this voting bloc. Half a century ago these were people firmly ensconced with the Democrats, but the Dems kind of turned their back on these folk in favor of Social Justice Issues & it came back to bite them in the ass with Trump. I'm telling y'all, this is a very, very real Bloc of people that need to be courted to March Over A Road Of Bones with the Competition.
Did they though?
You see the same shit in the UK. Here it absolutely 100% has zero basis in reality. The left has always concerned about social justice issues. It's basically the core of what being left wing is about.
Workers rights = women's rights = black rights = gay rights. Its all different sides of the same coin and it naturally fits together.
Traditional working class people are firmly on board with this.

I do know in the US this attitude you describe was born. And at best it's not primarily due to l the left suddenly changing. Rather its the republicans realising that rather than selling tax breaks for the rich to the poor they'd have a lot more success playing culture wars.

The problem on the left tends to be biting rather than just ignoring this shit as best they can and focusing on real issues instead.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 11, 2023, 03:09:31 AM
Quote from: C.C.R. on March 11, 2023, 02:28:28 AMBB, grumbs, Jake, Larch & Sheilbh - love & miss you guys, too. It's kind of refreshing dropping in here now & then and seeing the same 20-30-40 peeps doing the exact same fucking thing that they were doing 20 fucking years ago. The more things change...

At any rate, half-ass trying to be Topical:

I have spent the better part of my 30-year Adult Life usually working at various positions in factories, including a Range of salaried & hourly positions. What I've really, really been encountering the past six-seven years has been a groundswell of Blue Collar, Middle American Angst where people are sick of working twelve-hour shifts to support their families and then being called Racist because they're White, Sexist because they're Male, Homophobic because they're Straight, Criminals because they own Guns & Stupid because they actually manufacture real, tangible Trade Goods for a living instead of getting Philosophy degrees from Ju-Co to end up sweeping floors, and they have basically backed Trump as a big Middle Finger, Fuck You to the American Left.

I guess my question here is if there is anybody out there on *EITHER* side of the aisle that is at least making a minimal effort at placating this voting bloc. Half a century ago these were people firmly ensconced with the Democrats, but the Dems kind of turned their back on these folk in favor of Social Justice Issues & it came back to bite them in the ass with Trump. I'm telling y'all, this is a very, very real Bloc of people that need to be courted to March Over A Road Of Bones with the Competition.

These people are kind of my Homies since I spend so much of my life with them, even though I sort of quietly hate them because they can't quite seem to think their own way out of a wet paper bag. But, you know, this is literally the voting bloc that elected Trump - albeit they came together out of their hatred of Hillary. I'm just kind of curious if anybody is really & meaningfully giving the "Joe & Jolene Sixpack" vote (thank you AmericanScipio) any kind of serious appraisal, or is everybody pretty much writing them off as Middle American Simpletons to their own peril...
It sounds like the problem is not that the left has abandoned that voting block, but rather that the diversity and inclusion programs are insufficient in American factories.  You shouldn't be offended at being called racist because you're white, you should be thinking of all the reasons why that is the case.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 11, 2023, 12:26:36 PM
The Dems have been pushing for higher wages and universal health care and now are getting on the protectionist train. We have Bernie Sanders and shit.

I guess I missed that part when the Democrats called the working class sexist, racist, and homophobic.

Whereas the Republicans vote for worse benefits, lower wages, and spend lots of time talking about how trans people need to destroyed and woke needs to die.

I guess I fail to see where one party has abandoned the working class for social issues and the other hasn't.

But yeah it is not like the Democrats can abandon racial, gender, or sexual minorities as those are key pillars of their support. The Republicans are politically right to exploit the unpopularity of those groups to gain an advantage and the Republican propaganda machine is incredibly powerful.

If Bernie Sanders is insufficiently pro-workers not really sure what they want.

I get that the corporate Dems did the whole free trade thing and that resulted in Trump but they are thoroughly spooked now. The era of free trade is pretty much dead now. The workers have spoken.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 11, 2023, 12:56:49 PM
I think both sides of the aisle is very much aware of the importance of that voting block and are competing hard for it. However, a good amount of the competition is not positive inducement but persuading them that the other side is disdainful of that block and actively working against their interests. Given the trend of former working class Democrats propelling Trump to victory, I don't think anyone following American politics discounts the importance of that block.

Independently of the actual truth on any given issue, I think the game is this:

The GOP need to convince (enough of) your block that wokery has gone mad, that policies that primarily benefit white and rich demographics are fair and reasonable and expressions of freedom, and that the excessive racism and bigotry that sometimes gets expressed is not that big a deal.

Conversely the Democrats need to convince (enough of) your block that the pseudo-fascist bigotry of the GOP is a significant danger, that policies that benefit marginalized groups (whether they also benefit those who are white and/ or well off or not) are fair and reasonable and not expressions of corrupt client politics, and that wokist zealotry happens less and is less significant than what the other side wants you to believe.

Obviously the culture war stuff figures pretty heavily into this. In my view, the GOP is also approaching economic (and many other issues) primarily through that culture war lens (I guess because it's working for them), while the Democrats would prefer not using a culture war approach for issues of economics etc.

Personally I think one side is significantly closer to the truth, more morally sound, and generally has better more useful policies than the other. Then again I'm neither American nor a blue collar worker.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 11, 2023, 01:11:24 PM
Tangentially, IMO the push to convince everyone that wokery has gone mad is pretty solid (note that this observation does not imply whether it's true that wokery is out of control or not).

I don't watch anything political on youtube at all (so there shouldn't be any cookies directing me that way). Mostly it's about film and music, and occasionally silly cat stuff.

The other day I wanted to show my boy some of the Japanese influences on Star Wars, so I searched for Akira Kurosawa clips (also Lone Wolf & Cub, since we'd just watched the newest Mandalorian episode). A few Westerns showed up in the suggestions sidebar, so we watched the opening scene of Once Upon a Time in the West (Westerns being another obvious influence on Star Was). Next thing I know, the suggestions have all sorts of "visiting so-and-so DESTROYS woke students" type clips.

Not the kind of thing I was looking for (or the inverse), but if you're looking for confirmation that wokery has gone mad you're going to get a full serving immediately.

I find the same thing is true when I look at history stuff. I'm only typically one or two clips away from something about how Western civilization is under threat.

Points of view from the other side of the spectrum - pro social justice or wokery things - only shows up if I look for it (I don't, honestly) or as fodder for "demolishing" it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 11, 2023, 01:19:46 PM
I mean if there is any positive policy the workers want I am for it so long as it isn't culture war crap.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 11, 2023, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 11, 2023, 12:56:49 PMObviously the culture war stuff figures pretty heavily into this. In my view, the GOP is also approaching economic (and many other issues) primarily through that culture war lens (I guess because it's working for them), while the Democrats would prefer not using a culture war approach for issues of economics etc.
I'd query this. For example I mean I back ESG goals (and that's where my company's pension scheme is) - but issues of climate change, diversity, cultural issues etc are clearly contested political issues. I think re-packaging them as "values" that are adopted into corporate culture or company goals is, I think, a way of trying to do politics without having to do politics. It is a very neo-liberal way of achieving something: privatised, outside of democratic politics and not reliant on political mobilisation (possibly, instead, dependent on people not being mobilised). It's politics by other means. And as I say you can't invent consensus.

I do slightly sympathise with Republicans, for example saying, spell it out, run in an election and pass the legislation. (I think in some ways it's the mirror image of Republicans doing their agenda through taking over the courts.

More broadly on ESG specifically - most ESG frameworks are based on the UN's Sustainable Development Goals which are really admirable and good in investing. But that does give them a particular angle - and one thing that is often missing is the role of labour (except as part of the broader "governance" strand where they're normally one of several stakeholders). Again I think that aligns with a particular version of liberal politics - and one that I'd say many Democratic elites either come from, hope to be recruited to once their time in government is over or are very sympathetic to.

QuoteThe other day I wanted to show my boy some of the Japanese influences on Star Wars, so I searched for Akira Kurosawa clips (also Lone Wolf & Cub, since we'd just watched the newest Mandalorian episode). A few Westerns showed up in the suggestions sidebar, so we watched the opening scene of Once Upon a Time in the West (Westerns being another obvious influence on Star Was). Next thing I know, the suggestions have all sorts of "visiting so-and-so DESTROYS woke students" type clips.
I know Lettow should've been a clue but at some point I will need to read something on the anime/far-right cross over because I don't know what's happening there :lol:

QuoteIf Bernie Sanders is insufficiently pro-workers not really sure what they want.
Although he was never actually their candidate. Their candidates were Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden.

Generally I think there's somethinig structural that's happened in the West since the end of the Cold War. You see the same pattern across Europe of former industrial heartlands of the left de-industrialising. Parties of the left benefiting from a new coalition of the university educated, minorities and public sector workers. The old mass membership institutions of parties and unions fading away. And, in Europe, parties of the radical and far right capitalising in the old post-industrial heartlands.

In the UK, US and Australia because of their party systems I think it's more reflected within the dominant party of the right - which is why you have the tension over rhetoric and delivery. Because for example in France, for example, the left and Le Pen won't ever join in a coalition - they will both support protests against Macron's pension reforms. The party structures in the UK, US and Australia mean the new representatives of de-industrialised share a party with de-regulators representing traditional, very comfortable, very middle class, right wing areas. I think that fight is still unresolved but it's totally true that for all the rhetoric Trump's legislative achievements were the same as any Republic President could hope for: tax cuts and judges.

And I think there is a similar debate within the left in the Anglophone countries because of their party/electoral systems. Do you double down on your new coalition or do you try to fight back for post-industrial areas. I'm not sure what the answer is on that - I think Bernie and Biden are, in their own different ways, both guys who want to fight back while I think, say, Buttigieg, Harris and Warren are more on the retrench the new coalition side.

It may be that actually a new era of protectionism and industrial policy in the name of national security and because of the China risk actually settles all this anyway.

I have no idea where the US is going to end up - I've got more of a view on the UK. I think in the US a big difference is that I always wonder if we're getting the order wrong? We look at it as politicians egging on the culture war for political advantage. There is a bit of me that looks at the way US public opinion immediately polarises on any issues, on the way people are living in increasingly culturally similar communities, there is less social mobility etc. I wonder if the politicians are getting involved and intensifying that, but actually if it's cultural and economic trends driving the division while the political stuff is basically sort of opportunistic infections?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on March 11, 2023, 04:30:05 PM
I think that the appeal of the Right to the working class in the US is at least in part due to the simplicity of their proposed solutions to problems. Unsustainable immigration problems? Build a Wall!  Corruption in politics?  Lock her up!  Children murdering children in school?  Second Amendment!  More guns!

The Left finds it more difficult to coalesce around bumper-sticker policies because it is so much more intellectually fractured the bumper-sticker politics would alienate more of their current voting bloc than it would draw in more of their former voting bloc.  "Defund the police" was a disastrous stab at that.

I think that the relative decline in American education is a big part of the problem.  The world is getting more complex and interactive and students graduating from American high schools are not sufficiently trained in skepticism and ambiguity tolerance to cope.  Hence the preference for unambiguous bumper-sticker policies, without considering whether they would actually work.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 11, 2023, 07:27:37 PM
Also presumably race is probably a key part of why the Democrats are more fractious? It's one of the reasons why they are still an old school coalition-style party, while the GOP is often more "parliamentary" in style in having a fairly effective ideological line with simple solutions rather than lots of horse trading between constituent parts of a coalition.

Less than 20% of GOP voters are non-white and 40% of Democrat voters are - that might shift if Latinos and Asian-Americans continue to trend towards the GOP.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 12, 2023, 01:20:04 AM
If Latinos are all trending Republicanwards then why aren't California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas becoming more red? If this was some kind of nationwide trend then surely that should be the case, no?

I know this is true in Florida but that is a very different population than the border states.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on March 12, 2023, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2023, 01:20:04 AMIf Latinos are all trending Republicanwards then why aren't California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas becoming more red? If this was some kind of nationwide trend then surely that should be the case, no?

I know this is true in Florida but that is a very different population than the border states.

I agree that the evidence of a rightward shift is ambiguous at best.  George Bush got 40% of the Latino vote, far more than Trump got in 2020.  I do think that Democrats should be worried, though, because on issue polling the various Latino populations seem to be shifting from a focus on economic issues (still the biggest issue, but by decreasing margins) to culture issues.  The Republican kulturkampf may increasingly draw Latino voters to vote against their own economic interests.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 12, 2023, 11:33:53 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2023, 10:13:34 AMI agree that the evidence of a rightward shift is ambiguous at best.  George Bush got 40% of the Latino vote, far more than Trump got in 2020.  I do think that Democrats should be worried, though, because on issue polling the various Latino populations seem to be shifting from a focus on economic issues (still the biggest issue, but by decreasing margins) to culture issues.  The Republican kulturkampf may increasingly draw Latino voters to vote against their own economic interests.
I think it's been fairly consistent since 2012. And for all the talk of the culture war I think part of it may be the economic stuff.

Trump did not deliver infrastructure week etc and did deliver tax cuts and judges. But rhetorically he was absolutely supportive of Social Security and Medicare. He has already this year warned Republicans that if they want to win not to cut a single penny from those programs. Similarly Bush ran on "compassionate conservatism". I think that's part of what draws Latino votes while the Romney/Ryan style Republicanism fails. And more generally Romney/Ryan Republicanism is a dead end.

From everything I've read the Latino vote (and the Asian-American vote) really need disaggregating because different communities are moving in different directions. But I think my point is more that if the GOP coalition shifts - and there are signs it is - then their politics will too. As I say in general I think we're in a period of re-alignment and things are in flux - coalitions will re-coalesce at some point and when they do I think there'll be a shift in policy positions they take.

QuoteThe Left finds it more difficult to coalesce around bumper-sticker policies because it is so much more intellectually fractured the bumper-sticker politics would alienate more of their current voting bloc than it would draw in more of their former voting bloc.  "Defund the police" was a disastrous stab at that.
I was thinking about this again. The best politician in my lifetime at simplifying complex policies to explain it to people, making it relevant to voters and making them care is still Bill Clinton.

And I do slightly wonder if part of it is that there's a risk that if you are defining your opponent as simplistic, populist etc that in response you accidentally trap yourself in thinking that technocratic, wonkish, politics by post-grad seminar is in itself better. The stylistic difference replaces the substance. I think Elizabeth Warren (who I  generally really like) is maybe an example of that because there was definitely a point in her 2020 campaign when it went from being about "this is my plan for x" to "I have a plan" - as if the significant thing was the existence of plans and the style of politics that indicated rather than the content.

I wonder if there is a generation gap going on as well because the politicians I associate with that skill in simplifying issues, making them relevant etc are Clinton, Bernie and Biden who are all quite old now. Maybe there are other young Democrats I'm not aware of or can't think of who are really good at this?

I think with "defund the police" for example you then had quite long arguments about how some people absolutely meant it and other people didn't but it referred to a range of ideas and it was on you (the voter) to "do the reading" and again that seems like an example of that post-grad style in politics and comms that seems to be a big thing on the American left.

I know I've said it before and I think things are changing on this - but the same goes for the term "Latinx". I always remember in November 2020 when it was clear Trump was doing better than expected in Latino areas a progressive asking Ruben Gallego "as a progressive Latinx Congressman who's run a successful campaign what do we need to do about this". Gallego saying "first of all stop using Latinx" and then loads of other progressives online re-tweeting their disappointment in him :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 12, 2023, 11:43:55 AM
I think part of the problem that posters here are exemplifying is the perception that economic policies are what smart voters are interested in, and cultural issues are a distraction to trick voters into going against their interests.  I think that's a really bad misreading of what matters to many voters. 

The reason culture matters is because the degree to which your personal values are aligned with cultural values directly impacts the degree to which you feel included or excluded in society.  Exclusion, like fear, is a powerful emotion, and powerful emotions matter.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 12, 2023, 11:57:16 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2023, 11:43:55 AMI think part of the problem that posters here are exemplifying is the perception that economic policies are what smart voters are interested in, and cultural issues are a distraction to trick voters into going against their interests.  I think that's a really bad misreading of what matters to many voters. 

The reason culture matters is because the degree to which your personal values are aligned with cultural values directly impacts the degree to which you feel included or excluded in society.  Exclusion, like fear, is a powerful emotion, and powerful emotions matter.
Yeah - and also I think it just needs to be flipped.

People on high salaries who vote for left-wing parties are I think often sympathised with as genuinely motivated and well meaning, inspired by liberal values, or what they think is best for society - while working class people who vote for the right at best need to be explained away by false consciouosness, at worst are idiots who've been duped. It strikes me as incredibly patronising. Even here, I imagine there are a fair few people on Languish who are not necessarily just voting in their economic self-interest for primarily cultural and social reasons.

Having said that I am a bit of an old lefty on this and I do generally think economic reality is what shapes political forces. So my instinct is that the cultural and economic are not necessarily in as much tension as people think they are.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 12, 2023, 12:17:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2023, 11:43:55 AMI think part of the problem that posters here are exemplifying is the perception that economic policies are what smart voters are interested in, and cultural issues are a distraction to trick voters into going against their interests.  I think that's a really bad misreading of what matters to many voters. 

The reason culture matters is because the degree to which your personal values are aligned with cultural values directly impacts the degree to which you feel included or excluded in society.  Exclusion, like fear, is a powerful emotion, and powerful emotions matter.

basically it comes down to:

when push comes to shove culture will trump economics (most of the time)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 12, 2023, 05:26:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2023, 11:43:55 AMI think part of the problem that posters here are exemplifying is the perception that economic policies are what smart voters are interested in, and cultural issues are a distraction to trick voters into going against their interests.  I think that's a really bad misreading of what matters to many voters. 

The reason culture matters is because the degree to which your personal values are aligned with cultural values directly impacts the degree to which you feel included or excluded in society.  Exclusion, like fear, is a powerful emotion, and powerful emotions matter.

I've heard this criticism a lot.
Its just way too convenient and really misses the core point to concentrate on a side issue that can be spun better.
The key issue isn't that people are being tricked into supporting cultural issues over economic issues.
It's that things that things that aren't issues at all are being blown up out of all proportion and blamed for economic problems.

If someone genuinely is willing to take a significant pay cut so they don't ever have to hear Spanish then fair play to them. That would be a valid exchange and a reflection of different priorities at work.

What you've got instead is a story being weaved that it's the fault of immigrants that their life isnt wonderful. This kind of thing rarely holds up analysis.
Very often the very thing they claim to prioritise is directly damaged by voting a certain way. Case in point the republicans opposition to the fundamentals of American values.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 12, 2023, 10:57:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 12, 2023, 11:33:53 AMI think with "defund the police" for example you then had quite long arguments about how some people absolutely meant it and other people didn't but it referred to a range of ideas and it was on you (the voter) to "do the reading" and again that seems like an example of that post-grad style in politics and comms that seems to be a big thing on the American left.

I know I've said it before and I think things are changing on this - but the same goes for the term "Latinx". I always remember in November 2020 when it was clear Trump was doing better than expected in Latino areas a progressive asking Ruben Gallego "as a progressive Latinx Congressman who's run a successful campaign what do we need to do about this". Gallego saying "first of all stop using Latinx" and then loads of other progressives online re-tweeting their disappointment in him :lol:

Ok but this kind of thing is activist stuff and not stuff cooked up by the Democratic Party. There is no central authority we can appeal to to get rid of the tendency of activists to want things and say things that are politically problematic.

Meanwhile I guess prominent Republican office holders can call for war with Mexico and that's cool. So if the Republicans are going to get the benefit of the doubt for the things their leaders say while we are going to get punished for things randos say then obviously they are going win. I am just skeptical that that is actually the case.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 13, 2023, 06:27:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2023, 10:57:56 PMOk but this kind of thing is activist stuff and not stuff cooked up by the Democratic Party. There is no central authority we can appeal to to get rid of the tendency of activists to want things and say things that are politically problematic.

Meanwhile I guess prominent Republican office holders can call for war with Mexico and that's cool. So if the Republicans are going to get the benefit of the doubt for the things their leaders say while we are going to get punished for things randos say then obviously they are going win. I am just skeptical that that is actually the case.
Sure but we were talking about how the left communicates not the Republicans. Grumbler had an example of language that alienates more of your current coalition than it draws in.

I added to that another example of a key and growing demographic may be drifting away from them. I think one point is that too many people on the left talk about that community in a word that is not widely understood or used in that community, that they've been warned against by successful progressive politicians and that instead seems to have originated in academic or activist circles.

Republicans haven't done well in recent elections and they deserve to keep losing. But political cycles are a thing, there's always the risk of an October surprise style event tipping the scales - so Democrats should always be looking to bring more people in and expand. I also think it's their style historically too and a better approach than trying to work through non-democratic institutions (not least because the GOP have taken over the courts). Success in governing is the best way of doing that (and I think Biden's been the most impressive President I can remember in terms of actually doing stuff), but also not just talking to themselves but outwards is key especially because they've got good stuff to talk about. I think Biden gets that (as is Bernie, weirdly) - I'm not so sure about other leading Democrats.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2023, 11:00:44 AM
Howdy Hoss. It's been a minute.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 13, 2023, 01:06:47 PM
Years ago (before the culture wars in the US really got going) we had a discussion about right wing politics appealing to working class people in the US.  I posed the question of why American working class voters often vote against their own self interest.  I think it was Grumbler (and maybe others) who explained the complex issue of how race relations factored into the issue. 

That seems to continue to be the case, but with the added complexity now of the culture wars.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 13, 2023, 01:29:54 PM
The economy is what is going to sink us ultimately. I keep hoping for good news but this recent bank thing can't be good.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 13, 2023, 01:36:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2023, 01:29:54 PMThe economy is what is going to sink us ultimately. I keep hoping for good news but this recent bank thing can't be good.

Meh, venture capitalists pile their money into an unregulated bank.  If regulated banks start failing we would all have valid reasons to be concerned.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on March 13, 2023, 02:58:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2023, 01:06:47 PMYears ago (before the culture wars in the US really got going) we had a discussion about right wing politics appealing to working class people in the US.  I posed the question of why American working class voters often vote against their own self interest.  I think it was Grumbler (and maybe others) who explained the complex issue of how race relations factored into the issue. 

That seems to continue to be the case, but with the added complexity now of the culture wars.

This is just a side point, but I always found the argument that "working class voters often vote against their own self interest" is kind of insulting and demeaning.  You wouldn't argue that wealthy voters who vote for parties that would increase their own taxes are 'voting against their own self interest' would you?

Maybe financial self interest isn't the most important factor on how people vote.  In fact I think most people would be offended if you said that personal financial self interest is the only thing motivating their vote.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 13, 2023, 03:04:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2023, 02:58:33 PMThis is just a side point, but I always found the argument that "working class voters often vote against their own self interest" is kind of insulting and demeaning.  You wouldn't argue that wealthy voters who vote for parties that would increase their own taxes are 'voting against their own self interest' would you?

Why wouldn't you? Wealthy people who vote blue get clowned on for just that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on March 13, 2023, 04:53:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2023, 02:58:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2023, 01:06:47 PMYears ago (before the culture wars in the US really got going) we had a discussion about right wing politics appealing to working class people in the US.  I posed the question of why American working class voters often vote against their own self interest.  I think it was Grumbler (and maybe others) who explained the complex issue of how race relations factored into the issue. 

That seems to continue to be the case, but with the added complexity now of the culture wars.

This is just a side point, but I always found the argument that "working class voters often vote against their own self interest" is kind of insulting and demeaning.  You wouldn't argue that wealthy voters who vote for parties that would increase their own taxes are 'voting against their own self interest' would you?

Maybe financial self interest isn't the most important factor on how people vote.  In fact I think most people would be offended if you said that personal financial self interest is the only thing motivating their vote.

I understand your ideological blinders on this issue, but a working class person who votes in favour of weaker protections for workers is definitely voting against their own self interest.

Whereas an affluent person who is voting in favour of stronger protections for workers may actually be voting in their own self interest because living in a more just society is just better.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on March 13, 2023, 05:28:10 PM
That's it. Rich people voting blue vote against their financial self interest. Poor people voting GOP vote against their self interest.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 13, 2023, 05:31:05 PM
But by that reasoning a conservative voting for "conservative values" is trying to make a more just society (by their standards), regardless of the economic outcome and thus is just as interested in self interest as your theoretical affluent liberal.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on March 13, 2023, 05:37:56 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 13, 2023, 05:31:05 PMBut by that reasoning a conservative voting for "conservative values" is trying to make a more just society (by their standards), regardless of the economic outcome and thus is just as interested in self interest as your theoretical affluent liberal.

And the GOP lets them down at every turn.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on March 13, 2023, 05:37:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2023, 03:04:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2023, 02:58:33 PMThis is just a side point, but I always found the argument that "working class voters often vote against their own self interest" is kind of insulting and demeaning.  You wouldn't argue that wealthy voters who vote for parties that would increase their own taxes are 'voting against their own self interest' would you?

Why wouldn't you? Wealthy people who vote blue get clowned on for just that.

I wouldn't say clowned on (I wouldn't say that phrase ever really...).
Rather it's the key reason they themselves claim to vote the way they do - they give a shit about people who aren't themselves and all that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 13, 2023, 05:40:41 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 13, 2023, 05:37:56 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 13, 2023, 05:31:05 PMBut by that reasoning a conservative voting for "conservative values" is trying to make a more just society (by their standards), regardless of the economic outcome and thus is just as interested in self interest as your theoretical affluent liberal.

And the GOP lets them down at every turn.

They've saved some fetuses I'm sure :P

And it's not like liberals actually do a great job at workers rights. The common grounds is politicians lie and cheat, of either stripe.

I mean recently the GOP has been more dangerous, so I'm not letting them get off the hook for that, I'm talking in political affiliations in abstract. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 13, 2023, 07:38:34 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 13, 2023, 05:28:10 PMThat's it. Rich people voting blue vote against their financial self interest. Poor people voting GOP vote against their self interest.
Rich people voting blue don't care about religious issues.

Poor people voting GOP care deeply about religious issues.  Having an anti-abortion judge on the Supreme Court seems more important than having accessible healthcare.  That and for some, making life miserable for gays and trans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on March 13, 2023, 08:49:09 PM
Yeah, it seems that peole voting Republican aren't voting for anything, they are voting against things.  The Republicans took back the House without even having a platform or promising anything.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on March 13, 2023, 10:36:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2023, 04:53:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2023, 02:58:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2023, 01:06:47 PMYears ago (before the culture wars in the US really got going) we had a discussion about right wing politics appealing to working class people in the US.  I posed the question of why American working class voters often vote against their own self interest.  I think it was Grumbler (and maybe others) who explained the complex issue of how race relations factored into the issue. 

That seems to continue to be the case, but with the added complexity now of the culture wars.

This is just a side point, but I always found the argument that "working class voters often vote against their own self interest" is kind of insulting and demeaning.  You wouldn't argue that wealthy voters who vote for parties that would increase their own taxes are 'voting against their own self interest' would you?

Maybe financial self interest isn't the most important factor on how people vote.  In fact I think most people would be offended if you said that personal financial self interest is the only thing motivating their vote.

I understand your ideological blinders on this issue, but a working class person who votes in favour of weaker protections for workers is definitely voting against their own self interest.

Whereas an affluent person who is voting in favour of stronger protections for workers may actually be voting in their own self interest because living in a more just society is just better.

I think you're missing my point.

We are not all "homo economicus", neither on the right or left.  Voting depending on "culture" issues is just as valid, maybe even more valid, than voting on economic issues.

That seems to be the problem on the left (speaking in entirely political terms).  They offer working class whites economic issues like a higher minimum wage, but expect that will overcome the "cultural issues" that only appeal to university-educated folks.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 13, 2023, 11:28:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2023, 10:36:43 PMI think you're missing my point.

We are not all "homo economicus", neither on the right or left.  Voting depending on "culture" issues is just as valid, maybe even more valid, than voting on economic issues.

That seems to be the problem on the left (speaking in entirely political terms).  They offer working class whites economic issues like a higher minimum wage, but expect that will overcome the "cultural issues" that only appeal to university-educated folks.

Um...so LGBT people don't care for LGBT rights? Minorities don't care about minority issues? Women don't care about women's issues? The only people who care about those issues are university-educated people?

That doesn't make any sense.

If there is a voting bloc who votes solely on right wing social issues then there is zero chance the left is ever going to win them over period without seriously fucking over its own base. There is no reason at all to care about what that bloc wants as a left wing political party so long as that is the case. It would be fucking suicide to do that BB. Piss off its own base to try to attract a group by trying to imitate a right wing party on social issues? Call me crazy but pretty sure an actual right wing party is going to win on right wing social issues.

But the assumption is not that this is some bloc hard set on social issues. The idea is that somehow they feel like the Democrats sold them out and they can be regained via populist economics.

If they are upset that the Democrats don't hate blacks and LGBT sufficiently or want the Democrats to be extremely anti-Abortion well they are never going to be regained. Ever. That is just how it is. People who feel that way are the base of the other party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 14, 2023, 11:20:49 AM
For de Santis, the Ukraine war is "a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia".

QuoteRon DeSantis Says Protecting Ukraine Is Not a Key U.S. Interest
The Florida governor, on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show, broke with Republicans to attack President Biden's foreign policy and align more closely with Donald Trump as he weighs a presidential bid.

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has sharply broken with Republicans who are determined to defend Ukraine against Russia's invasion, saying in a statement made public on Monday night that protecting the European nation's borders is not a vital U.S. interest and that policymakers should instead focus attention at home.

The statement from Mr. DeSantis, who is seen as an all but declared presidential candidate for the 2024 campaign, puts him in line with the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination, former President Donald J. Trump.

The venue Mr. DeSantis chose for his statement on a major foreign policy question revealed almost as much as the substance of the statement itself. The statement was broadcast on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," on Fox News. It was in response to a questionnaire that the host, Mr. Carlson, sent last week to all major prospective Republican presidential candidates, and is tantamount to an acknowledgment by Mr. DeSantis that a candidacy is in the offing.

On Mr. Carlson's show, Mr. DeSantis separated himself from Republicans who say the problem with Mr. Biden's Ukraine policy is that he's not doing enough. Mr. DeSantis made clear he thinks Mr. Biden is doing too much, without a clearly defined objective, and taking actions that risk provoking war between the U.S. and Russia.

Mr. Carlson is one of the most ardent opponents of U.S. involvement in Ukraine. He has called President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine a corrupt "antihero" and mocked him for dressing "like the manager of a strip club."

"While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness with our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural and military power of the Chinese Communist Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them," Mr. DeSantis said in a statement that Mr. Carlson read aloud on his show.

Mr. DeSantis's views on Ukraine policy now align with Mr. Trump's. The former president also answered Mr. Carlson's questionnaire.

Mr. Trump repeated a frequent riff, saying that "both sides are weary and ready to make a deal" and that the "death and destruction must end now." Mr. Trump has already said he would let Russia "take over" parts of Ukraine in a negotiated deal.

The position taken by Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Trump is at odds with the passionate support for defending Ukraine demonstrated by some other potential G.O.P. candidates, including former Vice President Mike Pence, former Ambassador Nikki Haley, former Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. It is also sharply at odds with most Republican senators, including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader.

Mr. Pence has cast Ukraine's struggle in a religious light, quoting Bible verses in a recent speech he gave at the University of Texas at Austin to mark the first anniversary of President Vladimir P. Putin's invasion.

"Never forget, the light does shine in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it," said Mr. Pence, standing at a lectern with American and Ukrainian flags behind him, and addressing the Ukrainian people.

"We will not forget your struggle for freedom and I believe the American people will stand with you until the light dawns on a victory for freedom in Ukraine and in Europe and for all the world," Mr. Pence added. "So help us God."

Republican hawks, including Mr. Pence and Ms. Haley, an ambassador to the United Nations during the Trump administration, have framed the fight to defend Ukraine as a fight about "freedom." Mr. McConnell has made similar points, casting the battle as one to defend the post-World War II international security order. All have pushed President Biden to do more — to send more lethal weapons and faster — to help Ukraine drive Russia from its territory.

Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Trump have rejected such appeals. And their view is growing in popularity among House Republicans and Republican voters, who are souring quickly on U.S. efforts to help Ukraine fight Russia.

A January poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters thought the U.S. was giving too much support to Ukraine. Last March, the month after Mr. Putin invaded, the proportion of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who held this view was only 9 percent.

Back in 2014 and 2015, when Mr. Putin was in the initial stage of his invasion of Ukraine by annexing Crimea, Mr. DeSantis sounded like a conventional Republican hawk. He attacked then-President Obama for not doing enough — just as many Republicans are today criticizing President Biden.

"We in the Congress have been urging the president, I've been, to provide arms to Ukraine," Mr. DeSantis said in an interview with the conservative talk radio host Bill Bennett in June 2015, unearthed by CNN.

"They want to fight their good fight. They're not asking us to fight it for them. And the president has steadfastly refused. And I think that that's a mistake."

But these anti-Russia views are less popular with today's G.O.P. base, which has been conditioned over the past seven years by Mr. Trump and influential media figures such as Mr. Carlson, who have questioned why the U.S. should view Mr. Putin as a threat to America.

And Mr. DeSantis's statement to Mr. Carlson channeled these new currents.

"The Biden administration's virtual 'blank-check' funding of this conflict for 'as long as it takes,' without any defined objectives or accountability, distracts from our country's most pressing challenges," he said.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are increasingly using this "blank check" line as a safe position to criticize Mr. Biden without seeming to abandon Ukraine. But Mr. DeSantis went further — making clear he does not believe the defense of Ukraine should be a priority for an American president and ruling out specific weapons.

"F-16s and long-range missiles should therefore be off the table," he added. "These moves would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict and drawing us closer to a hot war between the world's two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable."

Mr. DeSantis's statement dripped with sarcastic contempt for policymakers who believe the only way to stop the Ukrainian people's suffering is to remove Mr. Putin from power.

"A policy of  'regime change'  in Russia (no doubt popular among the D.C. foreign policy interventionists) ," Mr. DeSantis said, "would greatly increase the stakes of the conflict, making  the use of nuclear weapons more likely.  Such a policy would neither stop the death and destruction of the war, nor produce a pro-American, Madisonian constitutionalist in the Kremlin. History indicates that Putin's successor, in this hypothetical, would likely be even more ruthless.  The costs to achieve such a dubious outcome could become astronomical."

Mr. DeSantis added, "We cannot prioritize intervention in an escalating foreign war over the defense of our own homeland, especially as tens of thousands of Americans are dying every year from narcotics smuggled across our open border and our weapons arsenals critical for our own security are rapidly being depleted."

Until now, Mr. DeSantis, who has yet to formally announce he's running for president, has largely avoided talking in specifics about Ukraine since Mr. Putin's large-scale 2022 invasion. For a leader who takes pride in being aggressively proactive and keeping his opponents on the run, he has been caught flat-footed at times during his recent book tour as reporters have pressed him on the most important question in foreign policy.

He flashed irritation at a reporter for The Times of London who pushed Mr. DeSantis on how he proposed Ukraine should be handled differently, given he was attacking Mr. Biden as "weak on the world stage" and failing at deterrence.

"Perhaps you should cover some other ground?" Mr. DeSantis said. "I think I've said enough."

Republican internationalists and hawkish elements within the party's donor class were alarmed by that interview and another recent clip on Fox News in which Mr. DeSantis briefly signaled — in a way that was open to multiple interpretations — that he questioned the extent to which defending Ukraine was in America's national interest. But they remained hopeful that Mr. DeSantis would return to their side.

In a Feb. 23 Wall Street Journal column, the influential conservative writer Kimberley A. Strassel all but pleaded with Mr. DeSantis to split from Mr. Trump, who she said was part of a "G.O.P. surrender caucus" on Ukraine. She framed Ukraine's war with Russia as a major national security question for Mr. DeSantis to answer. Ms. Strassel called it the "G.O.P. field's first test."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 14, 2023, 11:41:27 AM
Less than ideal, but perhaps unsurprising that DeSantis is inclined to aid and abet Putin.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2023, 11:44:20 AM
Looks very much to me like a poll driven position, which doesn't bode well for US aid to Ukraine.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2023, 12:30:55 PM
Problem is that the US sanctions don't cover Rupert Murdoch, who is perfectly content to allow Moscow Rose Carlson pour his vicious Kremlin propaganda out every day into the ears of the sheep who watch his program.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2023, 02:02:43 PM
I guess every imperialistic invasion is a territorial dispute.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on March 14, 2023, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2023, 12:30:55 PMProblem is that the US sanctions don't cover Rupert Murdoch, who is perfectly content to allow Moscow Rose Carlson pour his vicious Kremlin propaganda out every day into the ears of the sheep who watch his program.

Murdoch is a cancer.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 14, 2023, 02:33:24 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 14, 2023, 11:20:49 AMFor de Santis, the Ukraine war is "a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia".
Well, the Vietnam war was a territorial dispute between North and South Vietnam...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2023, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 14, 2023, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2023, 12:30:55 PMProblem is that the US sanctions don't cover Rupert Murdoch, who is perfectly content to allow Moscow Rose Carlson pour his vicious Kremlin propaganda out every day into the ears of the sheep who watch his program.

Murdoch is a cancer.

Damnit. For a second I thought you said Murdoch had cancer.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 14, 2023, 02:44:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2023, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 14, 2023, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2023, 12:30:55 PMProblem is that the US sanctions don't cover Rupert Murdoch, who is perfectly content to allow Moscow Rose Carlson pour his vicious Kremlin propaganda out every day into the ears of the sheep who watch his program.

Murdoch is a cancer.

Damnit. For a second I thought you said Murdoch had cancer.

His kids will keep the good name going for a while, in any case.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 14, 2023, 02:48:58 PM
Yeah, if anything Lachlan seems even worse:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/11/lachlan-murdoch-fox-news-defamation-case
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on March 18, 2023, 06:22:15 PM
Adding this to Nixon scuppering LBJ's peace talks in thinking maybe some of the issues with the GOP aren't that recent:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 18, 2023, 10:53:21 PM
Paywall
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 19, 2023, 07:22:31 AM
If it's the same article I'm thinking about, it's regarding backdoor attempts by Republicans to thwart Carter's negotiation with Iran regarding the hostage crisis in order to benefit Reagan's chances in 1980.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 19, 2023, 08:17:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2023, 10:53:21 PMPaywall
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome/blob/master/README.md
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 19, 2023, 06:46:18 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Frls-ANWcAAcrSF?format=jpg&name=900x900)

:hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 19, 2023, 06:49:09 PM
Lol he's transgeographical
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 19, 2023, 08:05:51 PM
Geographically the orifice he is speaking out of is his mouth but metaphorically it is coming out of somewhere else.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on March 19, 2023, 09:15:10 PM
I'm guessing he's not going to be making a campaign stop in Tampa Bay?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2023, 09:15:40 PM
He just threw Floridians under the bus.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 19, 2023, 09:30:23 PM
Florida may ban girls' period talk in elementary grades (https://apnews.com/article/florida-ban-girls-period-talk-elementary-schools-7e2e5843d296dc9d8fbf82d55fe8cc70)

Republicans have developed an obsession with women's menstruation lately...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 20, 2023, 04:24:22 AM
Quote from: HVC on March 19, 2023, 06:49:09 PMLol he's transgeographical

As I read on Twitter, "he identifies as a Midwestern battleground state".  :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 20, 2023, 07:20:38 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2023, 09:30:23 PMFlorida may ban girls' period talk in elementary grades (https://apnews.com/article/florida-ban-girls-period-talk-elementary-schools-7e2e5843d296dc9d8fbf82d55fe8cc70)

Republicans have developed an obsession with women's menstruation lately...

QuoteThe bill sponsored by Republican Rep. Stan McClain would restrict public school instruction on human sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases and related topics to grades 6 through 12. McClain confirmed at a recent committee meeting that discussions about menstrual cycles would also be restricted to those grades.

"So if little girls experience their menstrual cycle in 5th grade or 4th grade, will that prohibit conversations from them since they are in the grade lower than sixth grade?" asked state Rep. Ashley Gantt, a Democrat who taught in public schools and noted that girls as young as 10 can begin having periods.

"It would," McClain responded.

Florida Republicans continue their relentless war against reality and the outside world.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 20, 2023, 02:17:41 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 20, 2023, 07:20:38 AMFlorida Republicans continue their relentless war against reality and the outside world.
There were talks of establishing some kind of menstruation registry for schoolgirl athletes at some point.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-desantis-florida-sports-female-athletes-160560972802
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on March 20, 2023, 08:12:20 PM
Were they going to put Matt Gaetz in charge of monitoring?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2023, 08:19:05 PM
Roy Moore doesn't have a job.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 23, 2023, 10:55:01 AM
On those popular book bans in schools.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-parent-wants-bible-pulled-from-school-shelves

QuoteUtah parent wants Bible pulled from school shelves

SALT LAKE CITY — The best-selling book of all time might be pulled from the Davis School District shelves soon.


FOX 13 News's content sharing partners at the Salt Lake Tribune obtained a parent's petition, who wrote, "Utah Parents United left off one of the most sex-ridden books around: The Bible. You'll no doubt find that the Bible has 'no serious values for minors' because it's pornographic by our new definition."

Nichole Mason, President of Utah Parents United, worked with legislators to pass the 2022 law banning sensitive materials in schools.

"This has nothing to do with religious merit or other people's ideas or what religion they follow or not follow," she said. "This has to do with explicit sexual content."

Since the law's passing, dozens of books have been banned in Utah school districts.

"This isn't just about, 'I like these ideas,' or, 'I don't like these ideas,'" said Mason. "The law was written very specifically so that there wouldn't be frivolous challenges."

The Davis County School District has given the bible to a committee to review. Members of that committee have to read the Bible in its entirety, said Michele Edgley, President of the Utah Educational Library Media Association.

"The committee is going to be reading for a long time to read the Bible," she said. "They've got to read it cover to cover."

By law now, if a parent requests, schools have to remove any books that contain:

- Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal
- Acts of human masturbation or sexual intercourse
- fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals or pubic region

"I don't think that most parents have either the right or the knowledge of the student bodies to be banning books for the entire school," said Edgley.

If the book is removed in Davis County, it could be banned in schools across the state, she said.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 23, 2023, 11:24:25 AM
QuoteTallahassee principal ousted after parents complained art teacher showed kids picture of Michelangelo's 'David,' with one calling it 'pornographic'

A literal case of "the Simpsons predicted it".

(https://i0.wp.com/www.spfshopper.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/7f09j.jpg?resize=658%2C494&ssl=1)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on March 23, 2023, 11:39:50 AM
Well, outside of the pornography, that Bible is pretty heady stuff.  I mean, what if young minds found out about all that New Testament stuff saying love everyone without condition and to give away your stuff to the poor?  It's like having 4th graders read Mao's Little Red Book.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 23, 2023, 11:47:49 AM
Quote from: PDH on March 23, 2023, 11:39:50 AMWell, outside of the pornography, that Bible is pretty heady stuff.  I mean, what if young minds found out about all that New Testament stuff saying love everyone without condition and to give away your stuff to the poor?  It's like having 4th graders read Mao's Little Red Book.

Ezekiel Has some kinky stuff :D nothing says elementary school safe like donkey dicked lovers  :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2023, 12:51:15 PM
It's no joke.  Imagine being a boy and turning 13 and then having to go in front of a a full synagogue congregation and give a sermon, when your Torah portion consists of the Levitical rules governing women's menstruation.  That can scar a kid for life.

Luckily I was allowed to talk about the haftorah portion instead. 

Leprosy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 23, 2023, 12:52:56 PM
 :XD:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on March 27, 2023, 11:59:10 AM
(https://i.redd.it/lrswzwcn1bqa1.jpg)

The Culture War is really bizarre.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 30, 2023, 08:34:09 AM
Disney tricks DeSantis, uses British royal family in agreement to strip new board of power. Guess Disney has better lawyers then the state.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/30/disney-ron-desantis-florida-dont-say-gay
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 30, 2023, 08:36:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2023, 04:13:38 PMI hate the Icelandic.  I don't care if it gets me canceled.

Absolutistly appalling.  :mad:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 30, 2023, 08:46:00 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 03, 2023, 01:49:36 PMWorth a poll on who will be last here? :p

We all know it's grumbler.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 30, 2023, 08:48:34 AM
https://news.yahoo.com/desantis-board-says-disney-stripped-181000223.html

Quote[...]

But board members also approved hiring four outside law firms with Chairman Martin Garcia citing a need for "lawyers that have extensive experience in dealing with protracted litigation against Fortune 500 companies."

One of those firms is Cooper & Kirk, which has gotten more than $2.8 million in legal fees and contracts from the DeSantis administration to defend a controversial social media law, a ban on cruise ship COVID-19 "vaccine passport" requirements, and a restriction on felons seeking to vote.

Cooper & Kirk's lawyers will bill $795 an hour, according to the firm's engagement letter. The boutique firm's roster of lawyers includes Adam Laxalt, who roomed with DeSantis when he was training at the Naval Justice School in 2005 and made an unsuccessful bid for U.S. Senate last year in Nevada.

The firm's alumni include Republican U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

The board also approved bringing on Lawson Huck Gonzalez, a law firm that was launched earlier this year. One of its founders is Alan Lawson, a retired Florida Supreme Court justice.

[...]
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 08:57:05 AM
Seems that rather than Cooper & Kirk it should be renamed to GOP & GOP.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2023, 10:44:02 AM
If the Board is going to waste public money on expensive lawyers (no objection from me there), they would be better advised to select counsel based on their relevant expertise rather than their political connections.

That is, if their objection is to win.

Oh, wait, now I get it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 30, 2023, 11:25:55 AM
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/obamacare-preventive-services-mandate-blocked-by-federal-judge


QuoteObamacare Preventive Care Mandate Limited by Federal Judge

Employers throughout the country will no longer have to provide employees with health plans that pay in full for certain preventive health-care services, including drugs to treat AIDS and HIV.

A federal judge in Texas Thursday vacated actions taken by the US Health and Human Services Department to implement or enforce certain Affordable Care Act preventive services coverage requirements recommended by a task force that he determined wasn't constitutionally appointed.

Judge Reed C. O'Connor, of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, granted Braidwood Management Inc.'s request for a "universal" remedy entirely blocking enforcement of recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force, most notably those requiring no-cost coverage for pre-exposure prophylactic drugs, which prevent HIV and are taken by many gay people, and sexually transmitted disease screenings.

The decision doesn't affect coverage recommendations made by the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. These include contraceptive care and vaccine recommendations. Both those groups are subject to HHS oversight.

The full list of preventative services for which PSTF has recommended no-cost coverage can be found at https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation-topics/uspstf-a-and-b-recommendations.

It includes breast and cervical cancer screenings, diabetes screening, and vision tests for preschool-aged children.

In September, O'Connor held that the PSTF, which determines some of what qualifies as covered preventive measures under the ACA, can't validly do so because its members aren't subject to Senate confirmation and their recommendations aren't reviewed by constitutionally appointed government officials.

But O'Connor left the remedy open at the time, asking the parties for supplemental briefing on whether the government should be entirely blocked from requiring health plans that cover services identified by the task force, or if his decision should apply solely to Braidwood.

O'Connor agreed with the plaintiffs that the Administrative Procedure Act authorized the court to vacate every action taken by the government pursuant to the PSTF's recommendations.

Major medical and patient groups had argued that a nationwide order would jeopardize health care for millions of Americans, leading to preventable deaths and higher costs for treating diseases that could have been detected earlier by free screenings.

O'Connor also invalidated Obamacare's HIV treatment mandate in the same case, saying it violated Christian employers' rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. On Thursday, he blocked the government from taking any action against Braidwood and the other religious objectors that would require them to provide insurance that would pay for PReP.

Jonathan Mitchell of Austin, Fillmore Law Firm LLP, and America First Legal Foundation represent Braidwood. The US Department of Justice represents the government.

The case is Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. v. Becerra, N.D. Tex., No. 20-cv-283, 3/30/23.

(Updated throughout to add more detail about the court's decision.)

As to why I put this in the GOP thread - the judge seems to be a go-to guy for GOP causes célèbres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor#Significant_cases
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 30, 2023, 11:30:00 AM
I thought caring for the sick was something Christians were interested in? I don't understand this religion.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2023, 01:51:38 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 30, 2023, 11:25:55 AMAs to why I put this in the GOP thread - the judge seems to be a go-to guy for GOP causes célèbres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor#Significant_cases

That's the model, the plaintiff's lawyers target the judge they want, then find a willing plaintiff in that district, and bring the case.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on March 30, 2023, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 30, 2023, 08:46:00 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 03, 2023, 01:49:36 PMWorth a poll on who will be last here? :p

We all know it's grumbler.

The first shall be the last.  I think that that's Grey Fox.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 31, 2023, 06:22:24 AM
Clip from a committee hearing at the Texas House of Representatives on a Transgender bill this week:

https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1641506720047329280?s=20

^_^
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2023, 09:41:06 AM
A Trump-appointed judge responding to a plaintiff suing about the Tennessee drag bill has stayed implementation of the legislation. In his order he says the bill appears to be unconstitutionally vague and infringe the First Amendment.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 04, 2023, 10:31:45 AM
Quote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 08:34:09 AMDisney tricks DeSantis, uses British royal family in agreement to strip new board of power. Guess Disney has better lawyers then the state.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/30/disney-ron-desantis-florida-dont-say-gay

I know this is from a week ago, but I was on holidays back then.

I think every lawyer had a wry little smile at this story.  The whole "Life of King Charles II plus 21 years" is classic "Rule against perpetuities", which is one of those oddball common law rules that hardly ever comes up - but when it does come up it can be hugely important.

p.s. Manitoba, where I went to school, abolished the Rule against Perpetuities.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 04, 2023, 11:32:51 AM
Florida hasn't revoked the RAP but they enacted a backup that is common in many states.  Even if the future interest isn't drafted properly under the RAP, it will still be treated as effective unless 90 years passes and the interest hasn't expired.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 06, 2023, 09:06:32 AM
So there's been a court case in FL where a Rebekah Jones claims she was asked to manipulate Covid numbers by her boss. When she went to someone else, asking how to file a whistleblower complaint against her boss but was then fired when her boss learned about it. The state had different charges against her, details are here: https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/coronavirus/2023/03/16/former-florida-covid-data-chief-rebekah-jones-files-lawsuit-to-get-her-job-back/70012914007/

At any rate, this is her on Twitter. Obviously, not easy to verify if truth, manipulated truth or fully fabricated, but still ...

(https://i.postimg.cc/wx5jQ06X/image.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/gJHb8tvr/image.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/sxGPbqwg/image.png)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 06, 2023, 10:24:38 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 06, 2023, 09:06:32 AMSo there's been a court case in FL where a Rebekah Jones claims she was asked to manipulate Covid numbers by her boss. When she went to someone else, asking how to file a whistleblower complaint against her boss but was then fired when her boss learned about it. The state had different charges against her, details are here: https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/coronavirus/2023/03/16/former-florida-covid-data-chief-rebekah-jones-files-lawsuit-to-get-her-job-back/70012914007/

At any rate, this is her on Twitter. Obviously, not easy to verify if truth, manipulated truth or fully fabricated, but still ...

Syt, depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go, but Rebekah Jones's fundamental credibility on the whole Covid-19 story has been seriously questioned, and as such I would not fully accept much she has to say without verification.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on April 06, 2023, 10:47:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2023, 10:31:45 AM
Quote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 08:34:09 AMDisney tricks DeSantis, uses British royal family in agreement to strip new board of power. Guess Disney has better lawyers then the state.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/30/disney-ron-desantis-florida-dont-say-gay

I know this is from a week ago, but I was on holidays back then.

I think every lawyer had a wry little smile at this story.  The whole "Life of King Charles II plus 21 years" is classic "Rule against perpetuities", which is one of those oddball common law rules that hardly ever comes up - but when it does come up it can be hugely important.

p.s. Manitoba, where I went to school, abolished the Rule against Perpetuities.

Truly bizzare on so many levels.

But then this whole case is weird what with republicans accidentally trying to do the right thing and tackle corporations with too much power but for absolutely backwards reasons of the corporation being the one respecting it's workers more than the state....
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on April 06, 2023, 10:49:13 AM
Life of Charles II plus 21 years? So 1706?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on April 06, 2023, 10:54:59 AM
Yes.

Disney's clause actually states Chucky 3.

QuoteThey added a final clause which stipulates that this agreement would last "21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2023, 10:56:22 AM
Quote from: Josquius on April 06, 2023, 10:47:49 AMTruly bizzare on so many levels.

But then this whole case is weird what with republicans accidentally trying to do the right thing and tackle corporations with too much power but for absolutely backwards reasons of the corporation being the one respecting it's workers more than the state....

Fuck that "Republicans trying to do the right thing" bullshit with all that. Florida wouldn't be where it is economically without the Mouse. 

Republicans want to do the right thing and tackle corporations with too much power, then nationalize the energy sector. Fucking with Disney because they're faithful to tolerance, well, they deserve what they get.  You fuck with the Mouse, you get the whiskers.

Long live the King, assholes.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PJL on April 06, 2023, 11:10:04 AM
I used to have a concern that corporations would wield too much power. However these days I don't, especially in the last 5-10 years or so. If anything, I am more concerned with them simply rolling over in the face of government even if it is not in their interest.

No, the real danger is from the maverick and politically minded billionaires. Corporations at least have checks and balances, maverick billionaires have a lot more freeway.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 06, 2023, 11:33:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2023, 10:24:38 AMSyt, depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go, but Rebekah Jones's fundamental credibility on the whole Covid-19 story has been seriously questioned, and as such I would not fully accept much she has to say without verification.

I had a quick look at her Wiki page and yeah - she seems to be "special" in many ways.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 06, 2023, 11:37:56 AM
Quote from: PJL on April 06, 2023, 11:10:04 AMI used to have a concern that corporations would wield too much power. However these days I don't, especially in the last 5-10 years or so. If anything, I am more concerned with them simply rolling over in the face of government even if it is not in their interest.

No, the real danger is from the maverick and politically minded billionaires. Corporations at least have checks and balances, maverick billionaires have a lot more freeway.

No idea what you're talking about.  :ph34r:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230331030508/https://www.businessinsider.com/pronatalism-elon-musk-simone-malcolm-collins-underpopulation-breeding-tech-2022-11

(Using archive.org link to bypass paywall - I think we had the article in the Elon Musk threa, too, though :P )
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2023, 11:42:48 AM
Quote from: PJL on April 06, 2023, 11:10:04 AMNo, the real danger is from the maverick and politically minded billionaires. Corporations at least have checks and balances, maverick billionaires have a lot more freeway.

Problem is, all the mouthbreathers love Bond villains. They're so self-made! So innovative! So mavericky!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 06, 2023, 12:02:10 PM
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

QuoteClarence Thomas and the Billionaire
by Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski
April 6, 5 a.m. EDT
Twitter
Facebook
                https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow
           
Copy
Change Appearance
REPUBLISH
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they're published.

IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn't necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow's superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow's Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow's sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow's private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow's apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas' financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

Very interesting story.  More by following the link - just the first few paragraphs copied here.

I know our own PM was seriously criticized for taking private vacations with the Aga Khan and not disclosing them, and I know just because of my job with government I feel bad about someone buying me a coffee - I would never take lavish vacations like this as a gift.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2023, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2023, 12:02:10 PMThoughts?

Nobody cares. Nothing will happen.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on April 06, 2023, 12:10:48 PM
When I first started practicing there were judicial guidelines in Canada which prohibited judges from taking gifts of any kind.  Then Chief Justice McEachern (of our Court of Appeal) used to end his public speeches by making a joke that he could not personally accept the gift traditionally given to speakers at such events (usually a work of art of some sort) but he would ask the organizers to give the gift to some other worthy cause.

Since then the rules of judicial propriety have tightened.  For example, firms used to always shower the court registry staff with treats during Xmas.  But all that has come to an end. 

It is odd to see the US in this situation.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2023, 12:13:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 06, 2023, 12:10:48 PMIt is odd to see the US in this situation.

Not really. The rollback on professional ethics in government has been gaining steam for quite some time, and nobody cares anymore.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on April 06, 2023, 12:15:34 PM
Well it's not a surprise is it. In a justice system that had any gesture towards being non-political Thomas would recuse himself from a huge number of cases. Not just this but all the stuff his wife is involved in too.

The Supreme Court is politics by other means and he's a core part of the conservative legal movement's victory in that front.

As with the leaked abortion ruling, far too many will clutch their pearls and worry about declarations/want a legalist solution and the impact on the reputation of the court - when given it's politicised nature what it needs is reform. Term limits, expand the court (it is very small by international comparison) and other steps to bring politics back into the democratic realm and away from the unaccountable, unelected, often groomed by the Federalist society clerics in the court system.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 06, 2023, 12:21:49 PM
I wondered about putting the story in the GOP thread, but I see nobody questioned that decision. :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on April 06, 2023, 12:43:26 PM
Those who argue that justices can be bought in the US would have a pretty strong argument it seems.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on April 06, 2023, 12:47:34 PM
An exclusive all male retreat, you say?  :ph34r:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 06, 2023, 12:48:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 06, 2023, 12:43:26 PMThose who argue that justices can be bought in the US would have a pretty strong argument it seems.

So there's no hint that Justice Thomas (or anyone else) is "bought", or that he makes decisions just because his good friend Harlan Crow tells him to.

It's much more subtle - it's influence.  As a litigant before the USSC you get 30 minutes to make your oral argument.  Harlan Crow can have all weekend to talk with Justice Thomas about anything he wants to talk about.

Plus it's human nature to want to help out your friends.  I'm sure you've told your own friends "no" when they ask you things in the past, but you're more likely to say "yes" to a friend than you are a complete stranger.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2023, 12:52:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2023, 12:48:22 PMSo there's no hint that Justice Thomas (or anyone else) is "bought", or that he makes decisions just because his good friend Harlan Crow tells him to.

It's much more subtle - it's influence.  As a litigant before the USSC you get 30 minutes to make your oral argument.  Harlan Crow can have all weekend to talk with Justice Thomas about anything he wants to talk about.

Lucky for the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has already ruled on that in McCormick v U.S. 

QuotePlus it's human nature to want to help out your friends.  I'm sure you've told your own friends "no" when they ask you things in the past, but you're more likely to say "yes" to a friend than you are a complete stranger.

Now you're just being an asshole.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 06, 2023, 02:52:16 PM
We have a Clarence and Ginni Thomas problem.  This isn't the first conflict of interest problem Thomas had had, or the worst, and it certainly isn't the last.  He has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for accepted standards of behavior and the principles that govern all other judicial officials.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on April 06, 2023, 02:58:48 PM
... and the only way to remove him is impeachment, is that correct? And while technically a possibility, in practice it's impossible?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 06, 2023, 03:00:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2023, 12:52:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2023, 12:48:22 PMPlus it's human nature to want to help out your friends.  I'm sure you've told your own friends "no" when they ask you things in the past, but you're more likely to say "yes" to a friend than you are a complete stranger.

Now you're just being an asshole.

I didn't just start now...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on April 06, 2023, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 06, 2023, 02:58:48 PM... and the only way to remove him is impeachment, is that correct? And while technically a possibility, in practice it's impossible?

AFAIK Supreme Court justices, unlike Presidents, have no theoretical immunity from prosecution for regular crimes.

Also AFAIK--we've never tried to prosecute one. But they are just a special class of Federal judge--we have a long history of how we have dealt with Federal judges committing misdeeds. I think a half dozen or so have been removed from office--probably 2-3 that number have resigned in disgrace before impeachment could proceed.

The most recent and salient situation would be Judge Samuel Kent--convicted, while a sitting judge, of sex crimes and sentenced to 33 months. He initially retired--in our system if a Federal judge "retires" they don't actually leave the bench. They become a "Senior Status" judge, which opens up their seat to a new appointee--but they continue to have full judicial powers and can work a light schedule. They also, importantly, receive their full salary (~$170k/yr) for as long as they are retired.

Bipartisan members of Congress were outraged at the thought of a sex criminal collecting a full judge's salary, and began impeachment proceedings. He amended his retirement to be a resignation, but with a 12 month delay so he could collect one more year of salary. This wasn't enough and they proceeded to impeach him. However, after the impeachment but before his Senate trial, he finally resigned effective immediately--so he was never convicted.

That being said,  he was given a carceral sentence whilst a sitting judge. I see no reason Thomas couldn't suffer the same fate. It would not remove him from the bench but it'd be hard to participate as a justice from a Federal prison.

Unfortunately nothing Thomas has clearly been shown to do is illegal, even if it ought be. But in theory you could send him to prison if you found something he did or you altered the law to criminalize his behavior (you can't ex post facto criminalize it, he would have to commit a new offense.)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 06, 2023, 04:33:56 PM
He's exploiting a constitutional loophole.  The ethics rules that apply to the federal judiciary generally don't apply to the Supreme Court.  The Court could make rules for itself, but it doesn't and it's not clear what the sanction could be for non-compliance if it did.

The allegations about Thomas echo the allegations the forced Abe Fortas to resign under threat of potential impeachment.  But we live in different times now; impeachments are an empty threat because everyone knows that loyalty to one's political team takes precedence over policing even the most blatant and outrageous corruption.  The mice know that cat is away and never coming back; they can play to their heart's content.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on April 06, 2023, 04:45:04 PM
QuoteTennessee House expels first of three Democrats who joined gun-control protests

NASHVILLE — The Republican-led Tennessee House voted Thursday to expel a Democratic lawmaker who halted proceedings last week to join protesters demanding gun control. Lawmakers are set to consider the expulsions of two additional lawmakers in a historic act of retaliation.

The chamber voted 72-25 to expel Rep. Justin Jones (D). During the more than two hours of debate, Republican members questioned Jones, who sported a white suit, as his fellow Democratic lawmakers asked for "grace" and urged the chamber not to use the "nuclear option."

Following the vote to oust Jones, lawmakers are expected to vote to expel Democratic Reps. Gloria Johnson and Justin Pearson despite outcry from their supporters outside the House chambers and in the days leading up to the votes.

The Tennessee General Assembly — where Republicans hold the supermajority in both chambers — has resisted calls to enact gun legislation since the March 27 Covenant School shooting that killed six people, including three 9-year-olds.

On March 30, hundreds of students, parents, teachers and people from across Tennessee flooded the Capitol to urge lawmakers to pass gun-control legislation following the Covenant School shooting that killed six people, including three 9-year-olds.

During the protests, Jones, Johnson and Pearson walked to the front of the chamber to join in the chants that reverberated from the gallery.

The same day, Speaker of the House Cameron Sexton (R) referred to the Democrats' actions as an "insurrection." He said they had committed "multiple violations" of the General Assembly's rules.

Republicans in the House filed the resolutions Monday to oust Jones, Johnson and Pearson, saying the three lawmakers "did knowingly and intentionally bring disorder and dishonor" to the House.

The resolutions to expel the three lawmakers cited the rules Sexton referred to, which include "preserving order, adhering to decorum, speaking only with recognition, not crowding around the Clerk's desk, avoiding personalities, and not using props or displaying political messages."

Pearson sent a letter the same day to all Tennessee representatives acknowledging that he had broken decorum during the March 30 protests but adding that "it was untenable to hear the chants, pleas, and cries of thousands of peaceful children outside our chambers and do nothing — say nothing."

"We must never become desensitized to the voices of people crying out for change," Pearson wrote at the end of the letter, which he posted online Tuesday. "We must never accept senseless deaths to continue on our watch and do nothing."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on April 06, 2023, 04:49:47 PM
A majority can decide to eject elected members? 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on April 06, 2023, 04:53:58 PM
That's the case I think in all fifty states and also in the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Constitution broadly sets the principle that each house's membership is responsible for rules on ejections and general conduct. In fact, with Congress the constitution even makes it clear the other branches have no say in this matter (importantly, this means in Congress a member's expulsion is not subject to any form of judicial review)--and unlike other Federal officials, House members and Senators cannot be impeached. It is up to their own chamber to decide if their conduct is expulsion worthy.

In many things the States are inspired by and copy the Federal constitution, AFAIK most or all of the States have similar rules.

Given the hyperpartisan nature of modern politics, I have regularly wondered how far we are from majorities just mass-expelling members of the other party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on April 06, 2023, 07:00:34 PM
Third one gone. White woman wasn't expelled. So I guess Tennessee isn't even bothering to gerrymander anymore, they're just expelling representatives.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2023, 05:40:14 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 06, 2023, 07:00:34 PMThird one gone. White woman wasn't expelled. So I guess Tennessee isn't even bothering to gerrymander anymore, they're just expelling representatives.

Just the uppity ones that don't know their place. Slave states never change their robes.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on April 08, 2023, 06:28:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2023, 05:40:14 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 06, 2023, 07:00:34 PMThird one gone. White woman wasn't expelled. So I guess Tennessee isn't even bothering to gerrymander anymore, they're just expelling representatives.

Just the uppity ones that don't know their place. Slave states never change their robes.



 :hmm:  We elected a black preacher and a Jewish filmmaker over a Good Ol' Boy and an investor-magnate.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on April 10, 2023, 07:50:52 PM
QuoteFlorida Republican Rep. Webster Barnaby directly compared trans people to mutants in X-Men and called the trans people, including children, present in the room "demons and imps."

This was during debate for HB1421 that would criminalize trans people using bathrooms.

https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1645534892409884681 (https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1645534892409884681)

Video on the link. Truly revolting.

Also, extremely ironic that a black person uses the X Men (a comic book created in the 60s as a paralel to the civil rights movement, and from then on as an analogy for many other opressed and discriminated against minorities) as a pejorative term.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on April 10, 2023, 08:06:58 PM
Very deplorable, but I don't think I've ever heard of imp as a pejorative outside of game of thrones.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 10, 2023, 08:24:49 PM
Nashville city council voted to reinstate one of the expelled reps.

From NPR.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on April 10, 2023, 08:45:33 PM
The return of the Satanic Panic is very tiresome. We have enough problems in the real world without nuts talking about demons all the time.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on April 13, 2023, 06:38:19 AM
QuoteTheo Wold @RealTheoWold

Every Red State will have to wrestle with the fetid, urban Leftist vote sinks. That begins with asking the basic question: why does the GOP continue to push the annexation/development of rural land that only grows the size and power of Leftist strongholds?

Unhinged tweet by a random internet weirdo Idaho's solicitor general.


How come so many rotten brained GOPers can freely insult entire parts of the country with no repercussions whatsoever?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on April 13, 2023, 09:06:38 AM
So...preserve all undeveloped land? Sounds like the GOP wants to embrace environmentalism and limit property rights.

Quote from: The Larch on April 13, 2023, 06:38:19 AMHow come so many rotten brained GOPers can freely insult entire parts of the country with no repercussions whatsoever?

They can get away with it because they are talking shit about groups that already are never going to vote for them and/or the people who do vote for them also dislike.

It is the urban/rural divide stuff.

Though it isn't like urban areas are 100% Democrat, they still need the 30%-45% of urban voters who do vote Republican. So, you know, might not be too smart. Like some big city Democrat calling all rural people racist hicks or some shit. Sure it may get the smug urbanites feeling superior but it isn't like every rural area is 100% Republican either.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on April 13, 2023, 03:36:22 PM
Now that kids are safe from Trans and Drag queens groomers, they can safely marry their friendly adult Republican:
MO Republican pushing trans care ban suggests 12-year-olds should be allowed to marry (https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article274244525.html)

QuoteA Missouri Republican state senator this week suggested that children as young as 12 should be able to get married as he pushes legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for minors. "Do you know any kids who have been married at age 12? I do. And guess what? They're still married," state Sen. Mike Moon, an Ash Grove Republican, said Tuesday evening in response to questioning by state Rep. Peter Merideth, a St. Louis Democrat.

Moon made the comment during testimony in the House General Laws Committee over his bill that would ban all "gender transition procedures" for people under 18, which passed the Missouri Senate last month. Moon has attempted to frame his legislation as a way to protect kids as LGBTQ rights advocates call the bill an attack on the transgender community.

[...]
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on April 13, 2023, 04:31:05 PM
This feels like a new record in time from arrest to polarising:
QuoteRep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸
@RepMTG
Jake Teixeira is white, male, christian, and antiwar.

That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime.

And he told the truth about troops being on the ground in Ukraine and a lot more.

Ask yourself who is the real enemy?

A young low level national guardsmen?

Or the administration that is waging war in Ukraine, a non-NATO nation, against nuclear Russia without war powers?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on April 13, 2023, 08:03:32 PM
Of course MJT is going to defend him.  He's a fellow member of the death cult.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on April 13, 2023, 08:25:46 PM
Republicans of Tennessee are « at war », for the future of he Republic. The whole world is watching them, to see if they will stand their ground.

Leaked audio from their meeting following the expulsion of two representatives.

https://jezebel.com/leaked-audio-reveals-tennessee-republicans-are-pissed-a-1850333736
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on April 13, 2023, 09:06:25 PM
Cults demand loyalty.  That tape just shows that, like all other cults, the Death Cult demands total loyalty or expulsion.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 15, 2023, 08:04:37 AM
https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3wdpv/arkansas-makes-it-illegal-for-minors-to-be-on-social-media-without-parental-consent

QuoteArkansas Makes It Illegal For Minors to Be on Social Media Without Parental Consent

The state's governor signed a new bill requiring social media companies to obtain a photo ID of every new user, to prevent teens from lying on the internet more.

It is now illegal for anyone in Arkansas under 18 to be on social media without asking their parents, according to a new bill signed by the state's governor on Wednesday.

Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders enacted the Social Media Safety Act, also known as SB396, in the latest legislative push to restrict children and teens from using social media.

"A social media company shall not permit an Arkansas user who is a minor to be an account holder on the social media company's social media platform unless the minor has the express consent of a parent or legal guardian," the bill states. "A social media company shall verify the age of an account holder. If an account holder is a minor, the social media company shall confirm that a minor has consent...to become a new account holder."


The bill requires social media companies to verify the age of any new user who lives in Arkansas, by obtaining a "digitized identification card, including a digital copy of a driver's license...Government-issued identification; or any commercially reasonable age verification method." Age verification must also be done through a third-party vendor, which is not to retain any identifying information of the individual after verifying their age.

If a social media company fails to do this, it will be subject to $2,500 fines per violation, and also pay for a family's legal fees if the family decides to sue.


It's not overtly clear how this bill will help, given that it is chock full of loopholes. The bill states that it does not apply to "news or public interest broadcast, website video, report, or event," any news-gathering organizations, any cloud service providers, or internet service providers who provide links to social media platforms.

An amendment introduced in the final days of negotiating the bill stated that subscription service providers and gaming services were exempt, but that "Social media company that allows a user to generate short video clips of dancing, voice overs, or other acts of entertainment in which the primary purpose is not educational or informative, does not meet the exclusion under subdivision (7)(B)(i) of this section."

The most affected social media company in question, then, would likely be TikTok, whose CEO was grilled by Congress for six hours last month about "protecting the children" and data privacy, and frequently accused of being an "extension of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party]."

This bill is the latest development in government officials trying to more strictly regulate what children and teens do on the internet, after coming to the realization that teens have been lying about their age on the internet since the dawn of the internet. Previously, age verification for certain social media platforms like Instagram and, back in the day, MySpace, involved clicking on a checkbox that affirms you are the required minimum age.

But now, in Arkansas—and also in Utah, which enacted a similar law a few weeks ago—it will be slightly more difficult to lie on the internet. Both of these bills also raise questions about infringing on the basic rights of younger users, who are often at the forefront of bills like these so that the government can look like it's protecting the children.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on April 15, 2023, 12:31:16 PM
This is the weirdest timeline. I guess she has to take away the socials if she wants the kids to go work.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on April 15, 2023, 04:37:14 PM
Big Republican donors getting cold feet on DeSantis due to his extreme social stances.


QuoteTop Republican donor sours on Florida governor's stance on social issues
Thomas Peterffy highlights actions of Ron DeSantis on abortion and book banning and warns against courting far-right


Top Republican donor Thomas Peterffy is halting plans to help finance the US presidential bid of Florida governor Ron DeSantis due to his extreme positions on social issues.

"I have put myself on hold," the billionaire told the Financial Times.

"Because of his stance on abortion and book banning . . . myself, and a bunch of friends, are holding our powder dry."

Though DeSantis has not formally announced a run, he has for months been considered former president Donald Trump's main rival for the Republican nomination for president in 2024.

But in recent weeks, the Florida governor's popularity among likely voters has wobbled as he has tried to appeal to Trump's far-right voter base while also presenting himself as an opponent with broader appeal.

DeSantis has aimed to ban books dealing with sexual and LGBTQ themes from Florida schools and supported a ban on abortions after six weeks in the state.

Peterffy said he no longer believed that DeSantis had the same odds to unseat Trump in the Republican primary than he did at the start of the year. "DeSantis seems to have lost some momentum."

Peterffy, who founded digital trading platform Interactive Brokers, has long been a top Republican donor. In 2022, he gave $7.7mn to individual Republicans' campaigns and to conservative political action committees, up from $7.2mn in 2020, according to OpenSecrets campaign finance data.

In January, Peterffy told the FT that he was a fan of DeSantis and was "looking forward" to backing a presidential bid by the governor.

But now, he says: "I am more reluctant to back him. We are waiting to see who among the primary candidates is most likely to be able to win the general, and then put all of our firepower behind them."

Until recently, Peterffy was the richest man in Florida with an estimated net worth of $26bn, according to Forbes. The title now belongs to Citadel founder Ken Griffin, worth $35bn, who relocated from Chicago to Florida last year for tax reasons. In 2022, Griffin donated $73mn to conservative campaigns, the most of any contributor, according to OpenSecrets.

Peterffy noted that he still supported the governor in his approach to business, including his battle with Disney. The company has gone head to head with the governor over Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill, which restricts speech about gender and sexuality in schools.

"I think it's insane that a company would take a stand on gender issues," he said.

But if DeSantis continues to appeal to a far-right base of the Republican party to defeat Trump by banning books and restricting abortion access, "the Republicans have a very big problem".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on April 15, 2023, 05:17:02 PM
So, America is getting trump again?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2023, 06:12:48 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 05:17:02 PMSo, America is getting trump again?

I'll take that bet.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on April 15, 2023, 06:34:05 PM
So, when did guns stopped being considered tools to handle with the utmost care and became a fetishized object in the US?

QuoteSouth Dakota governor says her two-year-old grandchild has several guns
Kristi Noem tells audience at NRA forum toddler has a shotgun, a rifle and a pony

South Dakota's governor told an audience of people that her two-year-old grandchild has several guns.

While speaking on Friday at a National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbying leadership forum in Indiana, the Republican governor Kristi Noem told audience members her toddler grandchild has multiple guns, reported Mediaite.

During her remarks, Noem spoke about her grandchildren: Addie, who is almost two, and Branch, who is a few months old. Noem then said that Addie already had a shotgun and a rifle.

"Now Addie, who you know – soon will need them, I wanna reassure you, she already has a shotgun and she already has a rifle and she's got a little pony named Sparkles too. So the girl is set up," said Noem.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on April 15, 2023, 06:46:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2023, 06:12:48 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 05:17:02 PMSo, America is getting trump again?

I'll take that bet.

I may revisit if he makes it to the primaries without being jailed :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on April 15, 2023, 06:47:22 PM
Why the hell does the Kid have a pony? That's dangerous


:P

Seriously, though, I had a horse and it tried to maim me the first day, I had to roll under the fence. He mellowed out after :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on April 15, 2023, 06:47:26 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 15, 2023, 06:34:05 PMSo, when did guns stopped being considered tools to handle with the utmost care and became a fetishized object in the US?

Since the Death Cult took effective control of the USSC and re-wrote the Second Amendment.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2023, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 06:47:22 PMI had a horse

One percent! One percent!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on April 15, 2023, 07:47:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2023, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 06:47:22 PMI had a horse

One percent! One percent!

:D

It was actually a gift from a one percenter. Lived on a farm at the time but we ourself were for from one percenters
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on April 16, 2023, 02:05:46 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 15, 2023, 06:34:05 PMSo, when did guns stopped being considered tools to handle with the utmost care and became a fetishized object in the US?

QuoteSouth Dakota governor says her two-year-old grandchild has several guns
Kristi Noem tells audience at NRA forum toddler has a shotgun, a rifle and a pony

South Dakota's governor told an audience of people that her two-year-old grandchild has several guns.

While speaking on Friday at a National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbying leadership forum in Indiana, the Republican governor Kristi Noem told audience members her toddler grandchild has multiple guns, reported Mediaite.

During her remarks, Noem spoke about her grandchildren: Addie, who is almost two, and Branch, who is a few months old. Noem then said that Addie already had a shotgun and a rifle.

"Now Addie, who you know – soon will need them, I wanna reassure you, she already has a shotgun and she already has a rifle and she's got a little pony named Sparkles too. So the girl is set up," said Noem.

I know an aside but why does every paragraph say the same thing over and over? Think point was clear before it gets to the quote.  :sleep:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 16, 2023, 02:30:02 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 07:47:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2023, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 06:47:22 PMI had a horse

One percent! One percent!

:D

It was actually a gift from a one percenter. Lived on a farm at the time but we ourself were for from one percenters

Were they named Grandma? 🧐
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 16, 2023, 03:31:14 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 16, 2023, 02:30:02 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 07:47:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2023, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 06:47:22 PMI had a horse

One percent! One percent!

:D

It was actually a gift from a one percenter. Lived on a farm at the time but we ourself were for from one percenters

Were they named Grandma? 🧐

Salazar. :ph34r:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2023, 03:34:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2023, 02:05:46 AMI know an aside but why does every paragraph say the same thing over and over? Think point was clear before it gets to the quote.  :sleep:

Word
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Larch on April 16, 2023, 06:35:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2023, 02:05:46 AMI know an aside but why does every paragraph say the same thing over and over? Think point was clear before it gets to the quote.  :sleep:

I hadn't realized it, but now that you mention it it's true it's pretty repetitive. There was a second part to the article I didn't include because it dealt with other stuff that might have changed the article's flow.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on April 16, 2023, 08:09:36 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 16, 2023, 03:31:14 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 16, 2023, 02:30:02 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 07:47:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2023, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 06:47:22 PMI had a horse

One percent! One percent!

:D

It was actually a gift from a one percenter. Lived on a farm at the time but we ourself were for from one percenters

Were they named Grandma? 🧐

Salazar. :ph34r:

Lol to both. Actually a rich guy who was a family friend and died under suspicious circumstances in Brazil a few years later :ph34r:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 16, 2023, 08:34:22 AM
Salazar was the horse.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Duque de Bragança on April 16, 2023, 12:58:52 PM
Salazar did not die in Brazil however, unlike Marcello Caetano.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Hamilcar on April 19, 2023, 04:06:34 AM
Read on Reddit that apparently nobody knows where George Santos was born, including whether he was born in the US or not.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on April 19, 2023, 04:19:23 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on April 19, 2023, 04:06:34 AMRead on Reddit that apparently nobody knows where George Santos was born, including whether he was born in the US or not.

I'll say one thing for that guy. His biography will be some read.
Catch Me if You Can 2.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Hamilcar on April 19, 2023, 07:11:14 AM
Quote from: Josquius on April 19, 2023, 04:19:23 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on April 19, 2023, 04:06:34 AMRead on Reddit that apparently nobody knows where George Santos was born, including whether he was born in the US or not.

I'll say one thing for that guy. His biography will be some read.
Catch Me if You Can 2.

Now people are theorizing that he's Trumps illegitimate child. Purported birth year matches.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 19, 2023, 09:31:03 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on April 19, 2023, 04:06:34 AMRead on Reddit that apparently nobody knows where George Santos was born, including whether he was born in the US or not.

I thought he was born in Brazil?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on April 19, 2023, 09:32:03 AM
That's what the liberal media wants you to think :contract: :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on April 19, 2023, 09:48:11 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2023, 09:31:03 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on April 19, 2023, 04:06:34 AMRead on Reddit that apparently nobody knows where George Santos was born, including whether he was born in the US or not.

I thought he was born in Brazil?

Not old enough to be one of the boys.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 20, 2023, 02:31:31 AM
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-education-board-vote-extending-ban-gender-identity-lessons-2023-04-19/

QuoteFlorida education board extends ban on gender identity lessons to all grades

April 19 (Reuters) - Florida education officials voted on Wednesday to ban classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in all public school grades, expanding on a law signed by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis that barred such lessons for younger students and was derided by critics as the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

The new rule is part of a broader rightward push on cultural issues championed by DeSantis, who is widely expected to run for president in 2024.

The board, whose members are appointed by the governor, unanimously approved prohibiting lessons on gender identity or sexual orientation in grades four through 12, unless the instruction is required by state standards or is part of a health class that parents can opt their children out of.

Last year, DeSantis signed legislation that outlawed instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation from kindergarten through third grade, arguing that parents, rather than teachers, should decide when to discuss those subjects with their children.

Critics, including Democratic President Joe Biden, said the law would marginalize already vulnerable LGBTQ students. The statute sparked an ongoing battle between DeSantis and the Walt Disney Co, after the entertainment corporation publicly opposed the law.

Dozens of speakers gave impassioned remarks, mostly in opposition to the measure, during nearly an hour of public comment ahead of Wednesday's vote.

Many opponents said the rule's language was so vague that teachers would likely avoid the subjects altogether rather than risk their careers.

Some speakers asked whether teachers might skip works of fiction that feature gay characters, for instance, while others wondered whether LGBTQ students, or students with LGBTQ families, would feel unable to discuss their personal lives in class.

"This rule is by design a tool for curating fear, anxiety and the erasure of our LGBTQ community," said Joe Saunders, the senior political director for LGBTQ advocacy group Equality Florida.


The state education commissioner, Manny Diaz, defended the proposal, saying it simply clarified that teachers should adhere to state-approved curricula. Students who need counseling, including for mental health, should be referred to professional school counselors rather than teachers, he said.

"We're not removing anything here," he said. "All we are doing is setting the expectations so that our teachers are clear that they are teaching to the standards."

Violating the rule could result in the suspension or revocation of an educator's teaching license.

Members of several conservative groups that focus on education, including Moms for Liberty and Florida Citizens Alliance, praised the rule for protecting parental rights, while other supporters said it would prevent the "indoctrination" of children.

"These decisions should be left at home for parents to decide when their children should be exposed to this material," said Ryan Kennedy of the Florida Citizens Alliance.

The regulation does not require legislative approval. The Republican-majority legislature is separately considering a bill that would expand the 2022 law through eighth grade.

Americans are sharply divided along party lines on the issue.

Some 72% of Democrats in a Reuters/Ipsos poll from March said they were more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supported letting teachers discuss sexual orientation and gender identity at school.

Among Republicans, however, 76% said they were less likely to support such a candidate
.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on April 20, 2023, 02:47:16 AM
Because if you don't talk about something, it doesn't exist?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on April 20, 2023, 03:16:21 AM
Yet they still scream about being the party of freedom.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Hamilcar on April 20, 2023, 03:22:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2023, 02:47:16 AMBecause if you don't talk about something, it doesn't exist?

Remember you have fewer cases if you don't test for the virus.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on April 20, 2023, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2023, 02:47:16 AMBecause if you don't talk about something, it doesn't exist?

I think it's more that if you've made it a culture war objective to hate someone for who they are, you approve of laws and social conventions that makes those people's lives as miserable as possible.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on April 20, 2023, 12:54:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2023, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2023, 02:47:16 AMBecause if you don't talk about something, it doesn't exist?

I think it's more that if you've made it a culture war objective to hate someone for who they are, you approve of laws and social conventions that makes those people's lives as miserable as possible.

Then comes the book burning - or I guess in this cycle it has happened already.

Some people still remember the prediction of what follows book burning.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on April 20, 2023, 02:05:35 PM
The book thing is just weird. It isn't like books are the main way kids learn about things these days.

But I guess it is just tradition.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Duque de Bragança on April 20, 2023, 02:44:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2023, 02:05:35 PMThe book thing is just weird. It isn't like books are the main way kids learn about things these days.

But I guess it is just tradition.

If books are banned, maybe they will read more.  :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on April 20, 2023, 04:13:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2023, 02:05:35 PMThe book thing is just weird. It isn't like books are the main way kids learn about things these days.

But I guess it is just tradition.

Guess it's more about the gesture for the base than anything else.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2023, 07:32:07 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSB9Yeky624

Judge orders His Pillow to pay $5 million to person who proved his election data was false. :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on April 20, 2023, 09:36:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2023, 07:32:07 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSB9Yeky624

Judge orders His Pillow to pay $5 million to person who proved his election data was false. :)

And the guy who proved his data to be false voted twice for Trump.  He still wanted to prove that election denial was bogus because he thought that it was toxic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on April 21, 2023, 07:41:11 PM
Now given my record with Republican presidential candidates, this will be the kiss of death - and I don't actually expect him to necessarily do well, or even run.

But I think Chris Christie's speech about Trump is exactly the right strategy and approach. And it feels like he's the first Republican candidate (including 2016) to actually spot that to beat Trump you actually need to campaign against him, not hold back in the hope that you can pick up a lot of his supporters. It doesn't work.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on April 21, 2023, 09:07:18 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2023, 07:41:11 PMNow given my record with Republican presidential candidates, this will be the kiss of death - and I don't actually expect him to necessarily do well, or even run.

But I think Chris Christie's speech about Trump is exactly the right strategy and approach. And it feels like he's the first Republican candidate (including 2016) to actually spot that to beat Trump you actually need to campaign against him, not hold back in the hope that you can pick up a lot of his supporters. It doesn't work.

I'd be astonished to se Christie run again, after his big "fuck you, constituents" departure from office in New Jersey.  I know Republicans won't hold his very public blowjobs of Trump against him, but a lot of shit will come out of New Jersey if he runs again.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 22, 2023, 12:17:27 AM
Christie bears quite a bit of blame for Trump winning the first time round. His withdrawal and endorsement started the avalanche.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on April 22, 2023, 01:27:19 AM
(https://i.redd.it/sjqtu9abp7va1.jpg)

 :pope:

I guess they only care about the 2nd, not the 1st Amendment in Texas.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 22, 2023, 05:52:49 AM
Oh ffs.  <_<
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 22, 2023, 05:58:50 AM
Dangerous move. Some kids may start to expect politicians to follow the commandments :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on April 22, 2023, 07:48:37 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 22, 2023, 05:58:50 AMDangerous move. Some kids may start to expect politicians to follow the commandments :P
The one about adultery would really fuck some careers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on April 24, 2023, 01:35:48 PM
QuoteThou shalt not covet thy neighbor 's wife, nor his manservant, nor
his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor 's

Women and servants are property  :P

Anyway this bill claims it should be displayed as a cultural deal, like kids should at least know what the Ten Commandments say.

Though will they if they use the archaic King James translation?  :lol: And they should at least include the masoretic text version

Though I guess the fact that nowhere in the King James Bible does this list appear kind of makes that difficult.

The first version of the Ten Commandments is in Exodus 20 and reads thusly:

QuoteI am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

And then in Exodus 34 we get this version of the Ten Commandments:

QuoteAnd the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.

And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.

And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.

For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.

Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

And then in Deuteronomy 5 we get ANOTHER version that goes like this:

QuoteI am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Thou shalt not kill.

Neither shalt thou commit adultery.

Neither shalt thou steal.

Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

None of these say:

Quote"I AM the LORD thy God.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy
Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the
land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor 's house.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor 's wife, nor his manservant, nor
his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy
neighbor 's.

So why not commit to one Bible passage and have it in its original language if you want to highlight it as a cultural thing instead of some kind of weird cliffnotes version that is not only not in the Bible but not even in the original language. It creates a false narrative, that this text is a list of a quote from the Bible instead of a list derived from the Bible. Also the Catholics and Lutherans famously have a different list of Commandments. Also some explanatory text about how this list was created and what it represents would be nice.

It is one of the things that greatly annoyed me when I read the Bible in college after years of just sort of learning about it via osmosis by growing up in a protestant cultured place. Almost everything I learned about the Bible turned out to be sort of "truthy" but not actually what the Bible said. Just kind of an approximation, that overall kind of added up to a false impression. So I guess now kids of this generation will learn something else about the Bible that isn't actually in the Bible, it is just a sort of an approximation of what it says. 

Also Deuteronomy never explains what keeping the Sabbath day has to do with God bringing the Jews out of Egypt. Just, you know, keep it because I brought you out of Egypt. Huh? What does that have to do with keeping the Sabbath day? So I guess editing down the text removes annoying little passages that distract.

But it brings up a thing I would challenge this law on: how can it be a cultural issue if the original text is not quoted? Instead it is an interpretation of the Ten Commandments, a theological interpretation that disagrees with St. Augustine's list. Isn't that saying the Catholics are wrong? That could be avoided by simply quoting the text instead of advancing a Protestant interpretation. Odd that all those biblically literalist Republicans wouldn't want the Bible quoted instead of an interpretation of the Bible.

I don't know the numbers of the prayer and bible study in class bills so I haven't been able to read them yet. Though if this bill is any indication they will not be studying the actual Bible, but rather some theological interpretation that represents mainline Protestantism (well...except the Lutherans in this case) and will clean up all the messy parts.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Hamilcar on April 24, 2023, 01:40:46 PM
Tucker Carlson out at FOX, probably as part of the Dominion settlement. Will he:
1. Retire quietly to Moscow
2. Join some other rightwing nutjob media
3. Start his own nutjob media?
4. Run for president?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on April 24, 2023, 01:46:18 PM
Also I think editing the text enables the government to remove that pesky part about:

Quotefor I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Wouldn't want kids to think there was anything horribly unjust in the Bible. Best to wait until they actually read it and hope most never bother.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on April 24, 2023, 01:46:36 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on April 24, 2023, 01:40:46 PMTucker Carlson out at FOX, probably as part of the Dominion settlement. Will he:
1. Retire quietly to Moscow
2. Join some other rightwing nutjob media
3. Start his own nutjob media?
4. Run for president?

Told you man: Daily Wire.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on April 24, 2023, 01:54:07 PM
Reminder: Tucker owns the DailyCaller, I'd assume he would use that as his platform?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on April 24, 2023, 04:02:31 PM
I am sure he will get a show on OAN or RT any time now.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 24, 2023, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 24, 2023, 04:02:31 PMI am sure he will get a show on OAN or RT any time now.

Those are pretty small potatoes compared to the 8pm slot at Fox News.

PArt of me hopes that he has a come to Jesus moment, renounces Trump and his ilk and just speaks the truth about the last8 years.  But instead I think he likes the power, attention and money so I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on April 24, 2023, 10:15:30 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 24, 2023, 04:02:31 PMI am sure he will get a show on OAN or RT any time now.
They're also getting sued for spreading lies about the election.  I doubt they'll hire him.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 25, 2023, 12:47:02 AM
I mean the leaked text messages show that he knew he was spreading misinformation about election fraud and that he thought the Trump presidency was a desaster - would that affect his popularity amongst the far right?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on April 25, 2023, 12:58:27 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 25, 2023, 12:47:02 AMI mean the leaked text messages show that he knew he was spreading misinformation about election fraud and that he thought the Trump presidency was a desaster - would that affect his popularity amongst the far right?

His total dedication to the cause probably earns him some brownie points.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on April 25, 2023, 01:11:23 AM
Did they acknowledge that on Fox News? If not their audience probably doesn't even know.

Now if he sues fix can bludgeon him with that fact.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on April 25, 2023, 04:16:49 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 24, 2023, 01:54:07 PMReminder: Tucker owns the DailyCaller, I'd assume he would use that as his platform?

Wiki says he was bought out of that in 2020.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on April 26, 2023, 02:37:50 PM
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3972939-disney-sues-desantis-alleging-harm-to-its-business/

QuoteDisney sues DeSantis, alleging harm to its business

The Walt Disney Company is suing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and other state officials, alleging that DeSantis is harming the company's business operations.

The lawsuit comes after months of Disney and DeSantis sparring over legislation that DeSantis has signed and steps the governor has taken to increase the state's control over Disney.

"A targeted campaign of government retaliation—orchestrated at every step by Governor DeSantis as punishment for Disney's protected speech—now threatens Disney's business operations, jeopardizes its economic future in the region, and violates its constitutional rights," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit comes after the board that DeSantis appointed to oversee Disney voted Wednesday to void development contracts that Disney made.

Disney said in its complaint that the action from the board was the "latest strike" leading to the lawsuit.

DeSantis signed legislation at the end of February to end Disney's power over the Reedy Creek Improvement District, the 25,000 acres that Disney has owned and self-governed for decades. The law allowed DeSantis to appoint a board consisting of five members to govern the district.

The move came after Disney openly criticized Florida's Parental Rights in Education law, dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill by opponents. The law places restrictions on the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in public school classes from kindergarten to 12th grade.

Disney said it would work to repeal the law and vowed to "stand up for the rights and safety" for the LGBTQ community.

DeSantis began criticizing Disney soon after the company denounced the legislation, calling it an "unaccountable Corporate Kingdom" that had "extraordinary special privileges."

The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, the board that DeSantis created to oversee Disney, was set to take over, but the members said last month the Reedy Creek district signed a last-minute agreement with Disney that gave it developmental authority over the parks.

The agreement led the DeSantis-appointed board to take action to try to declare the agreements void.

"This government action was patently retaliatory, patently anti-business, and patently unconstitutional," the complaint states. "But the Governor and his allies have made clear that they do not care and will not stop."

Taryn Fenske, the communications director for DeSantis, told The Hill in a statement that the lawsuit is "another unfortunate attempt" by Disney to try to "undermine the will of the Florida voters and operate outside the bounds of the law."

"We are unaware of any legal right that a company has to operate its own government or maintain special privileges not held by other businesses in the state," Fenske said.

The complaint states that the company "regrets" that it has been forced to turn to legal action but has no other choice. It said it has "exhausted efforts" to find a resolution to the conflict.

The lawsuit asks for the legislation exerting the state government's power over Disney to be nullified because it was enacted in retaliation for the company exercising its rights to free speech.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on April 26, 2023, 03:01:33 PM
The Empire Strikes Back.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on April 26, 2023, 03:35:02 PM
I'm honestly starting to think the Disney thing is becoming a major albatross. Chiefly because other Republicans, most importantly Trump, but also Chris Christie and Nikki Haley, are using it to bludgeon him. He's being called anti-business etc and by the sort of attackers who can do real harm to DeSantis's standing in the GOP with the base.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on April 26, 2023, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 26, 2023, 03:35:02 PMI'm honestly starting to think the Disney thing is becoming a major albatross. Chiefly because other Republicans, most importantly Trump, but also Chris Christie and Nikki Haley, are using it to bludgeon him. He's being called anti-business etc and by the sort of attackers who can do real harm to DeSantis's standing in the GOP with the base.

Yeah, it's not my impression that GOP core voters hate Disney particularly, or that they're against big business having special privilege. Makes sense that internal opponents would use de Santis' anti-Disney stance against him.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on April 26, 2023, 08:24:26 PM
Feeling more certain about my prediction that DeSantis will not run.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on April 26, 2023, 10:43:32 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 26, 2023, 08:24:26 PMFeeling more certain about my prediction that DeSantis will not run.

Dunno.  He's leaning pretty heavily into the Death Cult and we all know he's too smart to actually believe the verbal diarrhea pouring out of his mouth.  If he's not running, why is he acting the crazy man?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2023, 10:54:25 PM
The original Disney fight seemed like a well calculated move to show his culture war bona fides and "independence" from traditional GOP Chamber of Commerce conservatism.  But the logical move after that was to let the matter settle down with token concessions, which Disney was clearly willing to provide.  Instead, he has escalated in a way that has made him look incompetent, and on an issue that has limited valence to the culture warriors.  It doesn't suggest to me that he isn't running, but it does show cracks in political judgment and reinforces the sense that he is Not Ready for Prime Time.  I.e. more like Scott Walker II rather than New and Improved Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on April 27, 2023, 12:55:55 AM
de Santis seems to be pulling these pages from the Orban playbook a few chapters too soon.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: celedhring on April 27, 2023, 01:01:43 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 26, 2023, 03:01:33 PMThe Empire Strikes Back.

I'd love it if the "corporations are people" bullshit comes to bite back the GOP.

Even though this is very much an Aliens vs Predator scenario.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Hamilcar on April 27, 2023, 02:42:17 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 27, 2023, 01:01:43 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 26, 2023, 03:01:33 PMThe Empire Strikes Back.

I'd love it if the "corporations are people" bullshit comes to bite back the GOP.

Even though this is very much an Aliens vs Predator scenario.

Indeed. If money = speech, then Disney has a WHOLE LOT of speech.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on April 27, 2023, 05:06:09 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 26, 2023, 08:24:26 PMFeeling more certain about my prediction that DeSantis will not run.
Agree - I've also heard his voice and the man has no chance.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 27, 2023, 07:35:49 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 27, 2023, 01:01:43 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 26, 2023, 03:01:33 PMThe Empire Strikes Back.

I'd love it if the "corporations are people" bullshit comes to bite back the GOP.

More like states shall not impair contracts bullshit.
The Mouse is going to 1776 this shit on them.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on April 27, 2023, 08:41:40 AM
If all goes to shit, Disney can still invite a few Justices to the Magic Kingdom. As friends.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on April 27, 2023, 08:52:31 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 27, 2023, 05:06:09 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 26, 2023, 08:24:26 PMFeeling more certain about my prediction that DeSantis will not run.
Agree - I've also heard his voice and the man has no chance.

But does he know it?

I've got my fingers crossed for a fasc on fasc bloodbath with Trump.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on April 27, 2023, 09:50:49 AM
The Republican party is the only party that will protect ALL jobs.
Link (https://www.vice.com/en/article/epvx47/republicans-worried-police-dogs-legal-weed)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on April 27, 2023, 10:59:47 AM
(https://i.redd.it/gdwyi9pmpgwa1.jpg)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 27, 2023, 11:19:12 AM
That's it!  No more pants for women!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on April 27, 2023, 11:19:28 AM
Huh. Who knew transgender employees was such a problem in the Ag Commission?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on April 27, 2023, 11:20:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2023, 11:19:12 AMThat's it!  No more pants for women!

Well that is the other thing. Clothes are not quite as gendered, even in office clothes, as they were even a few decades ago.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on April 27, 2023, 11:49:43 AM
Wait, these are the folks worried about the nanny state?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on April 27, 2023, 11:54:21 AM
Quote from: PDH on April 27, 2023, 11:49:43 AMWait, these are the folks worried about the nanny state?

As long as the nanny is wearing "biological gender appropriate" clothing I suppose they're okay with it. So no Mrs. Doubtfire, I suppose.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 27, 2023, 12:03:19 PM
There are some interesting and tricky public policy debates to be had over transgender people: youth transitions, sports, female only spaces like prisons or women's shelters...

But the MAGA GOP isn't interested in nuance.  They're going all-in on being anti-trans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on April 27, 2023, 12:44:10 PM
Yeah, it's very clear the GOP has gone all in on casting trans-folk the witches in their witch hunt. It is obvious that their MO is to look for targets for hate and go all in on that hate as their political strategy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on April 27, 2023, 03:00:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 27, 2023, 12:44:10 PMYeah, it's very clear the GOP has gone all in on casting trans-folk the witches in their witch hunt. It is obvious that their MO is to look for targets for hate and go all in on that hate as their political strategy.

I've used the witch hunt analogy myself.  It's scary to consider what effect the witch hunts are potentially going to have on the physical safety of trans individuals.  The first trans Mathew Shepherd is probably going to be found dead sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on April 27, 2023, 03:09:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2023, 03:00:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 27, 2023, 12:44:10 PMYeah, it's very clear the GOP has gone all in on casting trans-folk the witches in their witch hunt. It is obvious that their MO is to look for targets for hate and go all in on that hate as their political strategy.

I've used the witch hunt analogy myself.  It's scary to consider what effect the witch hunts are potentially going to have on the physical safety of trans individuals.  The first trans Mathew Shepherd is probably going to be found dead sooner rather than later.

That will be tragic.   

Countries like Canada will likely welcome them with open arms as asylum claimants.   
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 27, 2023, 03:33:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2023, 03:00:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 27, 2023, 12:44:10 PMYeah, it's very clear the GOP has gone all in on casting trans-folk the witches in their witch hunt. It is obvious that their MO is to look for targets for hate and go all in on that hate as their political strategy.

I've used the witch hunt analogy myself.  It's scary to consider what effect the witch hunts are potentially going to have on the physical safety of trans individuals.  The first trans Mathew Shepherd is probably going to be found dead sooner rather than later.

I think trans activists kind of overplay their hand on this point, but I'm quite positive the first trans Matthew Sheperd happened a long time ago.  Trans people are frequently the targets of unprovoked violence - even more so those in the sex trade.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on April 27, 2023, 04:37:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2023, 03:33:27 PMI think trans activists kind of overplay their hand on this point, but I'm quite positive the first trans Matthew Sheperd happened a long time ago.  Trans people are frequently the targets of unprovoked violence - even more so those in the sex trade.

How are they overplaying their hand on the victims of violence part? I don't see it myself, so I'm curious what I've missed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on April 27, 2023, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2023, 12:03:19 PMThere are some interesting and tricky public policy debates to be had over transgender people: youth transitions, sports, female only spaces like prisons or women's shelters...

But the MAGA GOP isn't interested in nuance.  They're going all-in on being anti-trans.

This is my feeling on it. Like a lot of people, especially ones who spent most of their lives as Republicans, I think there are situations where the progressive desire to always accept someone's gender identity creates results I don't like.

I don't really think biological males should, generally speaking, participate in women's sports in most circumstances. But I also think we can fairly safely leave that up to sports bodies and such to regulate and figure out the right answer on. One of the issues for example with the transgender NCAA swimmer is she was allowed to compete against women after I believe only 12 months of hormone treatment, while I think more rigorous research suggests that someone under hormone treatment is likely to still benefit from their biological sex and the effects of decades of growing up with biological male hormones for several years after starting hormone treatment.

I am also skeptical of the treatment of minors with sex hormones and definitely any sort of surgical intervention (I think almost all doctors are against surgical interventions for minors.) But, again--I also think we can somewhat let the professionals and the parents involved figure it out.

A big reason I'm against these heavy handed government approaches to these questions is transgender people are a shockingly small part of the population.

The Utah Governor, in vetoing a ban on trans people participating in sports--made note that there was something like 2 or 3 kids in the whole state who would be affected by the ban. He, obviously, is a Republican, but he said he wasn't comfortable using his office to target a few kids. I'm pretty sure his veto was overridden, but that's largely my attitude on it.

Trans issues are complex and require individualized and expert approaches to handle, and on top of that I think almost none of them are "ripe" for valid government intervention. Government should not be the first step to settling such issues, but a last resort.

The GOP is clearly just using a very small and vulnerable population as a boogeyman in complete disregard to the harm it might cause, and that is gravely immoral.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on April 27, 2023, 04:59:22 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 27, 2023, 04:42:45 PMThe GOP is clearly just using a very small and vulnerable population as a boogeyman in complete disregard to the harm it might cause, and that is gravely immoral.

I've never identified myself as a libertarian, but "live and let live" is a pretty good rule to live by most of the time.

Even if you don't accept a trans person as being their claimed identity, it costs nothing to treat them with basic human dignity and respect.  Let people dress as they want to dress, be called what they want to be called, and live their life as they want to live it.

But to cause specific harm to people who pose no risk just to seek some kind of political gain is just disgusting.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on April 27, 2023, 05:13:55 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 27, 2023, 04:42:45 PMOne of the issues for example with the transgender NCAA swimmer is she was allowed to compete against women after I believe only 12 months of hormone treatment, while I think more rigorous research suggests that someone under hormone treatment is likely to still benefit from their biological sex and the effects of decades of growing up with biological male hormones for several years after starting hormone treatment.

Lia Thomas had completed more than three years of HRT by the time she became a championship-caliber swimmer, and in fact had improved her time every year over those three.  The Air Force study of trans women found that, except for running times, trans women had no advantage over cis women by the end of the second year of HRT.

It's also important to note that Lia Thomas did win one national championship (as a fifth-year senior) but was still rated the number-36 swimmer in Div 1 NCAA swimming. Her history as a former male couldn't have been that big an advantage if 35 swimmers without that history were ranked ahead of her.

Sometime athletes win just because they put in the work.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on April 28, 2023, 03:54:54 AM
QuoteRon DeSantis to meet UK ministers on tour to boost foreign policy credentials
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 28, 2023, 07:55:58 AM
Wasn't Shepherd killed by a man who had fucked him and sold him drugs?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on April 28, 2023, 07:38:26 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2023, 05:13:55 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 27, 2023, 04:42:45 PMOne of the issues for example with the transgender NCAA swimmer is she was allowed to compete against women after I believe only 12 months of hormone treatment, while I think more rigorous research suggests that someone under hormone treatment is likely to still benefit from their biological sex and the effects of decades of growing up with biological male hormones for several years after starting hormone treatment.

Lia Thomas had completed more than three years of HRT by the time she became a championship-caliber swimmer, and in fact had improved her time every year over those three.  The Air Force study of trans women found that, except for running times, trans women had no advantage over cis women by the end of the second year of HRT.


Sometime athletes win just because they put in the work.
The Air Force study measured push ups, sit ups and running.
Conclusion:
QuoteSummary The 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women's events.
In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, fifth in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eighth in the 1650 freestyle.[17][18] According to an archived page of the swimming data website Swimcloud, Thomas was ranked 89th among male college swimmers for that season.[19]
In a race during January 2022 at a meet against UPenn's Ivy League rival Yale, Thomas finished in 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and Iszac Henig, a transgender man, who transitioned without hormone therapy.[20][21]
[...]

Conclusion
In this study, we confirmed that use of gender affirming hormones are associated with changes in athletic performance and demonstrated that the pretreatment differences between transgender and cis gender women persist beyond the 12 month time requirement currently being proposed for athletic competition by the World Athletics and the IOC.10 This study suggests that more than 12 months of testosterone suppression may be needed to ensure that transgender women do not have an unfair competitive advantage when participating in elite level athletic competition.

Running and swimming are very similar, they are endurance sports.  So Lia Thomas had a definite advantage over other participants when she began competing, as per your study.



QuoteIt's also important to note that Lia Thomas did win one national championship (as a fifth-year senior) but was still rated the number-36 swimmer in Div 1 NCAA swimming. Her history as a former male couldn't have been that big an advantage if 35 swimmers without that history were ranked ahead of her.

In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, fifth in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eighth in the 1650 freestyle.[17][18] According to an archived page of the swimming data website Swimcloud, Thomas was ranked 89th among male college swimmers for that season.[19]

In a race during January 2022 at a meet against UPenn's Ivy League rival Yale, Thomas finished in 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and Iszac Henig, a transgender man, who transitioned without hormone therapy.[20][21]



He was 554 when competing has a male in the 200 freestyle. She is now fifth in the 200 freestyle.
In that last competition when she finished 6th, the first place was won by a transgender man who wasn't on hormone therapy.

You can't say there's zero advantage to transgenders who compete in sports here.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on April 28, 2023, 08:17:20 PM
I am not saying there is zero advantage. Just that that advantage doesn't appear to have made as big of a difference as I would have thought so far. This has been a topic of discussion on Languish for over a decade now since trans athletes started competing and I have yet to see a big trend of trans athletes dominating. Sure you might find an example of a few winning but they aren't exactly crushing all comers.

But I will continue to watch with interest.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on April 28, 2023, 08:37:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2023, 08:17:20 PMI am not saying there is zero advantage. Just that that advantage doesn't appear to have made as big of a difference as I would have thought so far. This has been a topic of discussion on Languish for over a decade now since trans athletes started competing and I have yet to see a big trend of trans athletes dominating. Sure you might find an example of a few winning but they aren't exactly crushing all comers.

But I will continue to watch with interest.
The Airforce Study that Grumbler quoted concluded there was a significant difference in endurance after two years:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577

Sit ups and push ups are more about strength and it seems the difference lessened there.

The study had 222 participants, but 147 were rejected.  The researchers seems satisfied this was a large enough sample, but conclude there needs more testing to be done over a longer period time.  There are also other limits, like the dosage of the hormones each participant takes.

Most sports require endurance, not just brute strength.  Any training you do for any sport will require strength and endurance to achieve maximum level of performance.  Unless you qualify bridge as an olympic sport, maybe.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on April 28, 2023, 10:44:02 PM
Swimming is like running track.  It is about speed, not endurance.  The closest analogue to swimming in terms of the key muscle groups would be pushups.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 04, 2023, 01:43:25 PM
CPAC is holding an event with Hungarian conservatives in Hungary.

(https://i.redd.it/7vgd9j18tuxa1.jpg)

I thought anti-woke people were against "safe zones"? :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 04, 2023, 03:31:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2023, 10:44:02 PMSwimming is like running track.  It is about speed, not endurance.  The closest analogue to swimming in terms of the key muscle groups would be pushups.

Maybe in a sprint, but even then the good sprinters in both the pool and track are very strong.

Anything beyond a sprint in the pool is definitely about endurance.  Do just a 200 IM and, after you have caught your breath, tell me endurance had nothing to do with your ability to just finish the distance.  :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 05, 2023, 01:49:13 AM
(https://preview.redd.it/5iq6m8plguxa1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=efb79ce590effcff63c5886a0aee99f157bc3dca)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on May 05, 2023, 01:52:40 AM
:yawn:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on May 05, 2023, 02:15:52 AM
What's the turning point from European settlers to European immigrants?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Threviel on May 05, 2023, 02:47:04 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2023, 03:31:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2023, 10:44:02 PMSwimming is like running track.  It is about speed, not endurance.  The closest analogue to swimming in terms of the key muscle groups would be pushups.

Maybe in a sprint, but even then the good sprinters in both the pool and track are very strong.

Anything beyond a sprint in the pool is definitely about endurance.  Do just a 200 IM and, after you have caught your breath, tell me endurance had nothing to do with your ability to just finish the distance.  :P

Swimming is very much an endurance sport. The world records for a 100m or a 200m are up towards a minute or two, more comparable to 400m or 800m track than 100m.

Short course 50m takes about 20-25s for a top athlete.

I started swimming about three years ago and I was very much out of breath far far far earlier than I was out of strength (and I was out of both embarrassingly fast, ye gods the cramps). Swimming also uses most muscles in the body, depending on style.

Strength is probably more important in swimming than in running, but endurance trumps strength in my mind. The weak guy with endurance will beat the strong guy without every time.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2023, 03:06:43 AM
D'Nesh DSouzu is just a troll.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on May 05, 2023, 03:18:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2023, 03:06:43 AMD'Nesh DSouzu is just a troll.

Yep. No need to engage.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on May 05, 2023, 07:05:52 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 02:15:52 AMWhat's the turning point from European settlers to European immigrants?
Popery?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 11:19:20 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 02:15:52 AMWhat's the turning point from European settlers to European immigrants?

Mythology.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 05, 2023, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 02:15:52 AMWhat's the turning point from European settlers to European immigrants?

Racism
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 05, 2023, 12:19:11 PM
I think there can be a clear delineation.  Settlers go into wilderness to establish organized society, immigrants join the established society.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 05, 2023, 01:21:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2023, 12:19:11 PMI think there can be a clear delineation.  Settlers go into wilderness to establish organized society, immigrants join the established society.

What do you define as wilderness?

What settlers go into winderness to establish an organized society?  My ancestors came to Canada to take up an offer to "settle" on land to set up family farms.  None of my ancestors cared one wit about creating  an organized society.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 01:34:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2023, 01:21:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2023, 12:19:11 PMI think there can be a clear delineation.  Settlers go into wilderness to establish organized society, immigrants join the established society.

What do you define as wilderness?

What settlers go into winderness to establish an organized society?  My ancestors came to Canada to take up an offer to "settle" on land to set up family farms.  None of my ancestors cared one wit about creating  an organized society.
Creating, no, but joining, most likely yes?

Creating an organized society was for the early settlers of the 17th century.  There was no society* when Champlain came here with his first settlers.  Same for the first British down south, and the Dutch.

Once we had a few cities established, creating farms further away was simply a matter of joining the society, not recreating a new one, imho.

*As defined by Europeans.  Obviously, First Nations had their own societies, distinct from what Europeans would create.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Oexmelin on May 05, 2023, 01:41:53 PM
Indeed, what are the spaces that were wilderness?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on May 05, 2023, 01:49:20 PM
To our Europeans ancestors, I'd say anywhere where Europeans are not. If you are the first white to show up you are settling wilderness.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 05, 2023, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 05, 2023, 01:49:20 PMTo our Europeans ancestors, I'd say anywhere where Europeans are not. If you are the first white to show up you are settling wilderness.

My ancestors "settled" on land (wilderness?) that was not yet occupied by a European.  That was in the early 1900s. Hardly fits the definition DG provided.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on May 05, 2023, 03:46:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2023, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 05, 2023, 01:49:20 PMTo our Europeans ancestors, I'd say anywhere where Europeans are not. If you are the first white to show up you are settling wilderness.

My ancestors "settled" on land (wilderness?) that was not yet occupied by a European.  That was in the early 1900s. Hardly fits the definition DG provided.

I think it does. Your ancestors, like mine, were extending civilized society.*

*From their own colonialist perspective, obviously.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 04:11:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2023, 12:19:11 PMI think there can be a clear delineation.  Settlers go into wilderness to establish organized society, immigrants join the established society.

I think the key function of settlers in the North American context was to perform ethnic cleansing. The "wilderness" is a post-fact rationalization.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2023, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 04:11:27 PMI think the key function of settlers in the North American context was to perform ethnic cleansing. The "wilderness" is a post-fact rationalization.

The author of 1492 made the claim that when western settlers arrived large portions of North America were uninhabited because of diseases.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on May 05, 2023, 04:46:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2023, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 04:11:27 PMI think the key function of settlers in the North American context was to perform ethnic cleansing. The "wilderness" is a post-fact rationalization.

The author of 1492 made the claim that when western settlers arrived large portions of North America were uninhabited because of diseases.

But they also didn't mind "uninhabiting" areas that still had populations.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on May 05, 2023, 05:53:59 PM
Also consider what uninhabited means to a settled agricultural group vs a hunter gatherer group.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 06:08:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2023, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 04:11:27 PMI think the key function of settlers in the North American context was to perform ethnic cleansing. The "wilderness" is a post-fact rationalization.

The author of 1492 made the claim that when western settlers arrived large portions of North America were uninhabited because of diseases.
It depends when and where.

There was multiple waves of settlers.

When Mexicans made first contact in the South of US, they depopulated large area there.

When Cartier made first contact in the North, he depopulated large area there, since by the time of Champlain, there was no one in the valley.

But Champlain met people in Nova Scotia and hostiles in Massachussets.  And English settlers entered into conflict with locals in Massachussets pretty early on.

And as the French settlements grew and they started trading, they met plenty of Indian villages for which they drew maps.

So, the claim that "there was no one" when settlers arrived is dubious.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 06:16:10 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 05, 2023, 01:49:20 PMTo our Europeans ancestors, I'd say anywhere where Europeans are not. If you are the first white to show up you are settling wilderness.
Vancouver became a city in 1886, just before the railway reached it.

By the early 1900s, all of Canada's major cities were linked by the railroad.  There were no roaming Indian bands, no American attacks, no rebellions.

I don't know if CCs ancestors were in BC or elsewhere in the West, but they weren't far from a railroad station as that is how settlers coming from the UK were sent West.

They had stores, they had a church, schools, a postal officer, all of this land belonged to Canada, not the Hudson Bay Company.  I wouldn't say it was wilderness, it was actively being developed.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on May 05, 2023, 08:10:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2023, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 04:11:27 PMI think the key function of settlers in the North American context was to perform ethnic cleansing. The "wilderness" is a post-fact rationalization.

The author of 1492 made the claim that when western settlers arrived large portions of North America were uninhabited because of diseases.

Some of the books I enjoy reading are first-hand accounts of explorers/settlers, etc (Lewis & Clark for example...I bought their complete/un-redacted journals some while back).  Especially the Pacific Northwest (my homeland). 

One of the common themes I have noticed in them is accounts of multitudes of abandoned/unused native villages (some even speculated do to disease) and those that were inhabited having the lingering after-affects of smallpox.   
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on May 07, 2023, 08:57:21 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2023, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 04:11:27 PMI think the key function of settlers in the North American context was to perform ethnic cleansing. The "wilderness" is a post-fact rationalization.

The author of 1492 made the claim that when western settlers arrived large portions of North America were uninhabited because of diseases.

I'm not familiar with the book but in some contexts this is true for North American colonization.

One of the most striking contexts is actually the English colonization of North America--particularly in New England.

Due to IMO poorly explaining this in many basic education courses on American history, there is a really low information narrative around the Plymouth colony, the Mayflower settlers etc that they were not just some of North America's earliest English colonists, but that they were essentially landing on virgin lands Europeans had no real contact with.

The reality is that European whalers, trading groups, and various exploration groups had been in regular contact with Native Americans all up and down the North American seaboard for several generations. In fact they even sometimes setup deliberately temporary outposts for trade and other economic activity. [For example, there were settlements on Newfoundland, that while not the first permanent, continuously inhabited settlements, did predate Plymouth, Jamestown and even Roanoke Colony in terms of English settlement of North America.] There were actually lots of itinerant camps and outposts used by Spanish, Portuguese, English etc traders / fishing crews etc that were heavily active throughout North America going back even to the late 15th century.

When the early English settlements that were intended to become permanent colonies started to be established in the very early 17th century, there had been significant contact with Europeans for many of these native groups for a long time. This had devastating biological consequences in the form of the transmission of deadly diseases. One of the early "lucky" successes for the Plymouth Colony was they actually found a significant native food store, that helped them immensely in their first winter. This native food store was not associated with any living natives, because the village that created it was massively depopulated from disease and abandoned not long before the Plymouth colonists landed--again, because European diseases had started spreading rapidly throughout the native population.

Large scale settlement of the "West", beyond just trading posts, here the West really means anything West of the Appalachias, absolutely benefitted from the fact that disease had moved Westward far faster than major European settlements did. Regions like the Northwest Territory, large swathes of the Mississippi River Valley, etc were ravaged by disease and had much lower native populations by the time large scale white settlement occurred than it would have had say, 150 years prior.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2023, 12:44:22 PM
Lower population, yes.

DeSoto's expedition devastated the natives' settlements there in the south.

But in Massachussets, Champlain was greated by a hail of arrows and lances as he tried to land to prospect the terrain for a colony.

The British settlers founded the Plymouth colony in 1620.  By 1675, they were at war with the Wanpanoag of the same area.  I wouldn't say it was a land with no one.  There were frictions from the start. 

There were much less people then there should have been because of the disease, and the Iroquois 5 nation league, with less direct contact to the settlers, at first, benefited from this and attacked the other Indian nation.

As the US expanded, they kept entering into conflict with other nations and sign treaties to have them cede their lands.  The French faced similar problems once they started colonizing around the Great Lakes area.

In the Great Plains area, I know less about the population.  I know they were nomads, I know they faced epidemics and warfare from tribes moving west before the settlers came in, but I don't think it was as empty as Yi's book claims.

But like Josquius says, nomads have a different way of occupying land than agricultural settlers.  They have small encampments to follow the bison herds mostly.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on May 07, 2023, 12:51:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2023, 01:21:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2023, 12:19:11 PMI think there can be a clear delineation.  Settlers go into wilderness to establish organized society, immigrants join the established society.

What do you define as wilderness?

What settlers go into winderness to establish an organized society?  My ancestors came to Canada to take up an offer to "settle" on land to set up family farms.  None of my ancestors cared one wit about creating  an organized society.

Are you a Kaczynski?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on May 10, 2023, 04:45:15 AM
George Santos charged: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/george-santos-charged-justice-department/index.html
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Solmyr on May 10, 2023, 10:11:14 AM
Now arrested.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Hamilcar on May 10, 2023, 12:47:06 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 10, 2023, 04:45:15 AMGeorge Santos charged: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/george-santos-charged-justice-department/index.html


I can't believe they did this to the first black female senator!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on May 10, 2023, 12:50:15 PM
Hope this doesn't stop the investigation into his stealing puppies from the Amish <_<
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 10, 2023, 01:44:53 PM
Only Santos could commit a fraud that was itself fraudulent.  The man is like a mobius strip of mendacity.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 14, 2023, 09:58:29 AM
https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-law-ends-automatic-due-payments-for-teachers-unions-2023-5

QuoteFlorida teacher's union sues DeSantis over a new law that forces teachers to pay union dues through mail-in checks

Florida's largest teacher's union sued Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday over a bill he signed into law that will require teachers who want to be in unions to mail in checks every month.

The union accused DeSantis of punishing "disfavored unions" through the law given that the new, "draconian" restrictions applied to some labor groups but not those representing firefighter and police officers — groups that back the governor politically.

Under the new law, teacher union dues would no longer get automatically deducted from their paychecks, as they do in most unions across the US. The law was widely panned by Florida Democrats as "union busting" and Florida Education Association president Andrew Spar described it as "political retribution" during a press conference Wednesday.

The law imposes additional responsibilities on unions, including mandating new reporting to the state on the number of employees eligible for membership and how many ended up enrolling. Those with less than 60% membership would need to reapply for certification.

On average, roughly 60% of teachers in Florida are paying dues toward their unions, a Florida Senate analysis found
.

The changes will make it harder for unions to exist and pile red tape onto teachers, Florida Senate Democratic Leader Lauren Book said in a statement.

"We can trust teachers to make their own personal choices in how they spend their hard-earned money, and attempting to silence the groups that advocate for better pay and better working conditions is unconstitutional and undemocratic," she said.

Politically, the bill's signing represented a win for DeSantis, who has battled teacher's unions since the COVID pandemic and first proposed the change to union dues in December 2022. 

Teachers' unions have been one of the governor's top foes, particularly starting in the fall of 2020 after they resisted his push to reopen schools during the pandemic over safety fears, and after DeSantis banned mask mandates in classrooms.

Even Charlie Crist, a former congressman and DeSantis' failed 2022 Democratic challenger, picked Miami-Dade's teachers' union boss, Karla Hernández-Mats, as his running mate. School unions tend to give to Democrats over Republicans in political races.

DeSantis accused unions of being "political organizations" that weren't "looking out for the interests" of parents and students.

"The school unions have become very partisan," DeSantis said Tuesday. "That's not what school is about.
"

DeSantis' crusade to reshape public education in Florida has led to conservative accolades and liberal backlash, helping the governor consistently rank in second place in polling for a hypothetical 2024 Republican presidential primary behind former President Donald Trump.

The governor hasn't said whether he'll run, but he's expected to announce a presidential bid sometime this month or next once he has finished authorizing Florida's budget and signing more bills into law.

During the November elections, DeSantis made reshaping school boards one of his top priorities. Among DeSantis' other most controversial education policies are bills he signed into law to limit the way race, gender, and sexuality are taught in public schools. He has defended the changes on the grounds that parents should have a say on what their children learn, though it has led to confusion in certain districts, including book removals.

The governor also expanded vouchers for families to use state money to pay for private or charter schools, while public school educators in Florida lament that they're deeply underfunded and understaffed.

The new Florida anti-union law creates another hurdle for organized labor in Florida, whose "Right to Work" status is enshrined in the state constitution. Under current law, Florida workers can opt out of joining a union, which in turn restricts unions from collecting dues from employees who benefit from negotiated worker protections, as well as pay increases and healthcare benefits.

During Tuesday's press conference, DeSantis stressed that he planned to approve more than $1 billion in teacher pay increases when he tackles the state budget. The amount is $252 million higher than the state's current level.

Florida comes in at 48th in the nation for average teacher salaries, according to the National Education Association.

"Gov. DeSantis talks about empowering teachers, but what we see is the opposite," Spar said in a statement Tuesday. "Florida's critical shortage of teachers and staff has only grown worse under this governor's policies, and we fully expect that trend to continue."

The group filed its lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District Court of Florida, under the First Amendment's free speech provisions, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and the contracts clause of the US Constitution. The case was assigned to District Judge Mark Walker, an Obama appointee and the same judge Walt Disney World asked to weigh in regarding its lawsuit against DeSantis.

DeSantis framed the anti-union move as "paycheck protection" for teachers, saying it would "lead to more take-home pay."

On Tuesday, he signed other measures into law, including one that would give teachers the right to ban phones from their classrooms and another that created term limits for school board members.



This bit:

QuoteDeSantis accused unions of being "political organizations" that weren't "looking out for the interests" of parents and students.

"The school unions have become very partisan," DeSantis said Tuesday. "That's not what school is about.

Unlike police unions who obviously look out for the interests of citizens and have no partisan interests, I guess?  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2023, 10:27:16 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 14, 2023, 09:58:29 AM
QuoteDeSantis accused unions of being "political organizations" that weren't "looking out for the interests" of parents and students.

"The school unions have become very partisan," DeSantis said Tuesday. "That's not what school is about.

Unlike police unions who obviously look out for the interests of citizens and have no partisan interests, I guess?  :rolleyes:

You seem to be missing the point.
School is supposed to be about teaching Christianity, fake stories about American history, and sheltering kids from reality.  Teacher's unions are getting in the way of all that.  Also books.

Policing is supposed to be turning out votes for the governor and making sure the wrong sort don't wander into gated communities.  Police unions are doing just fine with that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on May 15, 2023, 06:23:53 PM
The GOP has lot its whistleblowers in Biden's case (https://www.rawstory.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-whistleblowers/?recip_id=731234&list_id=1)

Ah, apparently, they managed to lose 9 out of their 10 witnesses who saw acts of corruption by Biden and his family and the 10 is hiding somewhere.  Depending on whom you ask, they may or may not know where to find him.

Must be the Clintons again.
;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 17, 2023, 01:02:49 AM
Guess someone didn't chase Jesus enough. :(

(https://i.redd.it/elm2poukt90b1.png)

(https://preview.redd.it/m44svn70db0b1.png?width=546&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=5a683774cc956930e38bec4b1b18b754707fcec5)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on May 17, 2023, 01:04:23 AM
Jesus Christ, leave Jesus alone, you crazy woman.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on May 17, 2023, 01:22:06 AM
What she didn't tell you was that Jesus was her gardener.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Hamilcar on May 17, 2023, 01:25:59 AM
Doesn't sound very biblical. Her neighbors should stone her.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 17, 2023, 01:35:02 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 17, 2023, 01:25:59 AMDoesn't sound very biblical. Her neighbors should stone her.

Parts of the GOP are looking to ban no-fault divorces, I'm sure it's one or two items below that on their agenda.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on May 30, 2023, 11:13:54 AM
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/iowa-gov-reynolds-signs-law-restricting-instruction-sexual-orientation-rcna86507

QuoteIowa Gov. Reynolds signs bill restricting instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity
Under the new law, school administrators will also be required to notify parents if students asked to change their pronouns or names.


DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa teachers will be banned from raising gender identity and sexual orientation issues with students through grade six, and all books depicting sex acts will be removed from school libraries, under a bill Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed Friday.

The new law is among similar measures that have been approved in other Republican-dominated statehouses around the country. As with many of those proposals, Iowa Republicans framed their action as a commonsense effort to ensure that parents can oversee what their children are learning in school and that teachers not delve into topics such as gender and sexuality.

Despite the opposition of all Democratic legislators, Republicans who hold large majorities in Iowa's state House and Senate approved the measure in April and there was little doubt that Reynolds would sign it; she had made issues related to gender identity and sexuality a focal point of her legislative agenda this year.

"This legislative session, we secured transformational education reform that puts parents in the driver's seat, eliminates burdensome regulations on public schools, provides flexibility to raise teacher salaries, and empowers teachers to prepare our kids for their future," Reynolds said in a statement.

Under the new law, school administrators also would be required to notify parents if students asked to change their pronouns or names. Religious texts will be exempt from the library ban on books depicting sex acts.

Democrats and LGBTQ groups argued that the restrictions would hurt children by limiting their ability to be open with teachers about gender and sexuality issues and to see their lives reflected in books and other curriculum.

The law's passage was not a surprise, said Keenan Crow, director of policy and advocacy at the LGBTQ equality group One Iowa.

"Like many other pieces of her agenda, this legislation punches down on a vulnerable group of kids, and it benefits no one," Crow said of Reynolds.

The law also requires schools to post online a list of books in libraries, along with instructions for parents on how to review them and classroom instructional material, and to request that any material be removed. Schools would need parental approval before they could give surveys to students related to numerous topics, including mental health issues, sex and political affiliation.

Earlier this year, Reynolds signed two bills into law restricting the restrooms transgender students can use and banning gender-affirming medical care, such as puberty blockers, for people younger than 18. Last year, Reynolds signed a Republican-backed measure that prohibits transgender women and girls from participating in high school and college athletics. Like the newest law, both measures echo bills passed by Republican states around the country.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 18, 2023, 02:40:20 AM
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/16/texas-heat-wave-water-break-construction-workers/

QuoteAs Texas swelters, local rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will soon be nullified

Gov. Greg Abbott approved this week a law that will eliminate city and county ordinances like Austin and Dallas' mandated water breaks. Texas is one of the states where most workers die from high temperatures.

In a week when parts of the state are getting triple-digit temperatures and weather officials urge Texans to stay cool and hydrated, Gov. Greg Abbott gave final approval to a law that will eliminate local rules mandating water breaks for construction workers.

House Bill 2127 was passed by the Texas Legislature during this year's regular legislative session. Abbott signed it Tuesday. It will go into effect on Sept. 1.

Supporters of the law have said it will eliminate a patchwork of local ordinances across the state that bog down businesses. The law's scope is broad but ordinances that establish minimum breaks in the workplace are one of the explicit targets. The law will nullify ordinances enacted by Austin in 2010 and Dallas in 2015 that established 10-minute breaks every four hours so that construction workers can drink water and protect themselves from the sun. It also prevents other cities from passing such rules in the future. San Antonio has been considering a similar ordinance.

Texas is the state where the most workers die from high temperatures, government data shows. At least 42 workers died in Texas between 2011 and 2021 from environmental heat exposure, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Workers' unions claim this data doesn't fully reflect the magnitude of the problem because heat-related deaths are often recorded under a different primary cause of injury.

This problem particularly affects Latinos because they represent six out of every 10 construction workers, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Unions expect heat-related deaths to go up if mandated water breaks go away.

"Construction is a deadly industry. Whatever the minimum protection is, it can save a life. We are talking about a human right," said Ana Gonzalez, deputy director of policy and politics at the Texas AFL-CIO. "We will see more deaths, especially in Texas' high temperatures."

The National Weather Service is forecasting highs over 100 degrees in several Texas cities for at least the next seven days.

Heat waves are extreme weather events, often more dangerous than tornadoes, severe thunderstorms or floods. High temperatures kill people, and not just in the workplace. Last year, there were 279 heat-related deaths in Texas, based on data analysis by The Texas Tribune.

In 2022, Texas saw its second-hottest summer on record, and an extreme drought swept the state. This summer is not expected to be as hot as the weather pattern known as La Niña eases, which typically brings dry conditions to Texas, state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon said.

Still, climate change amplifies the effects of heat waves, said Hosmay Lopez, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who studies heat waves. Climate change causes heat waves to stretch for longer periods of time, reach higher temperatures and occur more often than they would otherwise. The problem is especially pronounced in dry areas of the Southwest due to a lack of vegetation and soil moisture, which in wetter regions produces a cooling effect through evaporation.

At the same time, he added, increased urbanization across the U.S. — especially in places like Texas where cities are expanding — makes more people vulnerable to health dangers from extreme heat due to the "urban island" effect. Essentially, the combination of concrete and buildings, plus a lack of green spaces causes ground-level heat to radiate, increasing the temperature in cities.

"The impact of climate change on extreme heat is not only enhanced [by weather events] but also enhanced through social dynamics as well," Lopez said.

HB 2127, introduced by state Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, is perhaps Texas Republicans' most aggressive attempt to curb progressive policies in the state's largest, liberal-leaning cities. Under the new law, local governments would be unable to create rules that go beyond what state law dictates in broad areas like labor, agriculture, business and natural resources.

Beyond eliminating mandated water breaks for construction workers, opponents of the legislation argue that it will also make it more difficult for cities and counties to protect tenants facing eviction or to combat predatory lending, excessive noise and invasive species. Labor unions and workers' rights advocates opposed the law, while business organizations supported it, including the National Federation of Independent Business, a lobbying group with more than 20,000 members in Texas. Abbott said it would "provide a new hope to Texas businesses struggling under burdensome local regulations."

Supporters of HB 2127 say that local regulations on breaks for construction workers are unnecessary because the right to a safe labor environment is already guaranteed through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Water breaks are better solved by OSHA controls, argued Geoffrey Tahuahua, president of Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas. Tahuahua believes local rules impose a rigid scheme that, unlike OSHA guidelines, does not allow the flexibility needed to tailor breaks to individual job site conditions.

"They try to make one size fits all, and that is not how it should work," he said. "These ordinances just add confusion and encourage people to do the minimum instead of doing the right thing."

David Michaels, who was head of OSHA from 2009 to 2017, disagreed with the approach of HB 2127 proponents.

"Under OSHA law, it is employers who are responsible to make sure workers are safe," said Michaels, now a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health. "And we have compelling evidence that they are doing a very poor job because many workers are injured on the job, especially in Texas."

Michaels pointed out that OSHA does not have a national standard for heat-related illnesses and issues citations only for over-exposure to heat after an injury or death, but not before that occurs.

"The better solution would be to have a national standard, but since we do not, local ordinances are very important for saving lives," he said. "Prohibiting these local laws will result in workers being severely hurt or killed."

Gonzalez, from the Texas AFL-CIO, disagrees with the idea that local regulations hurt businesses.

Mandated water breaks "were passed in 2010 in Austin and construction is still growing, especially in the state's largest cities," Gonzalez said. "It is simply false, an excuse to limit local governments' power and an intrusion into democracy."

HB 2127 does not impede the enactment of a state law establishing mandatory breaks for construction workers, and during the regular session, two bills were filed to that effect.

House Bill 495, authored by Rep. Thresa Meza, D-Irving, sought to establish 10-minute mandatory breaks every four hours for contractors working for a governmental entity. House Bill 4673, by Rep. Maria Luisa Flores, D-Austin, would have created a statewide advisory board responsible for establishing standards to prevent heat illness in Texas workplaces and set penalties for employers who do not comply with them.

Neither bill made it through the legislative process.

Daniela Hernandez, state legislative coordinator for the Workers Defense Project, said she hopes legislators will push for a state law mandating water breaks for workers. She added that she would not discard the possibility that cities sue to try to keep their water break ordinances.

"Without an ordinance or a law, there is no safeguard. There is no guarantee that the worker will have those water breaks," he said. "We will keep fighting."

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on June 18, 2023, 03:26:39 AM
Bizarre
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on June 18, 2023, 03:31:29 AM
In a multi-tier legislative system, it is normal that lower tier legislators cannot overrule higher tiers. So Texas law breaking local ordinances is a feature, not a bug.

It does not help if the higher tier's core policy seems to be cruelty and nastiness though.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: mongers on June 18, 2023, 06:46:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2023, 03:26:39 AMBizarre

I wonder what would happen if the AC 'failed' for a few days in the state senate building and offices?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 18, 2023, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 18, 2023, 06:46:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2023, 03:26:39 AMBizarre

I wonder what would happen if the AC 'failed' for a few days in the state senate building and offices?

this?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_7ztecqmlg&ab_channel=feored
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on June 19, 2023, 12:56:43 PM
The construction industry mostly is filled with Trumpers working in it, let them burn I say. Zero sympathy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on June 21, 2023, 01:48:26 PM
https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4059467-abbott-signs-bill-banning-sexually-oriented-performances-in-texas/

QuoteAbbott signs bill banning 'sexually oriented performances' in Texas

Texas has become the latest in a growing number of states to pass legislation that LGBTQ rights groups say targets drag shows, banning "sexually oriented performances" that take place in the presence of minors.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) quietly signed the state's Senate Bill 12 into law June 18. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The measure, slated to take effect September 1, prohibits businesses from hosting "sexually oriented" performances in which someone is nude or appeals to the "prurient interest in sex" in the presence of minors. Those who break the law are likely to face hefty fines — up to $10,000 per violation.

Performers face much harsher penalties, and those caught violating the law's new restrictions on drag shows could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

An earlier version of the bill, introduced in March by state Sen. Bryan Hughes (R), sought to explicitly ban certain drag performances, but House and Senate lawmakers in March agreed to remove the direct references to drag, opting instead to expand what the state considers an illegal public performance of "sexual conduct."

Drag performers and LGBTQ civil rights groups have argued that the amended legislation is still likely to be used to restrict drag shows and could even target transgender people in Texas.

Even after state lawmakers removed direct references to drag, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) said the new law would "push back against the radical left's disgusting drag performances" in a statement celebrating the bill's passage last month.

"Children, who cannot make decisions on their own, must be protected from this scourge facing our state," Patrick said.

Texas joins three other states — Tennessee, Montana and Florida — in adopting legislation restricting drag performances.


1. I assume cheerleaders are not considered "sexually oriented" performances in which someone is nude or appeals to the "prurient interest in sex"? :unsure:

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61hYrtbueAL._AC_UY1100_.jpg)

2. Since GOP is so obsessed with protecting children "who cannot make decisions on their own" from being exposed to sexually suggestive performances (and generally being sexualized), I assume child beauty pageants will be in their sights soon? :)

https://www.universalroyalty.com/beauty-pageant-photos.html
QuoteIs your daughter the most beautiful child in Texas? Prove it!
We host the nation's best baby pageants, beauty pageants, little miss beauty contests for babies, children, teens, adults, boys and girls of all ages.
(https://www.universalroyalty.com/image/129322268.png)
(https://www.universalroyalty.com/image/129322269.png)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Savonarola on June 23, 2023, 03:02:18 PM
Marjorie Taylor Greene calls Lauren Boebert 'a little b----' on the House floor (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/marjorie-taylor-greene-calls-lauren-boebert-little-b-house-floor-gop-p-rcna90592)

In the 18th Century you had to go to the opera (https://www.classicfm.com/composers/handel/guides/handel-and-battle-divas/) for battling divas.  Now we can just watch C-Span.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on June 23, 2023, 03:18:04 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 23, 2023, 03:02:18 PMMarjorie Taylor Greene calls Lauren Boebert 'a little b----' on the House floor (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/marjorie-taylor-greene-calls-lauren-boebert-little-b-house-floor-gop-p-rcna90592)

In the 18th Century you had to go to the opera (https://www.classicfm.com/composers/handel/guides/handel-and-battle-divas/) for battling divas.  Now we can just watch C-Span.

And the funny thing is that their catfight is over whose moronic impeachment bill for Biden should be voted on first.  :lol:

Stupid is as Boebert does.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on June 23, 2023, 04:02:02 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 21, 2023, 01:48:26 PM]

1. I assume cheerleaders are not considered "sexually oriented" performances in which someone is nude or appeals to the "prurient interest in sex"? :unsure:

img]

2. Since GOP is so obsessed with protecting children "who cannot make decisions on their own" from being exposed to sexually suggestive performances (and generally being sexualized), I assume child beauty pageants will be in their sights soon? :)

https://www.universalroyalty.com/beauty-pageant-photos.html
QuoteIs your daughter the most beautiful child in Texas? Prove it!
We host the nation's best baby pageants, beauty pageants, little miss beauty contests for babies, children, teens, adults, boys and girls of all ages.
[ge/129322269.png[/img]

Surely you're not implying republicans are dishonest hypocrites :o
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on June 23, 2023, 06:01:43 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 23, 2023, 03:02:18 PMMarjorie Taylor Greene calls Lauren Boebert 'a little b----' on the House floor (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/marjorie-taylor-greene-calls-lauren-boebert-little-b-house-floor-gop-p-rcna90592)
In across the ocean Russian assets are fighting each other today.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on June 24, 2023, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2023, 06:01:43 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 23, 2023, 03:02:18 PMMarjorie Taylor Greene calls Lauren Boebert 'a little b----' on the House floor (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/marjorie-taylor-greene-calls-lauren-boebert-little-b-house-floor-gop-p-rcna90592)
In across the ocean Russian assets are fighting each other today.
:D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 01, 2023, 12:03:19 PM
(https://i.redd.it/bnjeu5oe1d9b1.jpg) 

:hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 02, 2023, 07:16:45 PM
First they came for the Radical left gays but I did not speak up as I was not radical left.

But granted these days they act like the wanting things like public schools is radically leftist so who knows? Maybe they were coming for you all along.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zoupa on July 02, 2023, 08:06:33 PM
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/870/771/f1e.png)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on July 06, 2023, 02:38:45 PM
https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 07, 2023, 09:32:01 PM
(https://i.redd.it/uit2dof0tlab1.png)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 09:43:02 PM
 :lol:

I wonder what kind he drinks
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on July 08, 2023, 02:31:04 AM
Thanks for posting that Viper, I'm starting Saturday morning off in a very genial mood now  :cool:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2023, 02:48:57 AM
 :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 08, 2023, 04:10:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2023, 02:38:45 PMhttps://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Hamilcar on July 08, 2023, 09:44:23 AM
Mmm yes please hand me one of those delicious meat based beers. Yum.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Duque de Bragança on July 08, 2023, 10:00:07 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 09:43:02 PM:lol:

I wonder what kind he drinks

Old-school Guinness I guess.  :hmm:

I think they removed the need for fish some years ago, however.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 08, 2023, 10:25:01 AM
An interesting detail has come to my attention: the respondent in the recent Creative LLC v. Elenis decision by the USSC allowing for discrimination against protected minorities does not exist.  And the court knew that before they issued their ruling.  The case was fabricated to get the issue on front of the Supreme Court, probably knowing (as, indeed, it turned out to be the case) that no lower court would rule in its favor.

It is also noteworthy that the majority opinion argued that enforcing Colorado's anti-discrimination laws would result in things like "the government" forcing "an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message." Film making is not a public accommodation.

The fact that the case was entirely fabricated seems not to have bothered any court in the chain.  It seems to me that the courts should have rejected the case as without merit unless the plaintiff chose to sue that true respondent, the state of Colorado.  Can any of the law talkers here explain why all three levels of the federal courts chose to accept the case knowing that it was founded on a lie?  And why did not any of the federal courts force the plaintiff to first sue through the state courts?

I am concerned that these sorts of tailored cases, designed to allow the Supreme Court's conservative majority to impose its will, even in the absence of an actual legal harm, will proliferate. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 08, 2023, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 08, 2023, 04:10:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2023, 02:38:45 PMhttps://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.

I thought it was Paul.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on July 08, 2023, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2023, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 08, 2023, 04:10:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2023, 02:38:45 PMhttps://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.

I thought it was Paul.

Eddie is of course correct.  Brain fart.   :Embarrass:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 08, 2023, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2023, 10:25:01 AMAn interesting detail has come to my attention: the respondent in the recent Creative LLC v. Elenis decision by the USSC allowing for discrimination against protected minorities does not exist.  And the court knew that before they issued their ruling.  The case was fabricated to get the issue on front of the Supreme Court, probably knowing (as, indeed, it turned out to be the case) that no lower court would rule in its favor.

It is also noteworthy that the majority opinion argued that enforcing Colorado's anti-discrimination laws would result in things like "the government" forcing "an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message." Film making is not a public accommodation.

The fact that the case was entirely fabricated seems not to have bothered any court in the chain.  It seems to me that the courts should have rejected the case as without merit unless the plaintiff chose to sue that true respondent, the state of Colorado.  Can any of the law talkers here explain why all three levels of the federal courts chose to accept the case knowing that it was founded on a lie?  And why did not any of the federal courts force the plaintiff to first sue through the state courts?

I am concerned that these sorts of tailored cases, designed to allow the Supreme Court's conservative majority to impose its will, even in the absence of an actual legal harm, will proliferate. 

I saw that, too, and apparently the court argued that regardless of whether the injured party didn't exist there was merit in arguing the case (or something to that effect?). Which seems like a blank check to bring any kind of pet issues in front of them "if it's worth ruling on." It's amusing when thinking back to the 90s/00s and Republicans moaning about "activist judges".
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 08, 2023, 11:42:33 AM
Oh and:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0NryV3WcA8wsby?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on July 08, 2023, 01:12:23 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 08, 2023, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2023, 10:25:01 AMAn interesting detail has come to my attention: the respondent in the recent Creative LLC v. Elenis decision by the USSC allowing for discrimination against protected minorities does not exist.  And the court knew that before they issued their ruling.  The case was fabricated to get the issue on front of the Supreme Court, probably knowing (as, indeed, it turned out to be the case) that no lower court would rule in its favor.

It is also noteworthy that the majority opinion argued that enforcing Colorado's anti-discrimination laws would result in things like "the government" forcing "an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message." Film making is not a public accommodation.

The fact that the case was entirely fabricated seems not to have bothered any court in the chain.  It seems to me that the courts should have rejected the case as without merit unless the plaintiff chose to sue that true respondent, the state of Colorado.  Can any of the law talkers here explain why all three levels of the federal courts chose to accept the case knowing that it was founded on a lie?  And why did not any of the federal courts force the plaintiff to first sue through the state courts?

I am concerned that these sorts of tailored cases, designed to allow the Supreme Court's conservative majority to impose its will, even in the absence of an actual legal harm, will proliferate. 

I saw that, too, and apparently the court argued that regardless of whether the injured party didn't exist there was merit in arguing the case (or something to that effect?). Which seems like a blank check to bring any kind of pet issues in front of them "if it's worth ruling on." It's amusing when thinking back to the 90s/00s and Republicans moaning about "activist judges".
I could be wrong in the US but in the UK once you get to appeals court or Surpeme Court level, they don't really investigate or hear evidence on the facts of the case. So the reasons that a lower court might legitimately throw the case out aren't necessarily going to be sort of thing you can submit in the higher courts - they are there to hear the points of law only.

Similarly in Europe, the CJEU isn't a court of appeal but you can see cases that go to the CJEU because the court accepts an argument that there's an EU law point that needs clarifying. So the case goes for a couple of years to the CJEU but once it gets back to the domestic court it either settles very quickly, may get kicked out or otherwise goes nowhere. The CJEU doesn't rule on facts, it doesn't establish or inquire about facts - that is the job of the domestic court.

It may be that the lower court fluffed and should have kicked the case out, but my understanding from a UK perspective is that sort of thing isn't really something the Supreme Court would look at or be interested in.

On the tailored cases - I think that's just the nature of the beast and has always been the way it works if you doing any form of legal activism. Civil rights and feminist activists looked for the perfect claims in the hope of getting to the Supreme Court - I think of the landmark sex discrimination case which I think was actually about discrmination against men in a unviersity but allowed a far wider point to be made about discrimination on the basis of sex. I think looking for a sympathetic fact pattern to try and get to the Supreme Court is an awful lot of what the conservative legal movement does (and has perfected).

But I think it is in the nature of any legal strategy to make change on public policy. I was speaking recently to a lawyer who is acting on a big claim against Facebook in the UK which is being funded by various activist groups - and the facts are shocking. The claimant found she was being put into Facebook segments with titles like "post-natal depression", "LGBT issues", "mental health" - but the whole case is somewhat abstract. She was working with lawyers and activists from the start to build her claim - she used Facebook as normal (as a new mum) and made data subject requests and objections about what they were doing with her data at various points to build up the legal picture. There's another activist public law group who keep losing precisely because their claimants don't have standing so the cases get thrown out at first instance (although they're not really trying to set precedent).

There's a really interesting book that touches on part of this in the US called Public Citizens about public interest activism - particularly Ralph Nader but also the environmental movement in the 60s and 70s.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 08, 2023, 03:26:59 PM
I am as mystified as you.  Should not have happened.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 08, 2023, 08:52:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2023, 10:25:01 AMAn interesting detail has come to my attention: the respondent in the recent Creative LLC v. Elenis decision by the USSC allowing for discrimination against protected minorities does not exist.  And the court knew that before they issued their ruling.  The case was fabricated to get the issue on front of the Supreme Court, probably knowing (as, indeed, it turned out to be the case) that no lower court would rule in its favor.
My understanding is that he did exist, but he was a straight married man.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on July 09, 2023, 07:35:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2023, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2023, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 08, 2023, 04:10:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2023, 02:38:45 PMhttps://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.

I thought it was Paul.

Eddie is of course correct.  Brain fart.  :Embarrass:

To hear is to obey. -_-
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2023, 02:45:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2023, 10:25:01 AMThe fact that the case was entirely fabricated seems not to have bothered any court in the chain.  It seems to me that the courts should have rejected the case as without merit unless the plaintiff chose to sue that true respondent, the state of Colorado.  Can any of the law talkers here explain why all three levels of the federal courts chose to accept the case knowing that it was founded on a lie?  And why did not any of the federal courts force the plaintiff to first sue through the state courts?

The Respondent was Aubrey Elenis - a Colorado state official, she does exist.  The Petitioner is an LLC which also exists in the sense that it is (and was) an LLC registered and in good standing with the state of Colorado.  Assuming proper standing, a federal forum would be appropriate as the suit asserts violations of the Federal Constitution.  In civil law there is no requirement to exhaust state remedies.

Everything else you've said is well put and I don't have a good answer to most.  Lorie Smith is the Joe the Plumber of wedding website designers, with visions in her head of a parade of an imaginary parade of horribles to be visited upon her in the conduct of a business that is not in fact her business. Except that this Joe the Plumber is backed by a $100 million Christian legal defense fund with money to burn on attorney time and many legal axes to grind.

The case makes a complete mockery of the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence. It is as you say a completely fake, manufactured "dispute" over whether someone's internal mental fantasies may conflict with some aspect of state law.

I don't know why the 10th Circuit found standing exists here.  I don't really know that Court very well. or those judges, or their motivation.  Some more liberal judges don't like restrictive standing doctrine - they believe, with some reason that e.g. environmental groups should be able to sue when the EPA is negligent and doesn't enforce the law.  There may be some other motivation I'm not aware of.

As for the Supreme Court, I can't imagine those six judges finding standing here if the proposed ideological outcome were different.  THe three dissenters wanted to address the merits rather than debate abstractions about standing.
 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2023, 02:49:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2023, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 08, 2023, 04:10:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2023, 02:38:45 PMhttps://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.

I thought it was Paul.

It's the ghost of Joseph, still haunting us all.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 10, 2023, 03:50:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2023, 02:49:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2023, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 08, 2023, 04:10:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2023, 02:38:45 PMhttps://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.

I thought it was Paul.

It's the ghost of Joseph, still haunting us all.

The GOP may be misinterpreting the message of that ghost of persecutions past.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Savonarola on July 14, 2023, 12:19:55 PM
https://www.businessinsider.com/matt-gaetz-russia-not-ukraine-join-nato-anti-china-alliance-2023-7?op=1 (https://www.businessinsider.com/matt-gaetz-russia-not-ukraine-join-nato-anti-china-alliance-2023-7?op=1)

QuoteMatt Gaetz is back on the anti-Ukraine hamster wheel and floating the suggestion that Russia, not Ukraine, should be part of NATO so the organization can become an anti-China alliance

GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, who's not been shy about his anti-Ukraine views, thinks NATO could be better off with Russia instead of Ukraine as a member country.

"Why would you pick Ukraine? Why not extend NATO to Russia and make it an anti-China alliance?" the Florida Republican told Newsmax on Tuesday.

"Are we really thinking that we're more afraid of the broke-down tanks from Russia than the fact that China is building a secret military base on the island of Cuba, 90 miles away from the United States?" Gaetz added.

His comments came amid an eventful NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, where the alliance's member countries stopped short of extending an invitation to Ukraine to join it.

The State Department referred Insider to comments given by spokesperson Matthew Miller during his press briefings on Tuesday and Wednesday. During the press briefing on Tuesday, Miller said the alliance "has made clear that Ukraine will become a member of NATO."

"Over the past several years, Ukraine has become increasingly interoperable and politically integrated with the Alliance and has made substantial progress on its reform path," Miller said.

This is not the first time Gaetz has expressed his disapproval of US support for Ukraine amidst the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

On February 9, Gaetz introduced a House resolution calling on the US to "end its military and financial aid to Ukraine." The resolution also urged combatants to "reach a peace agreement."   

More recently, Gaetz slammed the Biden administration's decision to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine. The Florida Republican said in a tweet dated July 10 that he is co-sponsoring a measure to block the transfer.

"These cluster bombs will not end the war in Ukraine and will not build a more stable country," Gaetz wrote in his tweet.

And Gaetz is not the only Republican lawmaker who is against US involvement in the Ukraine war. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who supported Gaetz's resolution in February, introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would direct the "President to withdraw the US from NATO."

"They are not a reliable partner whose defense spending should be paid for by American citizens," Greene said on Tuesday while introducing her amendment.

"Western European countries could and should be stepping up their financial contributions to ensure the security of NATO. Instead, they are entirely beholden to Russia, and the US taxpayers expected to foot the bill," Greene said.

Representatives for Gaetz did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Insider sent outside regular business hours.

While Gaetz's ideas are appalling (and when coupled with Greene's are incredibly reckless and irresponsible) I'm  having trouble getting past the phrase "Anti-Ukraine hamster wheel."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 14, 2023, 07:59:47 PM
I think we were interested in having Russia join NATO back in the 1990s.

But yeah I think a few countries in the alliance might veto them now. Like most of them.

And no chance Russia would want to be in NATO anyway.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on July 14, 2023, 08:07:19 PM
I don't think most of Europe is interested in an anti-Chinese alliance anyway.  Russia certainly isn't.  It's distressing that a congressman is so ignorance of international affairs.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on July 14, 2023, 09:12:36 PM
Chinese military base in Cuba? That's a new one.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on July 14, 2023, 09:40:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2023, 07:59:47 PMI think we were interested in having Russia join NATO back in the 1990s.

But yeah I think a few countries in the alliance might veto them now. Like most of them.

And no chance Russia would want to be in NATO anyway.

Didn't Russia ask to join at some point around then for someone (us pres?) to go lol no, you're the entire point of nato?

They're in the nato alliance for peace (iirc the name is something like this) even now though.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on July 15, 2023, 08:25:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2023, 07:59:47 PMI think we were interested in having Russia join NATO back in the 1990s.

Back when the West made the terrible mistake of believing that Liberal Democracy had won and it was inevitable that Russia and the rest of the world would morph into Liberal Democratic states.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 15, 2023, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: Josquius on July 14, 2023, 09:40:25 PMDidn't Russia ask to join at some point around then for someone (us pres?) to go lol no, you're the entire point of nato?

That was back in the USSR days, shortly before they formed the Warsaw Pact.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Savonarola on July 15, 2023, 04:00:49 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 14, 2023, 09:12:36 PMChinese military base in Cuba? That's a new one.

I assume he's referring to the recent revelation about a Chinese listening post in Cuba; which is, of course, not a military base and, (since I read about it on CNN, I assume) not secret.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Savonarola on July 15, 2023, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2023, 08:07:19 PMI don't think most of Europe is interested in an anti-Chinese alliance anyway.  Russia certainly isn't.  It's distressing that a congressman is so ignorance of international affairs.

If that's Gaetz's biggest flaw, he's much better than I thought.   ;)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on July 15, 2023, 11:45:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2023, 08:07:19 PMI don't think most of Europe is interested in an anti-Chinese alliance anyway.  Russia certainly isn't.  It's distressing that a congressman is so ignorance of international affairs.

I wouldn't say he's totally ignorant of international affairs. I think one of his underage mistresses was a non-US citizen, after all.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 18, 2023, 01:11:12 PM
This is going to be the fight of the century.  Forget about Musk vs Zuck, this is the real deal :D

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-boebert-fightfight-b2376731.html?utm_source=reddit.com
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on July 22, 2023, 12:42:37 PM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/floridas-new-education-standards-says-slavery-had-personal-benefits/

QuoteFlorida's new Black history curriculum says "slaves developed skills" that could be used for "personal benefit"

Florida's 2023 Social Studies curriculum will include lessons on how "slaves developed skills" that could be used for "personal benefit," according to a copy of the state's academic standards reviewed by CBS News.

The lessons in question fall under the social studies curriculum's African-American studies section, and be taught to students in sixth through eighth grade, according to the state standards.

The lessons for that grade level will include teachings on understanding the "causes, courses and consequences of the slave trade in the colonies," and instruction on the differences and similarities between serfdom and slavery, the curriculum says. Students will also be asked to describe "the contact of European explorers with systematic slave trading in Africa" and look at the history and evolution of slave codes.

The line about "personal benefit" is included as a "benchmark clarification" to a lesson that asks students to "examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves," such as agricultural work, domestic service, blacksmithing and household tasks like tailoring and painting.

The curriculum was approved by Florida's board of education on Wednesday.

Vice President Kamala Harris called the lesson plan an attempt to "gaslight" students.

"They insult us in an attempt to gaslight us and we will not stand for it," she said in a speech at Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc.'s national convention in Indiana on Thursday. "We who share a collective experience in knowing we must honor history in our duty in the context of legacy. There is so much at stake in this moment."

On Friday afternoon, Harris tweeted that she was traveling to Jacksonville to "fight back" against "extremists in Florida who want to erase our full history and censor our truths." According to CBS Miami, Harris is expected to "forcefully condemn" the curriculum.

Florida governor Ron DeSantis, a 2024 presidential hopeful, dismissed Harris' criticism of the curriculum.

"Democrats like Kamala Harris have to lie about Florida's educational standards to cover for their agenda of indoctrinating students and pushing sexual topics onto children. Florida stands in their way and we will continue to expose their agenda and their lies," tweeted DeSantis, whose political platform has included statements against alleged "woke ideology" in schools.

Two members of the work group who established the curriculum standards said in a statement to CBS News that they "proudly stand behind" the language of the lessons.

"The intent of this particular benchmark clarification is to show that some slaves developed highly specialized trades from which they benefitted. This is factual and well documented," said Dr. William Allen and Dr. Frances Presley Rice, members of the group, before listing examples like Crispus Attucks and Booker T. Washington. "Any attempt to reduce slaves to just victims of oppression fails to recognize their strength, courage and resiliency during a difficult time in American history. Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants."

Allen and Rice said that the curriculum provides "comprehensive and rigorous instruction on African American History."

"It is disappointing, but nevertheless unsurprising, that critics would reduce months of work to create Florida's first ever stand-alone strand of African American History Standards to a few isolated expressions without context," the pair said.

Earlier this year, Florida rejected a proposed advanced placement course that would have focused on African American studies. DeSantis called the course, which included lessons on Black queer theory and the prison abolition movement, "indoctrination."

"That is more of ideology being used under the guise of history," DeSantis said in January 2023. "That's what our standards for Black history are. It's just cut and dried history. You learn all the basics, you learn about the great figures, and you know, I view it as American history. I don't view it as separate history."

The Florida Department of Education said in a letter to the College Board, which handles AP courses, that the curriculum was "inexplicably contrary to Florida law and significantly lacks educational value." The College Board, which later posted a revised curriculum that did not include the areas DeSantis criticized, said the department's comments were "slander."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on July 22, 2023, 08:47:18 PM
Which they could have put to good use if Florida's black codes didn't condemn them to poverty?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on July 24, 2023, 09:27:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2023, 08:47:18 PMWhich they could have put to good use if Florida's black codes didn't condemn them to poverty?
Yeah, like people don't acquire skills by working?  Or black people in Africa did not acquire skills?  Or free Blacks did not acquire skills?

It's like the GOP does not even care anymore about being the White Supremacist Party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on July 24, 2023, 09:34:21 AM
Some overweight Jewish inmates of Nazi death camps have been put through a weight loss problem.  Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on July 24, 2023, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 22, 2023, 12:42:37 PMTwo members of the work group who established the curriculum standards said in a statement to CBS News that they "proudly stand behind" the language of the lessons.

"The intent of this particular benchmark clarification is to show that some slaves developed highly specialized trades from which they benefitted. This is factual and well documented," said Dr. William Allen and Dr. Frances Presley Rice, members of the group, before listing examples like Crispus Attucks and Booker T. Washington. "Any attempt to reduce slaves to just victims of oppression fails to recognize their strength, courage and resiliency during a difficult time in American history. Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants."

Kind of appalling that this curriculum was developed by a history professor that doesn't know that Crispus Attucks was not a slave and by a Hollywood screenwriter that isn't aware that Booker T. Washington was only eight years old when slavery ended.

Also kind of appalling that those were the kinds of people DeSantis calls on to write school curricula.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on August 30, 2023, 07:00:04 PM
Someone accidentally hit Mitch's pause button again today.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on August 30, 2023, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 30, 2023, 07:00:04 PMSomeone accidentally hit Mitch's pause button again today.

I would feel sorry for him if he hadn't spent decades being an asshole.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sophie Scholl on August 30, 2023, 08:36:09 PM
Best comment I've seen so far: "Mitch McConnell is taking this anti-woke stuff too far."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on August 31, 2023, 08:05:00 AM
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on August 30, 2023, 08:36:09 PMBest comment I've seen so far: "Mitch McConnell is taking this anti-woke stuff too far."
:lmfao:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on August 31, 2023, 08:09:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2023, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 30, 2023, 07:00:04 PMSomeone accidentally hit Mitch's pause button again today.

I would feel sorry for him if he hadn't spent decades being an asshole.
Mitch is my Senator, and while I've never and would never vote for him, I don't think he's an asshole.  I think he's an effective party tool and I could do much worse in terms of being represented in the Senate than him, even though I loathe his politics.  I genuinely feel bad for him and while he clearly should retire at this point, it'd be a bad thing for Kentucky overall if he did.  That's kind of the problem with these guys and their endless terms... they get so entrenched that anyone with a bit of pragmatism in their thinking would be loathe to eject them from their seats given the pork and shit they can direct to their constituents.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on August 31, 2023, 09:19:20 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 31, 2023, 08:09:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2023, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 30, 2023, 07:00:04 PMSomeone accidentally hit Mitch's pause button again today.

I would feel sorry for him if he hadn't spent decades being an asshole.
Mitch is my Senator, and while I've never and would never vote for him, I don't think he's an asshole.  I think he's an effective party tool and I could do much worse in terms of being represented in the Senate than him, even though I loathe his politics.  I genuinely feel bad for him and while he clearly should retire at this point, it'd be a bad thing for Kentucky overall if he did.  That's kind of the problem with these guys and their endless terms... they get so entrenched that anyone with a bit of pragmatism in their thinking would be loathe to eject them from their seats given the pork and shit they can direct to their constituents.

His shenanigans with the Supreme Court will forever linger in my memory  :mad:

But fair enough. I mean it isn't like I feel particularly sorry for Feinstein either. It isn't like it is news that people at their age should retire. They both decided to roll the dice and go for one more term, they just lost.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on August 31, 2023, 10:10:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2023, 09:19:20 AMHis shenanigans with the Supreme Court will forever linger in my memory  :mad:

But fair enough. I mean it isn't like I feel particularly sorry for Feinstein either. It isn't like it is news that people at their age should retire. They both decided to roll the dice and go for one more term, they just lost.

They rolled the dice and we lost.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on August 31, 2023, 11:04:46 PM
Weren't the voters in on these dice rolls too? :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on September 01, 2023, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 31, 2023, 11:04:46 PMWeren't the voters in on these dice rolls too? :hmm:

For the Voters of Kentucky I get it. You don't want to elect the opposite party at a moment where the control of the Senate hangs by a hair, especially when your guy is the party leader.

I have no idea what happened in California and why people decided to elect a 86 year old in an election between two Democrats. I think the younger politicians coming up in California might be too progressive and people felt comfortable electing a more moderate older person. Didn't really work out huh?

I will say that it looks like everybody who was anybody among the big national names endorsed Feinstein and she outraised her opponent about 20 to 1. Only the progressive fringe endorsed the other guy. Not really a fair fight.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on September 01, 2023, 10:25:36 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 31, 2023, 11:04:46 PMWeren't the voters in on these dice rolls too? :hmm:

Shhh Clinton's emails were the priority
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Eddie Teach on September 01, 2023, 11:39:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 31, 2023, 08:09:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2023, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 30, 2023, 07:00:04 PMSomeone accidentally hit Mitch's pause button again today.

I would feel sorry for him if he hadn't spent decades being an asshole.
Mitch is my Senator, and while I've never and would never vote for him, I don't think he's an asshole.  I think he's an effective party tool and I could do much worse in terms of being represented in the Senate than him, even though I loathe his politics.  I genuinely feel bad for him and while he clearly should retire at this point, it'd be a bad thing for Kentucky overall if he did.  That's kind of the problem with these guys and their endless terms... they get so entrenched that anyone with a bit of pragmatism in their thinking would be loathe to eject them from their seats given the pork and shit they can direct to their constituents.

One thing you can say for Rand, he'd be pretty dismal at amassing pork.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2023, 05:35:50 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oJ3jpSsiTU

Meaningless video of the Texas Attorney General impeachment trial (interesting that Tejas does it in a court room and not in their state assembly), BUT can someone tell me what's going on with the gaggle of suits behind the judge that he confers with?  I've never seen anything like that before.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on September 06, 2023, 06:35:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2023, 05:35:50 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oJ3jpSsiTU

Meaningless video of the Texas Attorney General impeachment trial (interesting that Tejas does it in a court room and not in their state assembly), BUT can someone tell me what's going on with the gaggle of suits behind the judge that he confers with?  I've never seen anything like that before.

Maybe those are the other members of the state Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 06, 2023, 09:29:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2023, 05:35:50 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oJ3jpSsiTU

Meaningless video of the Texas Attorney General impeachment trial (interesting that Tejas does it in a court room and not in their state assembly), BUT can someone tell me what's going on with the gaggle of suits behind the judge that he confers with?  I've never seen anything like that before.

The presiding officer in the Paxton impeachment is the Texas Lt. Governor, a former media personality.  He has no legal or parliamentary experience other than some terms in the Texas state legislature.  I assume the people behind him are aides or parliamentarians with relevant expertise to advise him.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on October 03, 2023, 01:26:53 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/republicans-secret-police-sparks-fight-with-democrats/ar-AA1hzNBc

QuoteRepublicans' 'Secret Police' Sparks Fight With Democrats

Republicans in North Carolina are facing criticism for including a measure in their state budget critics say will create a "secret police force."

North Carolina's state budget is set to expand the authority of the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, a legislative investigative committee. The changes will allow the committee to investigate state a local government agencies, "or non-State entity receiving public funds."

The budget will allow the GOP-controlled committee to access "any documents or records related to any contract awarded by a State agency, including, but not limited to, (i) records related to the drafting and approval of the contract and (ii) documents and records of the contractor that the Commission determines will assist in verifying accounts or will contain data affecting fees or performance," according to its text.

Democrats have raised concerns about this measure being a government overstep, arguing that the text would state allow agents to enter any government contractor or subcontractors' homes to access these documents. Republicans have argued the committee's expanded scope is necessary to ensure greater oversight following criticism over the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and recent hurricanes.

State Representative Allison Dahle compared the investigative body to a "secret police force" during debate on the budget on the floor of the House. She warned that it would "give carte blanche to legislators and legislative employees to look into any entity that receives state funding," according to The News & Observer.
"This secret police force can even come into, for example, a law firm that receives state funding for court-appointed lawyers. This now means that the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege is now defunct," she said.

State Senator Graig Meyer warned that the budget would give "Gov Ops broad, intrusive, & punitive powers to investigate any state entity or any 'non-state entity' that has pretty much any connection to the State of NC at all," in a post to X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

"Let's say you're a subcontractor to a contractor w a state agency...get ready to turn over your docs," he wrote.

Republicans, however, have defended the legislation against Democratic criticism.

"Why is it taking so long for these people to get back in their houses? What's taking so long. So, when our Gov Ops committee went in and started asking these same questions, they were stonewalled as well," State House Speaker Tim Moore, a Republican, said, according to a report from Raleigh-based television news station WNCN.

Senate leader Phil Berger, also a Republican, told the news station that expanding the committee's authority is "not a partisan thing."

"It is something that is designed to assist the General Assembly and all members of the General Assembly in carrying out our constitutional obligations to oversee the money that's being spent," he said.

Newsweek reached out to Speaker Moore's office for comment via email.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on October 03, 2023, 04:08:17 PM
House to McCarthy:  You're fired.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sophie Scholl on October 04, 2023, 12:07:31 AM
385057731_303292922338828_4709840208987295960_n.jpg
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Hamilcar on October 04, 2023, 02:38:40 AM
Is this effectively a split in the coalition? Are MAGA and regular Republicans now at irreconcilable differences? In a parliamentary system, would the US have new elections now?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tamas on October 04, 2023, 07:03:14 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 04, 2023, 02:38:40 AMIs this effectively a split in the coalition? Are MAGA and regular Republicans now at irreconcilable differences? In a parliamentary system, would the US have new elections now?

Maybe it's the final act of the GOP turning into what I'll call the Tea Party. It is deeply satisfying to see this play out as it seems to be one of the repeating themes of politics. The moderate right gave ground to their lunatic fringe (plus the grifters latching on to such cults) because they thought they could control them. Just to be consumed by them entirely. Now not only the "moderates" cannot control the (previous) fringe, the fringe has stopped tolerating the moderate's existence in what was previously their party, and will succeed driving them out (already has, one could argue).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on October 04, 2023, 07:49:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2023, 07:03:14 AMMaybe it's the final act of the GOP turning into what I'll call the Tea Party. It is deeply satisfying to see this play out as it seems to be one of the repeating themes of politics. The moderate right gave ground to their lunatic fringe (plus the grifters latching on to such cults) because they thought they could control them. Just to be consumed by them entirely. Now not only the "moderates" cannot control the (previous) fringe, the fringe has stopped tolerating the moderate's existence in what was previously their party, and will succeed driving them out (already has, one could argue).
I'm not sure moderate or fringe or even radical or regular Republicans is the right framing for the GOP.

I don't see why they'd split. But it reminds you of the line about modern conservatism that it's about in groups who the law protects but does not bind and out groups who the law binds but does not protect.

Party unity and the rules of normal politics protects the MAGA wing does not bind them, for the rest of the GOP they bind but don't protect.

QuoteIs this effectively a split in the coalition? Are MAGA and regular Republicans now at irreconcilable differences? In a parliamentary system, would the US have new elections now?
Probably not. Mapping across the Speaker as effectively a PM (which doesn't really work because POTUS is head of government and head of state, plus the Senate is equal), you'd normally have a period in which to negotiate a new government. American congressional election cycles are quicker than some of those government formation periods - looking at you Belgium :lol: On the other hand the rules used to require a super-majority to remove a Speaker and McCarthy agreed to get rid of that in order to get elected so in some ways they've moved closer to a parliamentary system.

In the UK, it's a constitutional principle that there must always be a PM. Removing a PM isn't a standalone thing - it would basically mean the government couldn't continue to govern because they didn't have a majority in the house (so purdah rules would kick in and the civil service would run the country) until there was either an election, or someone could form a majority. In other countries I think it's similar - so I think in Belgium the outgoing PM stays on as PM while negotiations are undertaken before a new one is elected, other countries have formal interim PMs or the "formateur" role assumes that position during negotiations. I don't think it's normally written down but in all cases whoever is PM in those situations doesn't have the full power of their office - they're in office but not in power, which I think describes McCarthy's position pretty well.

And I think something similar is happening here. There's a Speaker of the House Pro Tempore - and you can tell we're in historically uncharted territory because until yesterday that office didn't even have a Wikipedia page :lol: Apparently it was created in the rules after 9/11 - I think as above that's an automatic appointment (maybe based on seniority? :hmm:) with limited powers.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tamas on October 04, 2023, 07:53:09 AM
I didn't say they'd split. I am saying the MAGA wing is now the party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on October 04, 2023, 08:01:42 AM
Sorry that bit was more about Hami's post. I agree.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: frunk on October 04, 2023, 09:37:43 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2023, 07:53:09 AMI didn't say they'd split. I am saying the MAGA wing is now the party.

This was inevitable from 2016 when anti-Trumpers were shunned from the party.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on October 10, 2023, 05:06:46 PM
I somehow feel this isn't the end - I'm still waiting for the indictment on stealing puppies from the Amish:
QuoteKyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
BREAKING: George Santos has just been hit with a 23-count superseding indictment.

Santos faces: "one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, two counts of wire fraud, two counts of making materially false statements to the FEC, two counts of falsifying records submitted to obstruct the FEC, two counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of access device fraud."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on October 10, 2023, 07:45:45 PM
Weird that the Republican Party couldn't spot a grifter.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 10, 2023, 08:22:33 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2023, 09:11:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11uWROHQHCs&t=88s

Very dubious accusations that Lauren Boebert worked as a hooker and had abortions.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2023, 09:05:29 AM
If true it would finally prove her critics wrong.  She really has provided services to her district.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on October 11, 2023, 04:56:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2023, 09:11:18 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11uWROHQHCs&t=88s

Very dubious accusations that Lauren Boebert worked as a hooker and had abortions.
June 2022.

It's been kinda debunked since then.  At least, there's no evidence she did it.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2023, 09:06:43 PM
Scalise threw in the towel. Just ridiculous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/12/house-speaker-vote/

He should have at least tried, see if multiple ballots wear down the opposition.
That's how these things work.
And if you're not gaining, well...things will probably break someone's way eventually. Maybe Jordan's, maybe a darkhorse. But you have to get out there and have the votes.
Multiple votes, every day for a week or two and they will start to shift in favor of someone.

And if they can't, like it's 1855, then you will at least have proof, instead of just throwing up your hands in the air and giving up before you begin
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on October 12, 2023, 09:15:02 PM
Totally random question - the Speaker Pro Temp role invented post-9/11 but I believe only being filled for the first time now...where are they on the presidential succession? Do they basically step into the speaker's shoes or, because it's such a limited role, is it treated differently?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2023, 10:07:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2023, 09:15:02 PMTotally random question - the Speaker Pro Temp role invented post-9/11 but I believe only being filled for the first time now...where are they on the presidential succession? Do they basically step into the speaker's shoes or, because it's such a limited role, is it treated differently?
I think they don't count, but I'm not sure
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2023, 10:12:05 PM
A quick google has some newspapers saying clearly not, while others saying probably not, so if it came down to that constitutional crisis if McHenry was willing to make it one?

Clearly not
https://www.businessinsider.com/kevin-mccarthy-ouster-line-of-succession-house-speaker-vacant-2023-10

Probably not
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/04/patrick-mchenry-house-speaker-mccarthy/
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: celedhring on October 13, 2023, 09:14:55 AM
Wait, that Scalise fellow not hardline enough for the MAGA wing? Christ.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2023, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 13, 2023, 09:14:55 AMWait, that Scalise fellow not hardline enough for the MAGA wing? Christ.

Christ is definitely not hard line enough.  He doesn't have a chance.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on October 13, 2023, 11:18:23 AM
We don't like his eye of a needle stance, but we love his "if you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life!" stance.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2023, 11:40:49 AM
Christ is weak on tax cuts.  And this business about easier for camels to get through the eye of a needle than for Wealth Creators to enter heaven  - the whole camels business is very sus.  He claims to be some kind of "Christ"ian but sounds more radical Islam to me.  Apparently, no one has ever seen his real birth certificate and his press guy keeps telling different stories - was it Nazareth or Bethlehem? More like some mosque in Nairobi no doubt.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 11:55:50 AM
Christ is also weak on military spending - love thy neighbour?  Yeah right.  Christ is also weak on gay marriage.  It sounds a bit like he would not selectively enforce Leviticus the way the GOP would like.  And have you looked into his background of spending time with prostitutes?

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Savonarola on October 14, 2023, 04:12:10 PM
Key Republican wears scarlet 'A' T-shirt after vote to oust McCarthy (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/11/nancy-mace-republican-scarlet-letter-t-shirt)

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/5aaf5d7fea0eb442d8f6664e43979bb4f9f65581/0_0_5786_3474/master/5786.jpg?width=620&dpr=2&s=none)

While I thought that seemed like a bold statement; (and really something she should be discussing with her husband rather than parading it in the capitol,) she doesn't actually mean she's an adulteress or that she's pregnant due to an adulterous affair.  Instead:

Quote"I'm wearing the scarlet letter after the week I just had, being a woman up here, and being demonized for my vote and for my voice," Mace told reporters on Tuesday, adding: "I will do the right thing every single time, no matter the consequences."

That's a... um... unique take on Hawthorn's novel.  (And really, couldn't you get a silk screen or something?  The iron-ons my mom used to put on my t-shirts when I was five looked more professional than that.)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on October 17, 2023, 01:05:03 PM
20 GOP members vote against Jim Jordan for speaker.

Have the house moderates FINALLY started to stand up for themselves?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on October 17, 2023, 01:24:46 PM
Doesn't look like it, no.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on October 17, 2023, 01:50:34 PM
A vote for Gym Jordan is a vote for shutdown.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 17, 2023, 02:01:46 PM
Seriously, a guy who was the responsible person during a massive sex abuse scandal is going to lead the Republicans in Congress?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on October 17, 2023, 04:29:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2023, 02:01:46 PMSeriously, a guy who was the responsible person during a massive sex abuse scandal is going to lead the Republicans in Congress?

As chair of the Judiciary Committee he is already a leading Republican in Congress.

But he isn't speaker yet.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 17, 2023, 04:32:32 PM
An absolute travesty that completely destroys any pretensions to moral righteousness the Republicans may have.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on October 17, 2023, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2023, 04:32:32 PMAn absolute travesty that completely destroys any pretensions to moral righteousness the Republicans may have.

Just another one to add to the pile.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Savonarola on October 17, 2023, 05:45:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2023, 01:05:03 PM20 GOP members vote against Jim Jordan for speaker.

Have the house moderates FINALLY started to stand up for themselves?

When I looked at the list of the Republicans who voted against him I assumed Jordan frequently uses racial epithets.  (I'm not saying that he doesn't, but) the ones who voted against him in Florida represent urban districts (Miami and Jacksonville) and the one in Michigan represents Detroit's older (blue collar) suburbs.  These districts would all by hit hard by an inevitable Jordan shutdown.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on October 17, 2023, 06:07:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2023, 02:01:46 PMSeriously, a guy who was the responsible person during a massive sex abuse scandal is going to lead the Republicans in Congress?
You're talking like that hasn't happened before.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on October 19, 2023, 08:51:21 AM
How much damage are the Republicans causing to them selves by keeping the speakers chair vacant When the one thing all Americans can probably agree upon is that the American government needs to do something in relation to the Israel Hamas war.

And how will the extreme Republicans fare when they try to pitch shutting down government now?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on October 19, 2023, 09:01:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2023, 08:51:21 AMHow much damage are the Republicans causing to them selves by keeping the speakers chair vacant When the one thing all Americans can probably agree upon is that the American government needs to do something in relation to the Israel Hamas war.

And how will the extreme Republicans fare when they try to pitch shutting down government now?

I don't know that anything the Republicans actually do matters. Their political machine is really good at making sure nothing is their fault.

But we'll see.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on October 19, 2023, 12:30:54 PM
Gym Jordan has thrown in the towel.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on October 19, 2023, 02:59:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 19, 2023, 12:30:54 PMGym Jordan has thrown in the towel.
Disregard.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2023, 07:20:05 PM
I'm tempted to do a "thank you sir, can I have another" meme, but it seems like in bad taste with Jordan
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2023, 03:01:20 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kyZxURvvS0

Voice message left for wife of GOP Congressman who voted against Jordan.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on October 20, 2023, 11:30:00 AM
From CNN:
Reporter: We're getting confirmation from multiple sources that several votes are expected to flip away from Jordan after he met with them. They reportedly were upset that Jordan told them to stop complaining to him about death threats because he doesn't control them and isn't organizing them.

Tapper: If only there was something in his background that would suggest he would stand by and look away when bad things were going on.

Reporter: Other supporters of Jordan are starting to eye the exits as well because they don't see a viable path forward when he is losing votes each time they try again.

Tapper: He is just doing worse. But I recognize that Congressman Jordan is not somebody who necessarily respects election results

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on October 20, 2023, 12:00:02 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 20, 2023, 11:30:00 AMFrom CNN:
Reporter: We're getting confirmation from multiple sources that several votes are expected to flip away from Jordan after he met with them. They reportedly were upset that Jordan told them to stop complaining to him about death threats because he doesn't control them and isn't organizing them.

Tapper: If only there was something in his background that would suggest he would stand by and look away when bad things were going on.

Reporter: Other supporters of Jordan are starting to eye the exits as well because they don't see a viable path forward when he is losing votes each time they try again.

Tapper: He is just doing worse. But I recognize that Congressman Jordan is not somebody who necessarily respects election results



Holy shit :lol:

Tapper from the top rope
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 20, 2023, 12:52:02 PM
That's beautiful
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on October 20, 2023, 01:22:38 PM
QuoteHouse Republicans vote to drop Jim Jordan as speaker nominee
clock iconUpdated just now
Listen

Share
Add to your saved stories
Save
House Republicans, meeting behind closed doors, voted Friday by secret ballot for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to step aside following a third vote on the House floor in which Jordan fell well short of a majority of the full chamber. The move leaves the Republican conference without a speaker nominee more than two weeks after the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Lawmakers will return Monday to start the process over again.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/20/house-speaker-vote-live/

Seems he's done now.

New set of clowns next week, I reckon
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2023, 01:31:11 PM
There have been House Speakers of less than sterling character.  But a basic pre-requisite of the job is some basic understanding of politics and the ability to count votes.  Jim Jordan just flunked that test.  What a joke.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: celedhring on October 20, 2023, 01:47:30 PM
My bet is that they are going to empower the acting speaker and they'll drag this sorry business along until the next congress is installed. And if that congress has a Republican majority with a Democratic president (dunno if that's a possible outcome), it will probably drag on further than that.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on October 20, 2023, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2023, 01:31:11 PMThere have been House Speakers of less than sterling character.  But a basic pre-requisite of the job is some basic understanding of politics and the ability to count votes.  Jim Jordan just flunked that test.  What a joke.
Sam Rayburn spinning in his grave.

Jordan's lack of ability to actually achieve anything so far, except publicity stunts, should have been an early sign he might not actually be good at politics.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on October 20, 2023, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 20, 2023, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2023, 01:31:11 PMThere have been House Speakers of less than sterling character.  But a basic pre-requisite of the job is some basic understanding of politics and the ability to count votes.  Jim Jordan just flunked that test.  What a joke.
Sam Rayburn spinning in his grave.

Jordan's lack of ability to actually achieve anything so far, except publicity stunts, should have been an early sign he might not actually be good at politics.

The only skill really required in politics is the ability to stay in politics. And in that regard he's better than most people who try.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2023, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 20, 2023, 01:59:29 PMThe only skill really required in politics is the ability to stay in politics. And in that regard he's better than most people who try.

If recent history has proven anything, it is that truly anyone can win a single House seat.

There is a lot more skill involved in politics than that.  And Jim Jordan doesn't have it.

I've also seen him try to question people in hearings.  Capital University Law School may not have the most exalted standards, but they still want their degree back.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2023, 07:12:46 PM
Jordan lost the third vote 112 to 86.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 20, 2023, 08:00:14 PM
Turns out doing things is harder than sabotaging other people doing stuff.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Grey Fox on October 20, 2023, 09:01:50 PM
Grifters only know how to grift.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on October 24, 2023, 02:39:53 PM
Republicans have nominated Tom Emmer for speaker, but Trump is trying to sink him.  26 Republicans voted against him behind closed doors and it looks like enough will vote against him on the floor to finish him off.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on October 24, 2023, 02:47:53 PM
Also interesting that the GOP House when voting for a candidate ended up picked what's probably the best (very much a relative term) option:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9EMA1-XIAIuD8W?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on October 24, 2023, 03:44:48 PM
And he's dropped out :lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on October 24, 2023, 05:21:09 PM
Dammit, this is stupid.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2023, 05:36:20 PM
The FREEDOM!!!! caucus is in effect saying we will only accept one of our own as Speaker.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: PDH on October 24, 2023, 05:51:24 PM
Nihilism kills the party
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on October 24, 2023, 07:12:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2023, 05:36:20 PMThe FREEDOM!!!! caucus is in effect saying we will only accept one of our own as Speaker.

Boebert and Gaetz weren't on this list. I think this was a combination of him certifying the election and voting to federalize recognition of same sex marriages. It's just impossible to find someone who twenty members of the GOP don't hate. (Except for Kevin, where there's just 8)

(https://i.imgur.com/gtfTEfg.png)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: FunkMonk on October 24, 2023, 07:39:17 PM
Difficult to see this getting resolved any time soon. We'll probably be far into a government shutdown before a few of the Rs decide "fuck it" and vote for a Dem speaker.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: celedhring on October 25, 2023, 02:31:28 PM
I see the guy that they ended up electing scored pretty strongly in the asshole chart Sheilbh posted.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2023, 03:04:43 PM
On the plus side, he's for avoiding a complete financial collapse of the United States.   It's a low bar but all one can expect from today's GOP.  He's a safe pair of hands for when Gaetz pushes for the Americans Put Their Heads in A Running Woodchipper Act of 2024.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on October 25, 2023, 03:10:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2023, 03:04:43 PMOn the plus side, he's for avoiding a complete financial collapse of the United States.   It's a low bar but all one can expect from today's GOP.  He's a safe pair of hands for when Gaetz pushes for the Americans Put Their Heads in A Running Woodchipper Act of 2024.

What worries me a lot is Ukraine though.  Without US aid Ukraine could collapse pretty quickly.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2023, 08:52:56 PM
I don't think there is any realistic scenario where Ukraine collpases, with or without US aid.  But it would result in a lot more dead Ukranian soldiers and civilians and the strengthening of the Russian strategic position. 

It would also be a crass betrayal of US national security interests.  Sending military aid to Ukraine is and has been, dollar-for-dollar the most effective and efficient use of US resources for military and strategic purposes that has existed in this century.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 10:05:13 PM
I don't see Ukraine collapsing.  The most important battles were won without much help from the US.  They can survive without us.  But they may be forced to accept a disadvantageous peace without US support.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on October 25, 2023, 10:59:08 PM
Are you guy on track for a GOP victory next election?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2023, 12:31:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 10:05:13 PMI don't see Ukraine collapsing.  The most important battles were won without much help from the US.  They can survive without us.  But they may be forced to accept a disadvantageous peace without US support.

Debateable.  Massive deliveries of ATGMs were made almost immediately.  And now we're supplying them with gigantic amounts of artillery rounds, the use of which is their primary battlefield tactic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on October 26, 2023, 02:25:54 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 25, 2023, 10:59:08 PMAre you guy on track for a GOP victory next election?

Here's what Axios said in September.

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/17/2024-elections-senate-house-projections
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on October 26, 2023, 03:58:04 AM
Its really sad Biden has such low approval ratings.
Aye, he's a bit of a drab old man, then there's the hate anything that isn't Trump brigade, but he seems to be doing a much better job than anyone expected.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2023, 05:55:53 AM
House Republican caucus elects Mike Johnson as Speaker.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 26, 2023, 07:55:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 10:05:13 PMI don't see Ukraine collapsing.  The most important battles were won without much help from the US.  They can survive without us.  But they may be forced to accept a disadvantageous peace without US support.

That won't be a peace then, just a pause until russia ready for the next round
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on October 26, 2023, 08:06:21 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 25, 2023, 10:59:08 PMAre you guy on track for a GOP victory next election?

Based on the GOP debates and other statements by their leaders, the top Republican priorities are:

1. Ending democracy.
2. Brutalizing LGBTQ people.
3. War with Mexico.

Really, how can the democrats hope to compete with that platform?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on October 26, 2023, 08:36:15 AM
Don't forget punishing women who have abortions.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on October 26, 2023, 08:44:14 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 26, 2023, 08:36:15 AMDon't forget punishing women who have abortions.

2. Brutalizing LGBTQF people?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on October 26, 2023, 08:51:13 AM
Lesbians tend not to have unplanned pregnancy. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: jimmy olsen on October 26, 2023, 10:11:12 PM
Off year elections have gone done democrats way by an average of ten points this year, that's usually a good sign for the next year.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on December 01, 2023, 11:17:23 AM
Santos expelled from Congress.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Habbaku on December 01, 2023, 11:33:11 AM
:yeah:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on December 01, 2023, 11:41:56 AM
I'm surprised.  It's a swing seat, I thought the Republicans would put up with Santos given the 5 vote majority (now 4 until a new election is held, and could be 3 is a D is elected).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on December 01, 2023, 11:50:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2023, 11:41:56 AMI'm surprised.  It's a swing seat, I thought the Republicans would put up with Santos given the 5 vote majority (now 4 until a new election is held, and could be 3 is a D is elected).
Yeah, but Santos is clearly mentally ill and a thief, and was too repugnant for even the GOP to stand behind anymore... though I believe the House GOP leadership still voted against expulsion.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on December 01, 2023, 11:52:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 01, 2023, 11:50:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2023, 11:41:56 AMI'm surprised.  It's a swing seat, I thought the Republicans would put up with Santos given the 5 vote majority (now 4 until a new election is held, and could be 3 is a D is elected).
Yeah, but Santos is clearly mentally ill and a thief, and was too repugnant for even the GOP to stand behind anymore... though I believe the House GOP leadership still voted against expulsion.

But they will put up with Trump...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on December 01, 2023, 11:56:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2023, 11:52:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 01, 2023, 11:50:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2023, 11:41:56 AMI'm surprised.  It's a swing seat, I thought the Republicans would put up with Santos given the 5 vote majority (now 4 until a new election is held, and could be 3 is a D is elected).
Yeah, but Santos is clearly mentally ill and a thief, and was too repugnant for even the GOP to stand behind anymore... though I believe the House GOP leadership still voted against expulsion.

But they will put up with Trump...

Exactly.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Caliga on December 01, 2023, 11:58:42 AM
Trump has a huge, nationwide cult of personality standing behind him which the GOP is scared shitless of.  Santos doesn't.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2023, 05:01:27 PM
Another difference is that Trump's awfulness is open and notorious; if people support him it's because that's what they want or are willing to tolerate.  Santos OTOH lied about every aspect of himself to the electorate and the GOP in Suffolk County was in the lead in seeking to unseat him.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on December 18, 2023, 07:22:40 PM
Giuliani Was Ordered to Pay $148 Million. (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/17/us/politics/giuliani-defamation-damages.html)

This went under the radar?

I don't know if the judge will uphold the money settlement. 

QuoteMr. Giuliani faces additional legal challenges.

Mr. Giuliani is under indictment in Georgia. A local prosecutor brought racketeering charges against him, Mr. Trump and others for their efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia.

He faces a defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems, one of the largest voting machine vendors in the country. The company accused Mr. Giuliani of spreading lies about the company as part of his efforts to keep Mr. Trump in office.

Mr. Giuliani's former lawyer, Robert J. Costello, is also suing him for $1.3 million in unpaid legal fees. And a former employee, Noelle Dunphy, filed a lawsuit in May, claiming that Mr. Giuliani harassed and assaulted her beginning in 2019. Mr. Giuliani has denied the allegations.

Things are going bad for Trump's friends.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on December 19, 2023, 08:33:17 AM
George Santos - neatly diagnosing and filleting the problems of American politics in 23 seconds:
https://x.com/MikelleStreet/status/1736783934271230386
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on December 19, 2023, 10:25:08 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 19, 2023, 08:33:17 AMGeorge Santos - neatly diagnosing and filleting the problems of American politics in 23 seconds:
https://x.com/MikelleStreet/status/1736783934271230386

Check out Jimmy Kimmel's "Would George Say This?" bits on his show pages.  You can pay Santos to send a video message to a person of your choice with a message of your choice.  Kimmel writes messages and has staffers send them to Santos to read on video.  They get increasingly hilarious (at one point Santos is congratulating a fictional blind niece on getting her driver's license, while also commiserating with her on her painful path to recovery after getting into a severe car crash).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Savonarola on February 14, 2024, 05:16:58 PM
Senator Tommy Tuberville explaining his reasoning for voting no on the Ukrainian aid package (https://www.newsweek.com/tommy-tuberville-defending-putin-sparks-backlash-1868770):

"Last night's @TuckerCarlson's interview with Putin shows that Russia is open to a peace agreement, while it is DC warmongers who want to prolong the war. That is why I'm voting to stop 60 BILLION MORE of our tax dollars to this conflict,"

Truly an idiot who praises with enthusiastic tones, all centuries but this one and every country but his own American patriot.   :)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on February 14, 2024, 08:09:09 PM
I guess someone has to make Carlson feel useful. That interview was otherwise a car crash for all concerned, not just sensible people watching it (or more likely reading about it as we have better things to do).
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2024, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on February 14, 2024, 05:16:58 PMSenator Tommy Tuberville

Three words that encapsulate the decline of a once great nation.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 14, 2024, 11:48:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2024, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on February 14, 2024, 05:16:58 PMSenator Tommy Tuberville

Three words that encapsulate the decline of a once great nation.

I'm not sure senators from Alabama have often been a source of pride for the US.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 14, 2024, 11:59:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2024, 11:48:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2024, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on February 14, 2024, 05:16:58 PMSenator Tommy Tuberville

Three words that encapsulate the decline of a once great nation.

I'm not sure senators from Alabama have often been a source of pride for the US.

I'll admit I don't know a lot of Alabama Senators, but Richard Shelby, despite his flaws, was no Tommy Tuberville.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 15, 2024, 03:01:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 14, 2024, 11:59:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2024, 11:48:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2024, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on February 14, 2024, 05:16:58 PMSenator Tommy Tuberville

Three words that encapsulate the decline of a once great nation.

I'm not sure senators from Alabama have often been a source of pride for the US.

I'll admit I don't know a lot of Alabama Senators, but Richard Shelby, despite his flaws, was no Tommy Tuberville.

I'll raise you this piece of shit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Claiborne_Clay

And this cretin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Morgan
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on February 15, 2024, 11:36:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2024, 03:01:03 AMAnd this cretin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Morgan

John T Morgan is the poster child for the movement to keep traitors from serving in government at any level.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 15, 2024, 04:28:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2024, 03:01:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 14, 2024, 11:59:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2024, 11:48:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2024, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on February 14, 2024, 05:16:58 PMSenator Tommy Tuberville

Three words that encapsulate the decline of a once great nation.

I'm not sure senators from Alabama have often been a source of pride for the US.

I'll admit I don't know a lot of Alabama Senators, but Richard Shelby, despite his flaws, was no Tommy Tuberville.

I'll raise you this piece of shit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Claiborne_Clay

And this cretin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Morgan

No sir, I don't like those guys.

20th century examples might have worked better for your thesis however.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 15, 2024, 04:55:43 PM
Like Jeff Sessions? :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 15, 2024, 05:12:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2024, 04:55:43 PMLike Jeff Sessions? :P

The same Jeff Sessions who appointed an independent counsel, then recused himself from interfering with the independent counsel, which ultimately led to Trump firing him?

Again - plenty to criticize, but he's no Tommy Tuberville.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 15, 2024, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 15, 2024, 04:28:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2024, 03:01:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 14, 2024, 11:59:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2024, 11:48:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2024, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on February 14, 2024, 05:16:58 PMSenator Tommy Tuberville

Three words that encapsulate the decline of a once great nation.

I'm not sure senators from Alabama have often been a source of pride for the US.

I'll admit I don't know a lot of Alabama Senators, but Richard Shelby, despite his flaws, was no Tommy Tuberville.

I'll raise you this piece of shit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Claiborne_Clay

And this cretin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Morgan

No sir, I don't like those guys.

20th century examples might have worked better for your thesis however.

The comment was about it as a sign of decline of a once great nation. I showed Alabama was rotten from early on. I don't think it would be hard to post links to senators from Alabama who did racist things during the Civil rights era but I started from the beginning.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 15, 2024, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2024, 05:13:44 PMThe comment was about it as a sign of decline of a once great nation. I showed Alabama was rotten from early on. I don't think it would be hard to post links to senators from Alabama who did racist things during the Civil rights era but I started from the beginning.

Focusing in on the "once great nation" idea - a lot of those confederates, or even pre-civil-rights Senators, were kind of evil.

But Tommy Tuberville is just plain dumb.

Lets go back to Jeff Sessions.  Guy had an interesting but fairly distinguished career.  He was a US Attorney, a failed judicial appointment, Alabama Attorney General, a US Senator, and ended up as US Attorney General.

Tommy Tuberville is a football coach.

I leave it to you if that's a sign of decline.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2024, 02:12:13 AM
Right.

Tuberville may not be openly promoting resegregation but there is no question that if you time machine him back to 1950, he'd be all in on segregation forever. 

But even back in those bad old days, when it came to the Senate, the southern states would try to make some effort to send someone a little more polished than the Rufus Cornpones that often dominated state politics - the Fulbrights or Longs that could talk about serious ideas and foreign policy, even as they torpedoed civil rights bills in the cloakroom.  Tuberville is just a fool out to demonstrate that the Peter Principle was severely understated.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 16, 2024, 05:05:30 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2024, 02:12:13 AMRight.

Tuberville may not be openly promoting resegregation but there is no question that if you time machine him back to 1950, he'd be all in on segregation forever. 

But even back in those bad old days, when it came to the Senate, the southern states would try to make some effort to send someone a little more polished than the Rufus Cornpones that often dominated state politics - the Fulbrights or Longs that could talk about serious ideas and foreign policy, even as they torpedoed civil rights bills in the cloakroom.  Tuberville is just a fool out to demonstrate that the Peter Principle was severely understated.

I guess that is one limited, elitist way to look at it. Why is it superior to be represented by a privileged, elitist senator who is denying you basic human rights? Though I guess as head coach at a college he actually is probably quite privileged himself - but just not credential in the right way.

I doubt Black Alabamans from the 40s-70s were saying it is terrible how John Sparkman wants to keep us segregated but at least he isn't a football coach!

Was Alabama more of a beacon of greatness when it had properly cultured bigots in charge?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 16, 2024, 07:13:31 AM
Yeah also I just hate that sort of credentialism (I think it's quite snobbish). We've had many great leaders from less "qualified" backgrounds than a football coach (and a lot of incredibly disappointing lawyers - I mean, in the current Senate, Tom Cotton, say).

FWIW I think football coach could actually be a good background for a political leadership - they sort of embody and represent a community, they're leaders etc. I think the issue with Tommy Tuberville is not his CV, but him.

Similarly I don't think Sessions background excuses him - if anything I think it's an interesting one that tells us something more corrosive about the Republicans than electing football coaches. Because Sessions background was to be a judge, as you say, and he was I think one of the very few judicial nominees at that point rejected by the Senate. Following that Sessions transitions into electoral politics at state level and then the Senate. I think it is an interesting example of the effective fusion of the conservative legal movement's tests to become a judge and electoral politics. The entire purpose of that (and many other institutions) is to ensure that there is an appropriately credentialed pipeline of judges, staffers, cabinet secretaries etc filled with people like Sessions.

And the interesting thing is the role Sessions then plays. It's fair to remember how his time as Attorney General ended. However he was also the only Senator to endorse Trump. He was established, credentialed imprimatur. Not only that but he provided a pipeline of staffers, most notably Stephen Miller, who would go on to work for Trump - and Miller is very likely to come back again in a very senior position. There's lots of thought going on in the MAGA right about how to better staff a Trump administration in order to deliver on what policies they want - their narrative (which they have to couch appropriately to avoid enraging Trump) is that the failure of Trump 1 was because of personnel. There were too many Republican flunkies and people who weren't committed to Trump or MAGA-ish politics etc.  They've set up institutions, or taken them over to pump out appropriately credentialed smart young people from good universities to staff a Trump administration - because the whole party is Jeff Sessions now.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2024, 10:21:31 AM
The issue with Tuberville isn't that his CV is weak; Lincoln had no formal education to speak of.  The issue is that he is an idiot.  I don't think it is elitist or credentialist to say that a United States Senator should not be an idiot. Not being an idiot should be a basic pre-requisite.  That is isn't - and that it may even be a electoral benefit as some bullshit mark of faux authenticity - is an indication of political decadence.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 16, 2024, 10:34:55 AM
Fair - I agree.

I meant that more at BBoy's distinction because I'm not sure football coach v someone groomed to be a partisan judicial hack is necessarily the relevant point.

I'd possibly even say that ultimately Tuberville is an idiot. Sessions was a signed up participant in the conservative movement's really naked politicisation of judicial appointments. I'm honestly not sure which I'd say is worse - although idiots are just idiots, Sessions had a choice.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2024, 10:34:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 16, 2024, 05:05:30 AMI guess that is one limited, elitist way to look at it. Why is it superior to be represented by a privileged, elitist senator who is denying you basic human rights?

It isn't.
But the deep southern states weren't going to put non-bigots and pro-integrationists into the Senate in the 1930s.  That wasn't an available option.

The option was someone like Russell vs Talmadge in Georgia.  Both racists who suppressed civil rights.  But Russell backed the New Deal, established the national school lunch program and supported anti-poverty programs that benefitted all. Talmadge on the other hand suppressed labor and opposed poverty relief, when he took spare time from cheerleading lynchings.  You can argue they were both the same because they both opposed civil rights with equal force, but they did differ in other respects, and those differences had real impact on people's lives.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2024, 10:39:38 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 16, 2024, 10:34:55 AMI meant that more at BBoy's distinction because I'm not sure football coach v someone groomed to be a partisan judicial hack is necessarily the relevant point.

I don't have anything against football coaches per se. That said, when people allow their sports fandom to unduly influence their view of someone as a candidate, you get unfortunate results like TT and the Herschel Walker Senate campaign.

Wresting coaches OTOH I think we should avoid going forward.  Admittedly the sample size is small but early returns are really bad.  Why take more chances?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 16, 2024, 10:52:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2024, 10:39:38 AMI don't have anything against football coaches per se. That said, when people allow their sports fandom to unduly influence their view of someone as a candidate, you get unfortunate results like TT and the Herschel Walker Senate campaign.
Yes - or possibly vice-versa too.

There's an upcoming book which I'm looking forward to on looking at politics with ideas of "fandom". I think it's largely thinking in terms of online "fandoms" but with Trump (and Corbyn for that matter) I've thought for a while about sports fans in how their strongest supporters are. It seems more like fans than supporters of a political ideology or political issues.

Similarly you look at the level of attachment, the intensity of emotion, distrust of the media v "official" channels, the conspiracies and almost fanfiction about what's really going on behind the scenes - and it's all quite different from earlier political movements (even other populist ones). But it is like fandoms. I think a lot about football/soccer journalists who think that the day is coming pretty soon when the big clubs just refuse to engage with the media - they'll release interviews and content on their own social channels, they'll set up their own TV stations or (inspired by the US) a football club owned football TV channel - and can't help but think of the right-wing media/politics/entertainment complex as a similar path.

And in Europe, I think you also see aspects of this in the rise of more personalist politics and it's possibly part of that - whether it's Macron or Melenchon basically destroying traditional parties with traditional party structures for personal "movements", or, say, Geert Wilders whose party has one member (Geert Wilders) and otherwise has supporters, or even the early days of M5S - and in the US with Trump.

QuoteWresting coaches OTOH I think we should avoid going forward.  Admittedly the sample size is small but early returns are really bad.  Why take more chances?
Fair. Still don't fully understand how that sexual abuse scandal hasn't brought him down.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2024, 10:55:31 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 16, 2024, 10:52:58 AMThere's an upcoming book which I'm looking forward to on looking at politics with ideas of "fandom". I think it's largely thinking in terms of online "fandoms" but with Trump (and Corbyn for that matter) I've thought for a while about sports fans in how their strongest supporters are. It seems more like fans than supporters of a political ideology or political issues.

There is historical precedent for this - the political role of the blue and green chariot racing factions in Byzantium.  That's a precedent that should scare us.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 16, 2024, 10:57:33 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 16, 2024, 10:52:58 AMFair. Still don't fully understand how that sexual abuse scandal hasn't brought him down.

American right-wingers care about sexual abuse only as a political tool, not on its own terms. Therefore they're comfortable ignoring any abuse that's inconvenient for their politics.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 17, 2024, 06:03:03 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2024, 10:34:56 AMIt isn't.
But the deep southern states weren't going to put non-bigots and pro-integrationists into the Senate in the 1930s.  That wasn't an available option.

I don't see the relevance of this statement. My contention that Tuberville isn't the sign of decline of America doesn't hinge on whether a non-bigot could have been elected in Alabama in the past. In fact, I would think that actually bolsters my stance that Alabama has generally elected terrible people. ;)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2024, 10:34:56 AMThe option was someone like Russell vs Talmadge in Georgia.  Both racists who suppressed civil rights.  But Russell backed the New Deal, established the national school lunch program and supported anti-poverty programs that benefitted all. Talmadge on the other hand suppressed labor and opposed poverty relief, when he took spare time from cheerleading lynchings.  You can argue they were both the same because they both opposed civil rights with equal force, but they did differ in other respects, and those differences had real impact on people's lives.

I'm not what you are arguing for here. Certainly, I would agree that there are different levels of bad and different levels of oppression. Not sure the relevance to Tuberville as a sign of American decline.

Am I missing something and one of those two men you mention were as poorly credentialed as you find Tuberville? Or with your new phrasing as idiotic?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2024, 08:10:58 AM
I think my position is clear.  I never used the word credential in any form in describing TT, that was raised by sheilbh and I responded that credentials have nothing to do with my objection.

My objection as stated is that he is a fool and an idiot. Idiot  is not a new phrasing, I use that term as synonymous with fool, I think that is straightforward but feel free to point out any ambiguity you are still perceiving and I'll clear it up best I can.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 17, 2024, 08:20:08 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2024, 08:10:58 AMI think my position is clear.

And as I said, I didn't think it was as it appeared in what I last quoted that you were raising points irrelevant to what I was disputing.

QuoteI never used the word credential in any form in describing TT, that was raised by sheilbh and I responded that credentials have nothing to do with my objection.

Understood.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2024, 08:10:58 AMMy objection as stated is that he is a fool and an idiot. Idiot  is not a new phrasing, I use that term as synonymous with fool, I think that is straightforward but feel free to point out any ambiguity you are still perceiving and I'll clear it up best I can.

I don't see any amiguity around him being a fool/idiot, I'd even agree with that. What I don't agree with is that his idiocy 'encapsulate the decline of a once great nation.' Rather, I contend that senators from Alabama are not a useful yardstick as they have often been terrible and provided 3 examples of senators who I think are at least as reprehensible (and really more so) than Senator Tuberville. On the balance, I view their reprehensible actions more of a black mark on America's honor than Tuberville's idiocy.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sophie Scholl on February 19, 2024, 08:09:25 AM
John Oliver has put forth an offer to Clarence Thomas of a million dollars a year and a two million dollar RV/bus thing if he retires from the Supreme Court within the next 30 days. Madness, but I hope it somehow works.  :D
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 19, 2024, 08:39:34 AM
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on February 19, 2024, 08:09:25 AMJohn Oliver has put forth an offer to Clarence Thomas of a million dollars a year and a two million dollar RV/bus thing if he retires from the Supreme Court within the next 30 days. Madness, but I hope it somehow works.  :D

It is the best kind of political humour.  Thomas and his wife receive millions in benefits already because the USSC has no conflict of interest rules prohibiting accepting gifts.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 19, 2024, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 16, 2024, 07:13:31 AMYeah also I just hate that sort of credentialism (I think it's quite snobbish). We've had many great leaders from less "qualified" backgrounds than a football coach (and a lot of incredibly disappointing lawyers - I mean, in the current Senate, Tom Cotton, say).

FWIW I think football coach could actually be a good background for a political leadership - they sort of embody and represent a community, they're leaders etc. I think the issue with Tommy Tuberville is not his CV, but him.

I think that's completely fair and I retract my point.

The problem with Tuberville is not that he is a football coach.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 20, 2024, 03:03:13 PM
Coaches are used to having totalitarian powers within their domain.  Probably not a good choice for politics.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 20, 2024, 04:18:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 19, 2024, 02:11:31 PMThe problem with Tuberville is not that he is a football coach.

He does, however, have the same problems as a politician that he had as a football coach: he is a jerk and an idiot.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 20, 2024, 08:42:28 PM
Alabama supreme court rules that IVF embryos are children:

QuoteOn Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that embryos created through in-vitro fertilization would be protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, effectively classifying single-celled, fertilized eggs as children.

The case, known as LePage v. Mobile Infirmary Clinic, Inc, rested upon an argument by several intended parents that their "embryonic children" had been victims of a wrongful death when an intruder broke into the IVF clinic, dropping trays containing some of the embryos and ultimately destroying them.

In a 7–2 decision, Alabama's highest court ruled that the clinic had been negligent, allowing the parents to proceed with a wrongful death lawsuit. The court also ruled that it is "the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life," referring to the Alabama Constitution's Sanctity of Life Amendment, ratified in 2018."

https://newrepublic.com/post/179122/alabama-supreme-court-bible-embryo-ruling-ivf
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on February 20, 2024, 10:39:05 PM
So Alabama's IVF clinics will all close and move to other5 states.  I hope that the goal of these intended parents was to rob others of the opportunity to employ IVF, because that's what they accomplished.

Of course, they are Alabamans, so fucking over other people via stupidity may just be in their blood.  We know it's in their Congressional delegations.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 21, 2024, 01:30:39 AM
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2024, 08:42:28 PMAlabama supreme court rules that IVF embryos are children:

QuoteOn Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that embryos created through in-vitro fertilization would be protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, effectively classifying single-celled, fertilized eggs as children.

The case, known as LePage v. Mobile Infirmary Clinic, Inc, rested upon an argument by several intended parents that their "embryonic children" had been victims of a wrongful death when an intruder broke into the IVF clinic, dropping trays containing some of the embryos and ultimately destroying them.

In a 7–2 decision, Alabama's highest court ruled that the clinic had been negligent, allowing the parents to proceed with a wrongful death lawsuit. The court also ruled that it is "the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life," referring to the Alabama Constitution's Sanctity of Life Amendment, ratified in 2018."

https://newrepublic.com/post/179122/alabama-supreme-court-bible-embryo-ruling-ivf

How long until they institute penalties for menstruating women who are basically just wasting eggs and not being pregnant? Or men wasting precious sperm masturbating or otherwise not cumming inside a fertile female? Well, strike the latter, they never seem to hold guys responsible when it comes to reproduction. :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on February 21, 2024, 07:24:11 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 21, 2024, 01:30:39 AM
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2024, 08:42:28 PMAlabama supreme court rules that IVF embryos are children:

QuoteOn Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that embryos created through in-vitro fertilization would be protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, effectively classifying single-celled, fertilized eggs as children.

The case, known as LePage v. Mobile Infirmary Clinic, Inc, rested upon an argument by several intended parents that their "embryonic children" had been victims of a wrongful death when an intruder broke into the IVF clinic, dropping trays containing some of the embryos and ultimately destroying them.

In a 7–2 decision, Alabama's highest court ruled that the clinic had been negligent, allowing the parents to proceed with a wrongful death lawsuit. The court also ruled that it is "the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life," referring to the Alabama Constitution's Sanctity of Life Amendment, ratified in 2018."

https://newrepublic.com/post/179122/alabama-supreme-court-bible-embryo-ruling-ivf

How long until they institute penalties for menstruating women who are basically just wasting eggs and not being pregnant? Or men wasting precious sperm masturbating or otherwise not cumming inside a fertile female? Well, strike the latter, they never seem to hold guys responsible when it comes to reproduction. :P

On masturbating I really wouldn't put it past them.
Almost certainly are some calling for that
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 21, 2024, 08:13:11 AM
Every sperm is sacred
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on February 21, 2024, 11:29:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2024, 08:13:11 AMEvery sperm is sacred

40 years ago, that line was satire.  Not so much anymore in the US South.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2024, 06:57:58 PM
GOP attacks dems for not knowing the difference between a man and a woman, but they can't distinguish a person from a test tube.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sophie Scholl on February 21, 2024, 08:49:30 PM
Untitled.png
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on February 21, 2024, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 21, 2024, 01:30:39 AM
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2024, 08:42:28 PMAlabama supreme court rules that IVF embryos are children:

QuoteOn Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that embryos created through in-vitro fertilization would be protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, effectively classifying single-celled, fertilized eggs as children.

The case, known as LePage v. Mobile Infirmary Clinic, Inc, rested upon an argument by several intended parents that their "embryonic children" had been victims of a wrongful death when an intruder broke into the IVF clinic, dropping trays containing some of the embryos and ultimately destroying them.

In a 7–2 decision, Alabama's highest court ruled that the clinic had been negligent, allowing the parents to proceed with a wrongful death lawsuit. The court also ruled that it is "the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life," referring to the Alabama Constitution's Sanctity of Life Amendment, ratified in 2018."

https://newrepublic.com/post/179122/alabama-supreme-court-bible-embryo-ruling-ivf

How long until they institute penalties for menstruating women who are basically just wasting eggs and not being pregnant? Or men wasting precious sperm masturbating or otherwise not cumming inside a fertile female? Well, strike the latter, they never seem to hold guys responsible when it comes to reproduction. :P

Blowjobs can lead to cannibalism.  :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on February 23, 2024, 03:00:23 PM
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on February 21, 2024, 08:49:30 PMUntitled.png
:lol:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 23, 2024, 03:09:04 PM
I gotta admit - the way the extreme GOP fringe has now pivoted to being anti-IVF, anti-birth control is just crazy to me.  They're picking up all these old Roman Catholic positions that the RC church barely believes in any more - and the large majority of GOP proponents aren't even Catholic...
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 23, 2024, 03:17:36 PM
I'm not sure you can really describe those folks as being the extreme GOP. That has always been the evangelical wing of the Republicans. It's just that now they have much more power than ever and so we noticed them more.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 23, 2024, 03:39:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2024, 03:17:36 PMI'm not sure you can really describe those folks as being the extreme GOP. That has always been the evangelical wing of the Republicans. It's just that now they have much more power than ever and so we noticed them more.

The weird part is that the Evangelical position was, until like 40 years ago, that life begins at first breath as the bible says. Not sure what happened to that but I am no theologian.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 25, 2024, 04:25:11 PM
I get it's her state etc. But given this is Trump's party now and Trump's effectively run (and been treated) as an incumbent, 60% seems like a pretty poor result for him, no?

Just thinking - along with the very tepid CPAC that I feel like you'd expect more enthusiasm? :mellow: :hmm:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on February 26, 2024, 06:42:10 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2024, 04:25:11 PMI get it's her state etc. But given this is Trump's party now and Trump's effectively run (and been treated) as an incumbent, 60% seems like a pretty poor result for him, no?

Just thinking - along with the very tepid CPAC that I feel like you'd expect more enthusiasm? :mellow: :hmm:

Yes, I'm seeing a few comments about with this kind of thinking...It is very optimistic.
Maybe?
But then how many of this 40% hate Trump vs. those who just think some variation of his time is done/this other person is better/I'll vote for whoever wins anyway.
I haven't seen the data but I've heard mutterings about a poll of these people saying they wouldn't vote for Trump, if thats true then its encouraging.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 26, 2024, 12:50:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2024, 03:39:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2024, 03:17:36 PMI'm not sure you can really describe those folks as being the extreme GOP. That has always been the evangelical wing of the Republicans. It's just that now they have much more power than ever and so we noticed them more.

The weird part is that the Evangelical position was, until like 40 years ago, that life begins at first breath as the bible says. Not sure what happened to that but I am no theologian.

Perhaps it has to do with the timing of when the Evangelical movement became political. 
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Zanza on February 26, 2024, 12:55:21 PM
Looks like the GOP will soon be led by Trump's daughter in law. Can't wait for cabinet offices for Don Jr. and Eric.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 26, 2024, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2024, 04:25:11 PMI get it's her state etc. But given this is Trump's party now and Trump's effectively run (and been treated) as an incumbent, 60% seems like a pretty poor result for him, no?

Just thinking - along with the very tepid CPAC that I feel like you'd expect more enthusiasm? :mellow: :hmm:

I was kind of thinking that - that ordinarily, if a challenger running against an incumbent won 40% of the vote that would be seen as a huge defeat.  Pat Buchanan won 38% of the vote in 1992 in New Hampshire (compared to Bush 41's 58%) and that was seen as a big deal.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 26, 2024, 02:58:11 PM
Yeah it seems puzzling and doesn't seem to indicate a massively enthused base chomping at the bit to avenge the great stolen election.

It really feels like an election between who will depress turnout the most.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 26, 2024, 03:02:15 PM
I continue to oscillate between confident optimism and despondent pessimism on this  :(
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on February 26, 2024, 03:08:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2024, 03:02:15 PMI continue to oscillate between confident optimism and despondent pessimism on this  :(

Even if Trump loses the next GOP candidate won't be much better. They might even be competent, which is scarier. Comforting, right? :console: :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: frunk on February 26, 2024, 03:18:34 PM
That's the problem.  The country is going to be at risk as long as the Republicans remain crazy and relevant.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 26, 2024, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 26, 2024, 03:08:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2024, 03:02:15 PMI continue to oscillate between confident optimism and despondent pessimism on this  :(

Even if Trump loses the next GOP candidate won't be much better. They might even be competent, which is scarier. Comforting, right? :console: :P

Plenty of them are already competent, at least as far as politicians go. Recreating Trump but as a competent politician and administrator seems...contradictory to what makes him work.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on February 26, 2024, 04:11:05 PM
I was thinking more of a competent populist. Putting right people in right spots. Or more accurate the wrong people in the right spots. No one can out trump Trump in the game of rambling conman.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on February 26, 2024, 04:24:28 PM
Quote from: Josquius on February 26, 2024, 06:42:10 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2024, 04:25:11 PMI get it's her state etc. But given this is Trump's party now and Trump's effectively run (and been treated) as an incumbent, 60% seems like a pretty poor result for him, no?

Just thinking - along with the very tepid CPAC that I feel like you'd expect more enthusiasm? :mellow: :hmm:

Yes, I'm seeing a few comments about with this kind of thinking...It is very optimistic.
Maybe?
But then how many of this 40% hate Trump vs. those who just think some variation of his time is done/this other person is better/I'll vote for whoever wins anyway.
I haven't seen the data but I've heard mutterings about a poll of these people saying they wouldn't vote for Trump, if thats true then its encouraging.
The Arabs don't want to vote for Biden because he's too pro-Israeli.
Some of the Jews don't want to vote for Biden because he's not seen as supportive enough compared to the GOP.  They'll take their chances with the very fine people.
The far left, again, don't want to vote for Biden because he's not leftist enough.

I predict a repeat of Trump's first election where many Democrats stayed home and Trump won the electoral college.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on February 26, 2024, 04:42:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 26, 2024, 04:11:05 PMI was thinking more of a competent populist. Putting right people in right spots. Or more accurate the wrong people in the right spots. No one can out trump Trump in the game of rambling conman.
I'm not sure a populist can do that.  The whole point is to fight against the people who know how things work.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 26, 2024, 05:41:14 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 26, 2024, 03:08:05 PMEven if Trump loses the next GOP candidate won't be much better. They might even be competent, which is scarier. Comforting, right? :console: :P

I don't think it's a given that if Trump fails, what follows will be just as bad (or worse). It might happen, but it might not - but I don't think it's worthwhile to worry about right now. Trump winning, however, is likely to set off some pretty massive disasters almost immediately - both internally to the US and globally.

If he doesn't win, conditions may be very different in four years.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2024, 07:39:34 PM
More competent at what?  Overturning democracy?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on February 27, 2024, 01:45:58 AM
https://www.universalhub.com/comment/964019

QuoteTough choice for Republican voters in one Boston district next week: A woman with a doctorate who helps run a state agency or a Nazi

Republicans in the First Suffolk district (state Sen. Nick Collins's district) who vote during the March 5 primary will get to decide who represents them on the Republican State Committee - one man and one woman.

On the women's side, the candidates are Elizabeth Hinds-Ferrick and Lori Kauffman, both of Dorchester.

Hinds-Ferrick immigrated from Guyana, got a doctorate in law and policy at Northeastern and is currently assistant director at the state Department of Transitional Assistance.

Kauffman, who grew up Jewish, divides her love between Kanye West and Hitler. She wants to exile Jews from the US and blames a Covid-19 shot for giving her stage-4 brain cancer (don't worry, she says the tumors are now shrinking) . She's also a transphobe.

She had been running as a ticket with state committeeman candidate and Croke Park owner Daniel Kelly, but now hates him because he publicly supported Israel.

Hinds-Ferrick is running with Timothy Smyth of South Boston. Both won election last year running in a local caucus against now failed and rabidly pro-Trump state party Chairman James Lyons.



(https://i.postimg.cc/W1tLjCdb/image.png)
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on February 27, 2024, 03:43:45 AM
How does that work? She exiles herself?
I suppose if she does have brain cancer it would explain a lot.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Josquius on February 27, 2024, 04:07:38 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 26, 2024, 04:24:28 PM
Quote from: Josquius on February 26, 2024, 06:42:10 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2024, 04:25:11 PMI get it's her state etc. But given this is Trump's party now and Trump's effectively run (and been treated) as an incumbent, 60% seems like a pretty poor result for him, no?

Just thinking - along with the very tepid CPAC that I feel like you'd expect more enthusiasm? :mellow: :hmm:

Yes, I'm seeing a few comments about with this kind of thinking...It is very optimistic.
Maybe?
But then how many of this 40% hate Trump vs. those who just think some variation of his time is done/this other person is better/I'll vote for whoever wins anyway.
I haven't seen the data but I've heard mutterings about a poll of these people saying they wouldn't vote for Trump, if thats true then its encouraging.
The Arabs don't want to vote for Biden because he's too pro-Israeli.
Some of the Jews don't want to vote for Biden because he's not seen as supportive enough compared to the GOP.  They'll take their chances with the very fine people.
The far left, again, don't want to vote for Biden because he's not leftist enough.

I predict a repeat of Trump's first election where many Democrats stayed home and Trump won the electoral college.


The Arabs and some of the Jews? :yeahright:

I do remember last election some far left youtubers coming out and encouraging a vote for Biden as a "better to keep things as they are with a tiny window of hope" than to have a boot on the neck. Fingers crossed for the same this.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on February 27, 2024, 11:37:14 AM
Quote from: Josquius on February 27, 2024, 04:07:38 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 26, 2024, 04:24:28 PM
Quote from: Josquius on February 26, 2024, 06:42:10 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2024, 04:25:11 PMI get it's her state etc. But given this is Trump's party now and Trump's effectively run (and been treated) as an incumbent, 60% seems like a pretty poor result for him, no?

Just thinking - along with the very tepid CPAC that I feel like you'd expect more enthusiasm? :mellow: :hmm:

Yes, I'm seeing a few comments about with this kind of thinking...It is very optimistic.
Maybe?
But then how many of this 40% hate Trump vs. those who just think some variation of his time is done/this other person is better/I'll vote for whoever wins anyway.
I haven't seen the data but I've heard mutterings about a poll of these people saying they wouldn't vote for Trump, if thats true then its encouraging.
The Arabs don't want to vote for Biden because he's too pro-Israeli.
Some of the Jews don't want to vote for Biden because he's not seen as supportive enough compared to the GOP.  They'll take their chances with the very fine people.
The far left, again, don't want to vote for Biden because he's not leftist enough.

I predict a repeat of Trump's first election where many Democrats stayed home and Trump won the electoral college.


The Arabs and some of the Jews? :yeahright:

I do remember last election some far left youtubers coming out and encouraging a vote for Biden as a "better to keep things as they are with a tiny window of hope" than to have a boot on the neck. Fingers crossed for the same this.
It was in the Wash Post, IIRC.  Arab support is at 17% for Biden.
Why Arab Americans don't want to vote for Biden in 2024 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/29/biden-arab-americans-vote-2024-palestinians-israel/)
For Jewish support, those who speak openly are still in favor of Biden:
For historically conservative Jewish Americans, Biden's response to Israel receives praise  (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/jewish-americans-praise-bidens-handling-israel-progressives-call-cease-rcna124944)

On conservative forums, the talk is elsewhere.  There might be an echo chamber.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: garbon on February 28, 2024, 01:37:07 PM
McConnell to quit as Senate Republican leader in November
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on February 28, 2024, 02:37:28 PM
Looking forward to Senate Majority Leader Tommy Tuberville next year.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: DGuller on February 28, 2024, 02:38:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2024, 01:37:07 PMMcConnell to quit as Senate Republican leader in November
It's depressing that my first thought was "is that good or is that bad"?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Jacob on February 28, 2024, 03:51:31 PM
If Trump wins, it's probably bad. The next GOP senate leader will likely be worse than Mitch, then.

If Trump loses, then it could go either way depending on which way the GOP cookie crumbles.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Sheilbh on February 28, 2024, 03:54:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2024, 03:51:31 PMIf Trump wins, it's probably bad. The next GOP senate leader will likely be worse than Mitch, then.
Yeah - as awful as he is, I suspect he's held back an awful lot worse.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Barrister on February 28, 2024, 03:56:40 PM
I have very little doubt that the replacement to Mitch McConnell will be worse.

I mean - McConnell has pushed for the border deal.  He has pushed to keep financing the government, and to fund Ukraine.

No, he didn't vote to impeach Trump after Jan 6, but at least he denounced him.  There's a reason Trump hates McConnell.

It's not like they're going to re-animate the corpse of John McCain to make as GOP Senate leader.  Anyone I can think of in the Senate is going to be noticeable worse than McConnell.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: crazy canuck on February 28, 2024, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2024, 03:56:40 PMI have very little doubt that the replacement to Mitch McConnell will be worse.

Well, certainly no better.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on February 28, 2024, 09:25:52 PM
The Republican Party is only going to get worse for the foreseeable future.

I remember rejoicing when the old corrupt Republicans were being swept away by the Tea Party types around 2010-2012 era. LOL

I would love to have those pieces of shit back now.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 01, 2024, 10:02:21 AM
The GOP being as thorough as they always are (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/u-s-senators-demand-answers-from-pfizer-about-a-50-donation-to-a-canadian-maid-group/ar-BB1j7LsL?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=01d29d48b0464f3cb576906fa2317855&ei=40)

They are grilling Pfizer CEO about a 50$ donation to a Canadian medically assisted death group.  Asking the important questions, as always.

Freedom isn't free, remember.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Tonitrus on March 01, 2024, 10:00:21 PM
There is no real "grilling" here...it is just a political publicity stunt (and with our fine campaign contribution rules...probably doubling as a shake down).

And even the Congressional committee "grillings" are just another form of grand-standing/publicity-stunting...they never really want answers, they just want to hear, and have cameras record, them talking to themselves.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2024, 10:36:12 PM
Quoteit was part of a company program matching employee charitable donations, and the company matched an employee's $50 contribution.
This is what Congress is spending its time on.  What a clown show.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 22, 2024, 01:41:31 PM
Tennessee Republicans leading the charge against *checks notes* chemtrails. :tinfoil:

https://eu.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2024/03/20/tennessee-senate-passes-bill-banning-chemtrails-what-to-know/73027586007/

QuoteTennessee Senate passes bill based on 'chemtrails' conspiracy theory: What to know

The Tennessee Senate has passed a bill targeting "chemtrails."

SB 2691/HB 2063, sponsored by Rep. Monty Fritts, R-Kingston, and Sen. Steve Southerland, R-Morristown, passed in the Senate on Monday. The bill has yet to advance in the House.

The bill claims it is "documented the federal government or other entities acting on the federal government's behalf or at the federal government's request may conduct geoengineering experiments by intentionally dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere, and those activities may occur within the State of Tennessee," according to the bill.

The legislation would ban the practice in Tennessee.

"The intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight is prohibited," the bill reads.

The bill is scheduled to go to the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday.

Here is what to know about chemtrails.

What are chemtrails? What is the conspiracy theory behind them?
The chemtrail theory is the belief that the government is secretly adding toxic chemicals to the atmosphere from aircrafts, similar to contrails. According to a research group at Harvard University which focuses on climate science and technology, the reasoning behind the theory involves sterilization, reduction of life expectancy, mind control, and weather control.

The research group has debunked the theory, saying that there is no credible evidence for the existence of chemtrails.

"Study of solar geoengineering is in the very early stages and the topic is (rightly) a very controversial area of climate policy because if it ever were tested at large scales or implemented it could involve physical risks and would raise a range of serious socio-political and ethical issues," said the Harvard research group. "We are confident that there is no currently active program to actually test or implement albedo modification outdoors."

According to Harvard, if there truly was a large-scale program which involved aircrafts introducing hazardous chemicals, there would first need to be an operating system to manufacture, load and disperse materials. Additionally, if such a system existed, it would require the work and cooperation of thousands of people which would make it difficult to maintain a secret.

It would be fairly simple for a single individual to reveal the existence of the program using leaked documents, photographs or hardware, said Harvard.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that there is a large-scale secret program to spray materials from aircraft is extraordinary. Yet all the evidence we have seen to date has been very weak," said Harvard. "The most common claim is simply that aircraft contrails look 'different', without any comparative analysis."

"This [is] as convincing as saying that alien beings walk among in disguise as people because some people act very strangely.," they added.

Are contrails used for geoengineering?
No.

Contrails, the white streaks of water vapor left in the sky from planes, are not used for geoengineering. The contrails are simply water clouds resulting from jet exhaust, said Alan Robock, a climate science professor at Rutgers University who studies geoengineering, in a statement to USA TODAY.

Furthermore, contrails would be a poor choice for climate intervention, said Dave Fahey, the director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's chemical sciences laboratory.

"Contrails are short-lived cloud effects – less than a few days," Fahey told USA TODAY. "They would be a very inefficient method."

Has solar geoengineering ever been implemented?
No.

Solar geoengineering is an area of study meant to combat rising global temperatures by reflecting sunlight away from the Earth.

"The idea is that dispersing aerosols – tiny particles – at high altitude would reflect a small fraction of incoming sunlight back to space and cool the planet, offsetting some global warming," Joshua Horton, a geoengineering research director at Harvard University, said in an email to USA TODAY.

This has not yet been developed, though, Horton and Robock said.

"The technology does not exist," Robock said. "There is no mechanism to get sulfur gases into the stratosphere. People have created designs for such airplanes, but they have not been built."

Robock said solar geoengineering would most likely cause bright yellow and red sunrises and sunsets, not white streaks.

"It would not look at all like contrails," he said.

Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Valmy on March 22, 2024, 02:14:30 PM
If the government was secretly putting toxic chemicals into the atmosphere using this stupid method, how would a state law do anything at all to stop them?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Brain on March 22, 2024, 03:49:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2024, 02:14:30 PMIf the government was secretly putting toxic chemicals into the atmosphere using this stupid method, how would a state law do anything at all to stop them?

Guns.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 22, 2024, 04:37:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 22, 2024, 03:49:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2024, 02:14:30 PMIf the government was secretly putting toxic chemicals into the atmosphere using this stupid method, how would a state law do anything at all to stop them?

Guns.
walls?
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: grumbler on March 22, 2024, 05:22:37 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 22, 2024, 04:37:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 22, 2024, 03:49:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2024, 02:14:30 PMIf the government was secretly putting toxic chemicals into the atmosphere using this stupid method, how would a state law do anything at all to stop them?

Guns.
walls?

And make Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia pay for them!
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 22, 2024, 11:40:35 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 22, 2024, 04:37:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 22, 2024, 03:49:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2024, 02:14:30 PMIf the government was secretly putting toxic chemicals into the atmosphere using this stupid method, how would a state law do anything at all to stop them?

Guns.
walls?

Guns wall?

(https://i.imgur.com/uqksY3E.png)

:unsure:
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Razgovory on March 22, 2024, 11:47:42 PM
Candace Owens was booked from the Daily Wire for Antisemitism. 

QuoteProminent right-wing commentator Candace Owens has left the Daily Wire, the website founded by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, after months of promoting antisemitic ideas.

In a statement posted to social media Friday morning, Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing said the company and the pundit "have ended their relationship."

"The rumors are true — I am finally free," Owens said in her own post.

The details of Owens's exit weren't immediately clear, but it follows increased tension over antisemitic rhetoric that pitted Owens against Shapiro, who is Jewish, and the rest of the site's more mainline conservative figures.

The Daily Wire didn't respond to a request for further comment. Owens couldn't be reached for an immediate comment.
In a Thursday appearance on "The Breakfast Club" radio show, Owens acknowledged her strained relationship with Shapiro but claimed that "Ben doesn't have the power to fire me."

Owens's split with the Daily Wire represents the latest example of a high-profile conservative figure contending with the expectations of a more staid employer. Last year, Fox News fired star host Tucker Carlson for reasons that were never made public but which came after he promoted conspiracy theories and disparaged Ukrainian leaders.

A telegenic presence and pugnacious social media warrior, Owens, 34, first rose to prominence on the right for her commentary skeptical of women who had been harassed during the 2014 "GamerGate" controversy that consumed the video game world. An unabashed booster and defender of Donald Trump, she launched a campaign in 2018 known as "Blexit" to try to encourage Black voters to leave the Democratic Party.

In 2020, she joined the Daily Wire — a Nashville-based conservative entertainment conglomerate with a massive following and ambitions to become a conservative alternative to Hollywood — and immediately became one of its leading pundits.

Her profile grew when rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, praised the way she "thinks," both appearing at a 2022 fashion show wearing matching "White Lives Matter" shirts. But Ye had already moved into his new role as an erratic provocateur, recently making antisemitic comments — if occasionally apologizing — and speaking admiringly about Adolf Hitler.

Meanwhile, Owens began to use her Daily Wire platform to promote antisemitism — claiming this month on her show that "secret Jewish gangs" terrorize Hollywood — and recently favorited a tweet repeating a lie about Jews drinking Christians' blood.

She has also clashed publicly with the avowedly pro-Israel Shapiro by criticizing the nation in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks.

"I think she's been absolutely disgraceful," Shapiro said in a recording posted on X in November. "I think that her faux-sophistication on these particular issues has been ridiculous."

Owens shot back on X that "you cannot serve both God and money," in what appeared to be a jab at her employer.

Still, the November feud appeared to have been settled, with Boreing releasing a statement saying Owens's "job is secured."


Congrats to Minsky for IDing her as antisemite years back when before she actually said anything antisemitic.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on March 23, 2024, 02:07:29 AM
Antisemitism is extremely common in the black community as a baseline, and is probably nearly 100% when we're talking black Republicans.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2024, 11:49:51 AM
They never learn. Christian blood, despite its significant nutritional values, is not kosher.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: viper37 on March 25, 2024, 07:34:10 PM
After the war on chemtrails, other Republicans are taking the good fights a step further.

Minnesota Republican legislator opposes safe gun storage law, citing killer cow threat (https://heartlandsignal.com/2024/03/25/minnesota-republican-legislator-opposes-safe-gun-storage-law-citing-killer-cow-threat/)

QuoteWhile arguing against a proposal for safe storage requirements for firearms, Minnesota state Sen. Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove) contended that rural citizens need guns readily available to deal with cows.

"You even walk too close to a cow, and it'll take you down and trample you into dust," Limmer said. "Fumbling around with a lock while a cow or a bull or any other animal is going after your daughter or your son — you can't fumble around with a key or try and find the lockbox or put your thumb on a biometric key of some sort in your home while the danger is outside. This bill puts those individuals in even more danger."
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: Syt on March 26, 2024, 01:17:46 AM
You joke, but there's hardly a year a tourist isn't killed in Austria by a cow after trespassing onto a meadow. :P
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: HVC on March 26, 2024, 01:25:29 AM
Cows (mostly bulls) kill people here too. But by the time you run home and get your gun, locked or not, little Debbie is is a goner either way.
Title: Re: Quo Vadis GOP?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2024, 01:39:51 AM
Just lost the BJP vote right there.