News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Recent posts

#1
Off the Record / Re: Songs you don't like to ad...
Last post by celedhring - Today at 05:10:59 AM
Love Missile F1-11
Wonderwall (I'm not supposed to like Oasis)
Overload (and several others from the Sugababes' body of work  :blush:)

#2
Off the Record / Re: Hungarian Politics
Last post by Tamas - Today at 03:05:48 AM
With absolutely no announcement (some journos spotted it among the public finances data published) the government took a 1 billion euros loan from China back in April, for an undisclosed purpose and on undisclosed terms.

This, for me, is one more proof that Orban is running a very classic feudalistic regime, where he is a king maintains loyalty and thus control by a steady stream of perks and gifts for which he needs money. To make things worse the regime and apparatus he has built he built it to the scale of the unprecedently massive incoming EU grants over the past 14 years. Both his vassals and because of that the country as a whole need these recurring injections for the house of cards not to collapse.

Instead of reform he will just turn toward China and Russia to keep going.
#3
Off the Record / Re: Facebook Follies of Friend...
Last post by Josquius - Today at 02:56:51 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 24, 2024, 10:14:54 AM

This one looks familiar.
We know its bollocks but some of the details are interesting.

#4
Gaming HQ / Re: Victoria 3
Last post by Syt - Today at 01:07:35 AM
Has anyone tried the Better Politics Mod? I think it looks ambitious:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2932134122

It aims to have a more realistic shift of politics from traditional interest groups (landowners, military etc.) towards ideological groups over time.

QuoteThe goal of BPM is to make politics more dynamic, more legible, more materialist, and more historically accurate. Specifically, it sets out to correct these problems we have with the base game:
  • Seven interest groups are not nearly sufficient to represent the breadth of political history.
  • The ideology of an IG leader has too large and random an effect on politics. For instance, trade unions can swing from communist to reactionary overnight.
  • All IGs are internally united, when many of them suffered infighting and splits IRL. Why should all urban workers become communist at the same time? Where did the moderates go?
  • Political parties are shallow. They're too arbitrary, form and dissipate too frequently. Coalitions are either small and boring or huge and illegitimate.
  • There is little international interaction between IGs, when many of them communicated and collaborated actively.
For more information about the design philosophy of BPM, you can read our design doc.


Features include, but are not limited to:
  • New Ideological IGs: Liberals, Radical Liberals, Conservatives, Reactionaries, Agrarian Populists, Trade Unionists, Socialists, Anarchists, Reformist Socialists, Revolutionist Socialists, Market Liberals, National Liberals
  • Vanilla IGs are reskinned and tweaked to represent various "Interests."
  • IG splits: Socialists vs Anarchists, Reformist vs Revolutionary Socialists, Liberals vs Market Liberals vs National Liberals
  • New Law enactment voting & sway mechanics
  • New Political Rigidity mechanic
  • New Journal Entries and Event chains
  • New Laws and Institutions

As mods go, it seems to be one of the better thought out ones, but I loaded it up yesterday, and found the presence of 16 interest groups (many being tiny and irrelevant at start) a bit overwhelming :D













#5
Off the Record / Re: 2024 US Presidential Elect...
Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 12:28:09 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2024, 10:31:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2024, 10:07:56 AMSo now you're delving into conspiracy theory, combined with a very odd assertion that there is a false sense of urgency.

There is certainly urgency. And how do you explain the fact that no other contender has come forward because without that your whole premise fails.  It's impossible to have another process with contenders if there are no other contenders.  It just turns out that pretty much everybody else is reading the situation differently than you.   That's not a conspiracy that's just that everybody else sees it differently.  In other words, you might be the one who isn't viewing this situation accurately.
I think Biden endorsing Harris very shortly after withdrawing more or less ended any alternative - and those candidates deciding either it wasn't the right time or they didn't have a chance (which I think was basically inevitable after Biden's decision - unless there was a huge reaction against Harris in the immediate aftermath).

But I don't think they're just individuals. I think those decisions will have been in the context of senior Democrats talking to each other constantly every day since the debate about how to get Biden to step down and what to do if he does. I think in part, with previous discussions of blitz primaries, they concluded they needed to do it quickly, unity and avoiding the risk of division was very important and Harris is a good enough candidate (and has been vetted).

The thing I started with is that I think if that last assessment turns out to be wrong, they might regret the other two. And I don't know if it will but I think the last one is more important and will have more of an impact than the other two.

Edit: I've realised I've accidentally been channelling Kamala Harris - the presidential nomination didn't fall out of a coconut tree :P

The more details we find out about what happened immediate after Biden announced he was stepping down the less likely your scenario of senior party operative, making the decision behind the scene becomes.

This detailed analysis of what Harris did immediately after and for the next 48 hours explains why she got all the support.  It had everything to do with her and her team and not so much your theory of party insiders deciding everything well beforehand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/24/us/politics/kamala-harris-democrats-nomination.html
#6
Off the Record / Re: If you were Kamala Harris,...
Last post by jimmy olsen - July 24, 2024, 10:33:02 PM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-vp-vetting/

Hmm...
QuoteMultiple sources tell CBS News that the list of candidates includes several governors: Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Tim Walz of Minnesota, J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.

...
Members of the Biden administration, including Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg are also being considered, along with Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, among others.

As a Rhode Ilsander, I say no to Raimondo, she's a component technocratic centrist and that's it
#7
Off the Record / Re: Climate Change/Mass Extinc...
Last post by grumbler - July 24, 2024, 08:04:52 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 19, 2024, 05:29:53 PMI feel like I should split this comparative economics tangent off into its own thread. :shifty:

I don't think that that would help it make any more sense. It's between people with completely different definitions of economic terms.
#8
Off the Record / Re: 2024 US Presidential Elect...
Last post by grumbler - July 24, 2024, 08:01:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2024, 06:54:20 PMIf Trump were able to find a judge at level one to issue a temporary injunction, that could be accomplished in a matter of days.  Then it would up to Harris to get the higher level courts to reverse it. If Trump was forced to rely on a Supreme Court hail mary it would take longer, but in federal court, orders denying an injunction can be appealed immediately and it is theoretically possible to skip stage 2.  That would likely take weeks not days but it still could be fast enough to do real damage.

So, all that Harris has to do to cripple the Trump campaign is to find a sympathetic judge to impound all of the Trump campaign's money via emergency injunctive relief and then fight to delay the granting of relief for that injunction?  I'm wondering why this doesn't happen frequently, in that case. 

QuoteA party seeking an injunction must show likelihood success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of the equities.  Could trump do so in this case?  No.  But that only matters if the judiciary does their job and my level of confidence has dropped. Never in a million years did I imagine that even this Supreme Court could drop an opinion like they did in the immunity case. Never in a million years did I imagine that a federal judge would pull the kind of antics Cannon has been pulling in Florida.

Would the corrupt judge's granting an injunction also sequester the money Harris raises after the injunction is granted?  If not, I can't see Harris being unable to raise $100 million in outrage money should Trump "win" his case for standing and then an injunction. 
#9
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by FunkMonk - July 24, 2024, 07:48:21 PM
First we lose to Fiji in rugby and then our men's soccer team gets blasted by France. This country is finished thanks to Joe Biden.
#10
Off the Record / Re: 2024 US Presidential Elect...
Last post by The Minsky Moment - July 24, 2024, 06:54:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2024, 06:29:04 PMIt would take three levels of the courts to even rule the same way on standing before the circuit judge could begin to rule on emergency injunctive relief, no?  Then the plaintiff, if granted standing, has to show damage caused by the lack of injunctive relief, no?

I guess that "zero probability" is never off the cards, but the difference between zero and whatever chance there is in this case doesn't seem worthy of detailed exploration.

If Trump were able to find a judge at level one to issue a temporary injunction, that could be accomplished in a matter of days.  Then it would up to Harris to get the higher level courts to reverse it. If Trump was forced to rely on a Supreme Court hail mary it would take longer, but in federal court, orders denying an injunction can be appealed immediately and it is theoretically possible to skip stage 2.  That would likely take weeks not days but it still could be fast enough to do real damage.

A party seeking an injunction must show likelihood success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of the equities.  Could trump do so in this case?  No.  But that only matters if the judiciary does their job and my level of confidence has dropped. Never in a million years did I imagine that even this Supreme Court could drop an opinion like they did in the immunity case. Never in a million years did I imagine that a federal judge would pull the kind of antics Cannon has been pulling in Florida.