Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Raga]

Apparently The Networks Blew the Call because they opted to broadcast Trump's speech tonight, and the only way they can salvage the situation is by having real-time fact checking to make extra sure that everybody knows that everything Trump says is *lies.*

Stay classy.

*Edit*

Related: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shouldn’t approach her facts the way Trump does

[Sinekein]

The one thing I disagree with in that article is that networks agreed to broadcast out of fear. I think they agreed because of ratings.

Otherwise it sounds like a reasonable opinion. It is hard to deny that Trump constantly lies and that he will likely lie tonight too.

[Mobius_118]

Immediately after there will be nothing but talks about his insanity and lies.

Hell, Fox news is turning on the trump administration.

[Raga]

Immediately after there will be nothing but talks about his insanity and lies.

Hell, Fox news is turning on the trump administration.

Sure, which is why it's stupid to have real-time fact checking (as if that's even possible). Nancy Pelosi will be giving a counter speech right after it, which they will also broadcast. And talking heads will spend the next ten days shredding it.

What's being put forward is something like those people that say Mein Kampf should only be allowed to be published so long as there are footnotes explaining why it's wrong on every page.

[Mazder]

Well MP's have made crashing out of the EU less of a viable Brexit option.
We can still do it of course but it's basically the biggest risk for anyone and everyone involved.
This is a BIG move to try and force May into allowing a referendum/second vote.

If she does it's basically going to be an end to Brexit as everyone is so tied of it.
If so then by next election cycle (unless Labour immediately uses Brexit's failure as justification for a vote of no confidence and sparking that whole business) Labour is most likely to be in power again.

Now, May does have 2 options left open to her.
She can recall Article 50 still (if the EU will let her, which they might) which would put it so she can iron out any "theoretical" changes we'd make in our own laws in comparison with EU laws and what we'd like to do "In theory" of exiting the EU.
Or she can try and get the Queen to overrule her decision. Lizzie still holds that power and technically can still over-rule any Brexit decision if she so chose.


I also still hope that if nothing else does happen that there is reforms to how the UK deals with the EU as the nation needs to be made more aware of the EU council, how it runs and how separated it truly is from the individual governments of each member state.

[Augustei]

If the Senate has their way it'll soon be illegal in the US to boycott Israel, so that'll be fun. Want to boycott any other state? that's fine. But Boycott Israel?! Off to the slammer with you!

[Vol]

What's being put forward is something like those people that say Mein Kampf should only be allowed to be published so long as there are footnotes explaining why it's wrong on every page.

Heh, that's actually why I bought my copy already. Only added text is from the translator to give non-judgmental historical context in the foreword. Communist Manifesto too, pure document. This habit of altering works rather than let them speak for themselves is frustrating. I do not require a shit heel working at a publishing company to explain to me why major historical writings have the reputations they have. Nobody does. Unless the work itself is so arcane and archaic that there is actually a need for comments (Shakespeare, the Bible), in which case the pure, untouched version should be right there next to the "For Dummies" edition.

Funny thing, those people who get all up in arms about the government have no problem with it happening to others. They'd rather be the ones doing the crushing. In fact they do it to themselves, if the leader is charismatic enough.

Looking at you, libertarians.

It's difficult to not be a hypocrite. Painful, sometimes. Loathe as I am to ever desire government oversight, for example, Silicon Valley tech companies are colluding to control internet content. They did not build it, populate it, or pay for it, that would be us. So some sort of standard for free speech is called for, as painful as it is to admit it.

If the Senate has their way it'll soon be illegal in the US to boycott Israel, so that'll be fun. Want to boycott any other state? that's fine. But Boycott Israel?! Off to the slammer with you!

That will never stand up in court, you have the right to burn the Torah, hang a rabbi in effigy, wave a swastika flag, and hand out pamphlets on how to kick start the Day of the Rope by nuking Israel and LA, and government cannot impede on that (Might need permits depending on the size of the protest). Unless no one has the chutzpah to challenge it.

[Raga]

Heh, that's actually why I bought my copy already. Only added text is from the translator to give non-judgmental historical context in the foreword. Communist Manifesto too, pure document. This habit of altering works rather than let them speak for themselves is frustrating. I do not require a shit heel working at a publishing company to explain to me why major historical writings have the reputations they have. Nobody does. Unless the work itself is so arcane and archaic that there is actually a need for comments (Shakespeare, the Bible), in which case the pure, untouched version should be right there next to the "For Dummies" edition
.

I have a copy of the Communist Manifesto but not Mein Kampf, but that's not because of ideological issues with having a copy of it. It's one of those books you can pretty much get by coming at from another way like reading Nazi documents in general or listening to Hitler speeches or reading biographies and such. It is a monstrous boulder of a terrible book. I heard it described as somewhere once as the most widely published book that's never been read. Even in Nazi Germany it was apparently sitting around on people's coffee tables and whatnot and nobody actually read the damn thing because it's next to unreadable and long.

[Vol]

I have a copy of the Communist Manifesto but not Mein Kampf, but that's not because of ideological issues with having a copy of it. It's one of those books you can pretty much get by coming at from another way like reading Nazi documents in general or listening to Hitler speeches or reading biographies and such. It is a monstrous boulder of a terrible book. I heard it described as somewhere once as the most widely published book that's never been read. Even in Nazi Germany it was apparently sitting around on people's coffee tables and whatnot and nobody actually read the damn thing because it's next to unreadable and long.

I've flipped through it, seems pretty dry. Though randomly picking a page just now, to paraphrase, "Only German men who have served in the military will be granted citizenship, and women upon marriage." Gosh, that's not a terrible idea!

But yes, I own it more for the sake of owning it, I don't intend to actually read it. Quite long and dense. And that's coming from someone who reads biographies on Chiang Kai-shek and Mao for fun.

Edit: Though I should note that the publisher of the edition I have is apparently a "soft" white nationalist company (Going by the website stamped on the inside of the back cover) that sells apparel just on the side of plausible deniability, so there is a moral issue in funding them, in this case.

[Raga]

God, watching the speech is just painful. It reminds me why I mostly read the news and don't watch it.

*Edit*

Huh, bizarrely enough Trump mostly used data and arguments and only spent like a couple of minutes on "It's the Democrats fault."

Both Pelosi and Schumer have done nothing but "it's all Trump's fault." Literally no information on an alternative other than "it's Trump's fault."

[Sinekein]

At least it seemed grammatically correct. That has to be a first.

The little I suffered was also incredibly low on energy. That's definitely not Trump's strongest way of expression right here. He is great on Twitter and in front of a crowd, but as soon as he tries to look like a president, he's unconvincing at best - and that's putting it very nicely. Basically, he isn't good at conveying emotions other than self-satisfaction or anger, which is required for such an exercise.

Huh, bizarrely enough Trump mostly used data and arguments and only spent like a couple of minutes on "It's the Democrats fault."

Both Pelosi and Schumer have done nothing but "it's all Trump's fault." Literally no information on an alternative other than "it's Trump's fault."

Seriously, who else can be blamed for the current crisis? The entire Congress was ready to vote on border security before Trump threw a fit over the wall. How much further than "the one guy who wants the shutdown is Trump" can you go?

Okay, you can go to Mitch McConnell, that's true. But what's the point in blaming the most spineless man on the planet? You can make all the alternatives you want, they matter for zilch as long as the shutdown continues, and the shutdown won't end until Trump decides so. It's basically a battle to see who will cave in first, there is literally no point in trying to be constructive and helpful.

[Raga]

My point is that he at least tried to substantiate why he was doing what he's doing with data and anecdotes, and the Democrats didn't even bother to do that.

The argument is about the wall. Trump at least tried to lay out why that should be a thing. Pelosi and Schumer did not spend any time at all explaining why it wouldn't work or why it's a silly diversion or what else to do.

[Raga]

Of course the cynic in me is well aware of why they did this now that I think about it. They have 0 intent of ever addressing the wall or really doing anything to stem migration over the border just like the Republicans have 0 intent to ever do anything about DACA. That's why they want those things separated out, specifically so they can go on not addressing them.

So ironically for Democrats it really isn't about the wall. To talk about border security is actually to address a problem they have no intention of ever addressing.

[Joblom]

Of course the cynic in me is well aware of why they did this now that I think about it. They have 0 intent of ever addressing the wall or really doing anything to stem migration over the border just like the Republicans have 0 intent to ever do anything about DACA. That's why they want those things separated out, specifically so they can go on not addressing them.

So ironically for Democrats it really isn't about the wall. To talk about border security is actually to address a problem they have no intention of ever addressing.

It's the "uniparty" for a reason. I think the system is rotted though. It's run its course and it will collapse eventually. I've given up. As I see it the problems at work in our government and society as a whole are too far gone to be fixed or reverse, if it was ever even possible.

[Sinekein]

My point is that he at least tried to substantiate why he was doing what he's doing with data and anecdotes, and the Democrats didn't even bother to do that.

The argument is about the wall. Trump at least tried to lay out why that should be a thing. Pelosi and Schumer did not spend any time at all explaining why it wouldn't work or why it's a silly diversion or what else to do.

...why the wall is a stupid idea has been largely expanded upon in the last three years. It hasn't magically changed over the last month. The only difference is that Trump is now having a tantrum about it.

That's the same wall that was supposed to be tall, and concrete, and now steel and more of a fence and not that high and it should run along the entire border except not really all of it, maybe 1000 miles or something and Mexico would pay for it but the Congress need to allow $5bn to be spent to build it. How do you explain that it is stupid without making it look like your take the voters for complete idiots?

Trump's "data" was wrong - drug trafficking does not cost what he says it does, and his facts on drugs overall were dubious at best. In the last two years, correcting his lies has proven completely ineeffective in convincing anyone. That was true when the Democrats had zero power, and it is still true now that they hold some power; the difference being that now they can fight with more than words and intentions.

7 days after getting the House back, they literally had zero reason to sound conciliant and constructive. Because Trump would have immediately trumpeted that he won and that they caved under his mighty pressure.

But overall, the whole speech was so weak and low energy that I bet Pelosi and Schumer regret pushing for their own segment. They expected him to go crazy stupid, but he was just tame stupid. Social networks or newspaper interviews would have easily been enough to answer to that.

[Sinekein]

Of course the cynic in me is well aware of why they did this now that I think about it. They have 0 intent of ever addressing the wall or really doing anything to stem migration over the border

Well, since it's naturally going down year after year, why should they agree to spend $5bn exactly?

Plus the Democrats voted the GOP's 2018 plan for border security funding already. If you accuse them of not really doing anything to stem migration over the border, then you mean to say that the GOP doesn't want to do anything either. That's precisely Ryan's budget that's on the table here. And he didn't need to tone down his ideas to craft it.

[Raga]

If you accuse them ot not really doing anything to stem migration over the border, then you mean to say that the GOP doesn't want to do anything either.

They don't, at least the party leadership doesn't other than a few Trumpers that are relative newcomers. They have too many donors who benefit from sweatshops to want that.

I would hazard a solid 75% of leadership in both parties want no change to our system except to streamline it and make it faster or to increase the number of immigrants.

[Raga]

And also while the number of overall immigrants is going down, the number of family units is increasing, which is its own unique kind of problem. So Trump's stupid data is arguably more tailored to the potential fallout of the hordes of unskilled young men we used to get. A better argument now is that we're just admitting more and more people whose destiny is almost certainly to be wards of the state indefinitely or at least for a long time.

[Joblom]

The only thing we can do at this point is hope that eventually sanity prevails and we enact policies that will make the future strife and misery more bearable and recovery possible. There is no possibility of averting it. The damage was done and made irreversible decades ago.

[Raga]

Something's gotta give or I sincerely believe we're going to see bad consequences, probably violent, within the next 30 or 40 years.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/book ... 735216273/

At the point our decrepit social safety net starts really breaking down things will really get interesting.

*Edit* I'll do some follow-up post at some point on what precisely I mean by open borders, but suffice to say I'm not talking about some conspiracy theory straw man in my usage of the term.

[Joblom]

Something's gotta give or I sincerely believe we're going to see bad consequences, probably violent, within the next 30 or 40 years.

Unavoidable. It's all in the numbers and I don't just mean the economics and budgets.

The social fabric has been too diluted. Ask yourself, what does it mean to be an American? Ask other people. Try to find something unifying beyond what your passport says or what government you pay your taxes to. It doesn't really mean anything anymore. That's just one aspect of the problems facing us that will exasperate the future troubles.

[Mobius_118]

That was...terrible.

I'm embarrassed to have this orange piece of shit as a president. As should any sane person.

[Raga]

I've been seeing several editorials by conservatives geeking out approvingly over Elizabeth Warren of all people in the last few days, apparently because of some book she wrote around 2003 or so. (Example, Another, Yet another)

Also, apparently Tucker Carlson just went on some monologue criticizing laissez-faire capitalism.

It would be really nice to see this trend actually catch on, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Mobius_118]

The good thing is trump supporters account for about 39% of the nation.

The coming changes are supported by the majority, and if the rich are paying their fair share of taxes, it'll actually be possible to bring back the middle class and revitalize the nation again.

[Mazder]

The good thing is trump supporters account for about 39% of the nation.

The coming changes are supported by the majority, and if the rich are paying their fair share of taxes, it'll actually be possible to bring back the middle class and revitalize the nation again.

Why don't you just say 49% of the voting population instead of the 39% stat?
I mean it just makes the percentage of those who can't/won't vote all the larger.
I mean it makes 39% for, 40% against and 21% either undecided/unable to vote.
At least given by the election.

Also i don't think it's solely in the rich to refresh the middle class. You'll also have to make the lower class better so more can escape it into the middle class.
And not all of that is done by big governmental subsidy programs and grants and stuff.

[Raga]

Also i don't think it's solely in the rich to refresh the middle class. You'll also have to make the lower class better so more can escape it into the middle class.
And not all of that is done by big governmental subsidy programs and grants and stuff.

The biggest issue isn't so much wealth transfer from the upper class to the middle class directly in the form of redistributive taxes. It's more preventing them through regulation from engaging in policies that strip the lower classes of wealth. It's trust-busting and "dream hoarding" busting.

Like, sorry, no you can't set up a wildly restrictive zoning policy that prevents anybody who isn't a bajilliionaire from living in your neighborhood.
Or no, sorry, you can't engage in merger after merger to consolidate your market share such that you can jack up prices while also refusing to do any R&D to actually make your services better.
Or no you can't stick your corporate headquarters on some random island and pretend you aren't an American company to avoid taxes even though 80% of your employees and revenue are in the US.
Sorry, no, you can't set up restrictive licensing & certification demands to actively constrain who can practice some profession that shouldn't require it.

And so on.

[Mobius_118]

And with that comes the working class and the poor given better opportunities to actually achieve the American dream. Some semblance of it, anyway.

It's better than giving tax cuts to the rich and leaving the people that make the country run in the gutter, while trying to fund a wall that won't work to appease people that don't think.

[Mazder]

The biggest issue isn't so much wealth transfer from the upper class to the middle class directly in the form of redistributive taxes. It's more preventing them through regulation from engaging in policies that strip the lower classes of wealth. It's trust-busting and "dream hoarding" busting.

Like, sorry, no you can't set up a wildly restrictive zoning policy that prevents anybody who isn't a bajilliionaire from living in your neighborhood.
Or no, sorry, you can't engage in merger after merger to consolidate your market share such that you can jack up prices while also refusing to do any R&D to actually make your services better.
Or no you can't stick your corporate headquarters on some random island and pretend you aren't an American company to avoid taxes even though 80% of your employees and revenue are in the US.
Sorry, no, you can't set up restrictive licensing & certification demands to actively constrain who can practice some profession that shouldn't require it.

And so on.

Yeah, I agree on the whole "corporate headquarters" location not being where the tax is done. Like you should be taxed on the literal things going in/around a country.
Say Amazon for example. They should have their taxes based on units moved via trucks in states vs just a flat rate charged to the company.
Like goods used transporting in, say Texas, if there is a shipping tax or something then their bases of operations are charged the direct tax from the direct state areas and those branches need to provide payment to remain in those areas.

Yeah it might encourage Amazon to leave Texas but if that is the case then another company will probably fill their place.

And with that comes the working class and the poor given better opportunities to actually achieve the American dream. Some semblance of it, anyway.

It's better than giving tax cuts to the rich and leaving the people that make the country run in the gutter, while trying to fund a wall that won't work to appease people that don't think.

True, but you also have to have it so there is still the incentive to want to become rich.
Like there would still be a problem if the rich disappeared and was replaced by a new Middle class level. Aside from them now being the top end the old problems would just get more expensive and no-one would have the drive for excellence.
That's not something that can be drilled into someone, they have to want it for themselves, they have to be greedy enough for it.

You really do have to balance greed.

[Mobius_118]

Considering the 70% tax rate is on those who make more than 10 million a year or so, it won't dissuade those who make a good amount of money from actually making that amount of money.

It'll be an incentive for the stupid rich to invest back in their employees, their communities, all in the effort to build up a nation, rather than hoard their riches and spit on those that made them that way.

[Vol]

Also, apparently Tucker Carlson just went on some monologue criticizing laissez-faire capitalism.

It would be really nice to see this trend actually catch on, but I'm not holding my breath.

I watched that segment. It was really rather good. Although it seems he's more playing to his audience, Tucker doesn't strike me as a revolutionary conservative. Still, refreshing to hear someone worth listening to point out that banker worship, international nobility, unchecked capitalism, and the erosion of men are all bad things.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Because when you massively increase a tax that leads to all those people paying it on time.

Except you don't. The people getting the new tax find loopholes or straight up leave if the problem is considered severe enough. People like Mobius would never understand that though.

[Mazder]

Considering the 70% tax rate is on those who make more than 10 million a year or so, it won't dissuade those who make a good amount of money from actually making that amount of money.

It'll be an incentive for the stupid rich to invest back in their employees, their communities, all in the effort to build up a nation, rather than hoard their riches and spit on those that made them that way.

Clearly you're not a terribly greedy person.
The stupid rich don't give a fuck. They got theirs. They're not going to care unless they're empathetic like Gates.
Once they're rich they don't need those under them as there will always be a lower rung they can go down to. Hell at the end of the day they're willing to go to automated/slave labour as they're still cheaper than giving a shit about actual employees.

I mean seriously, you have a bunch of cash, easily enough to make it so you will never bee uncomfortable in your life again, even if you quit right this second, what's there for you to be encouraged to spend any of that money on others if you don't want to? You don't have to give any of it up, and even if you did all that's done is removed money from your pocket that you got. Why would you encourage the drain of the thing you like?

[Mobius_118]

Because when you massively increase a tax that leads to all those people paying it on time.

Except you don't. The people getting the new tax find loopholes or straight up leave if the problem is considered severe enough. People like Mobius would never understand that though.

Yeah that's why their legislation includes closing those loopholes.

Because people like me don't understand whatsoever. Except we do.

You're so ready with those quips, but your arrogance belies your fear. Oh no, you'll actually have to stop being a parasite.

[FrozenShadow]

If you accuse them ot not really doing anything to stem migration over the border, then you mean to say that the GOP doesn't want to do anything either.

They don't, at least the party leadership doesn't other than a few Trumpers that are relative newcomers. They have too many donors who benefit from sweatshops to want that.

I would hazard a solid 75% of leadership in both parties want no change to our system except to streamline it and make it faster or to increase the number of immigrants.

I'm not surprised at all. I would imagine huge deal of these (especially on southern States) actually likes to hire these illegal/barely legal immigrants. It's so much cheaper to hire them, while these people are content with smaller wages and no real benefits.

As matter of, I would even go so far as to say American economic system won't survive without these immigrants. I mean, can you see some white american kids working in three jobs with as awful wages as many of these immigrants do? Because I can't. Sooner or later these kids, who had got used to better life will start demanding higher wages and better work times/condition. And when these employees are eventually forced raise wages/improve condition, it will lead to increase in item/service costs. And once products becomes more expensive, people have again insufficient money and they start to demand pay rises again or ends up in serious debts.

So, yeah. I don't think any in power really wants to end the current status quo. Hell, even Trump don't really care about this wall. Only real reason he is pushing for it is because he knows he can then legally funnel all that money to his and his friends companies that would build the actually wall. Simply said, he is in this for money.

[Sinekein]

Because when you massively increase a tax that leads to all those people paying it on time.

Except you don't. The people getting the new tax find loopholes or straight up leave if the problem is considered severe enough. People like Mobius would never understand that though.

This might be true, but not in the US if the problem was actually, seriously tackled.

If Sweden or Peru decided to fight tax havens, then said tax havens wouldn't give two fucks about it, they'd pay lip service and keep the business running. If the US government decided to tell the Bermuda or Cayman Islands to stop their bullshit asap, I am 100% sure you would see a sudden reduction of tax evasion.

That would be an actual, useful way to use American power and influence in the world. And I am pretty sure it would greatly benefit the taxpayers too.

But somehow I don't see a billionnaire who specializes in bankruptcies being too motivated to fight tax evasion.

Tax havens exist as long as the majority is content with them. The US have had enough influence to blockade countries or to ruin the life of Russian higher-ups through the Magnitsky list, if they decided that Bermuda or the Caymans or the Channel Islands should stop hiding the capitals of taxpayers - theirs, and those from other countries - I highly doubt they could resist.

[Raga]

This might be true, but not in the US if the problem was actually, seriously tackled.

If Sweden or Peru decided to fight tax havens, then said tax havens wouldn't give two fucks about it, they'd pay lip service and keep the business running. If the US government decided to tell the Bermuda or Cayman Islands to stop their bullshit asap, I am 100% sure you would see a sudden reduction of tax evasion.

That would be an actual, useful way to use American power and influence in the world. And I am pretty sure it would greatly benefit the taxpayers too.

But somehow I don't see a billionnaire who specializes in bankruptcies being too motivated to fight tax evasion.

Tax havens exist as long as the majority is content with them. The US have had enough influence to blockade countries or to ruin the life of Russian higher-ups through the Magnitsky list, if they decided that Bermuda or the Caymans or the Channel Islands should stop hiding the capitals of taxpayers - theirs, and those from other countries - I highly doubt they could resist.

Agreed. Other than China or India, the US is arguably the biggest market for any hypothetical international company's goods and services, and I'd daresay that on some levels the 320 million odd here actually account for more revenue than 320 million elsewhere because people in the US have a higher disposable income than random Indian peasants and thus can buy more stuff.

I've always maintained that the government should have an operating philosophy something along the lines of "If you want access to relatively affluent American consumers and the revenue they can bring you, then do right by American consumers and workers. Otherwise, go be exploitative elsewhere."

[Raga]

As matter of, I would even go so far as to say American economic system won't survive without these immigrants. I mean, can you see some white american kids working in three jobs with as awful wages as many of these immigrants do? Because I can't. Sooner or later these kids, who had got used to better life will start demanding higher wages and better work times/condition. And when these employees are eventually forced raise wages/improve condition, it will lead to increase in item/service costs. And once products becomes more expensive, people have again insufficient money and they start to demand pay rises again or ends up in serious debts.

This is one of the many logical holes at the center of the "pro massive low-skill migration" position though. We aren't like Singapore which deports guest workers the instant they become pregnant. We have birthright citizenship. The instant those immigrants have children here, their kids become US citizens and suddenly the position of those kids is analogous to the "white American kids" you mention here. They aren't willing to live in tenements and work for $5 an hour because they have a frame of reference that things were even worse in Honduras or wherever. They've never been to Honduras. They don't see themselves as having taken a step up from the Old Country. They see themselves for what they are: the occupants of the absolute lowest rung of the society they currently live in. And they hate it and they want more and feel entitled to it by virtue of what they are: American citizens.

But those horrible jobs that "no Americans will do" still need filling, so what to do? Import more low-skill immigrants, of course! And the process begins again.

Nevermind that an immigrant's success here is heavily connected with the social position they occupied in the Old Country. (So as an example, the "model minority" of affluent Indian immigrants in the US is drawn overwhelming from the top caste in India's caste system).

Nevermind that the United States has a horrible track record of doing right by impoverished children generally, even ones whose parents were born here.

Bring more in! Because "Americans won't do these jobs."

[Raga]

*Post in wrong thread*

*Ignore*

*Am idiot*

[Vol]

Looking more and more like Ginsburg isn't going to last much longer. On her third bout of cancer, very frail, missing oral arguments. Not good for an 85 year old.

The fight if she does step down/die during Trump's presidency is going to be utterly vicious, and the first choice is going to be a lady who's very pro-life.

[Raga]

Yeah at least then we can actually fight about what it's really about and not have some proxy battle about whether or not the person in question is a sexual predator.

[Mobius_118]

I was more concerned about Kavanaugh being unqualified for the position, which he's wholly unqualified for.

Traffic court, maybe. Even then.

[Augustei]

I was more concerned about Kavanaugh being unqualified for the position, which he's wholly unqualified for.

Traffic court, maybe. Even then.

The main concern should be if he is going to be partisan, especially after the accusations and hearing my answer would be yes, my money's on him holding a grudge, regardless of whether the accusations were true or not.

[Vol]

Yeah at least then we can actually fight about what it's really about and not have some proxy battle about whether or not the person in question is a sexual predator.

Though as it has been mentioned, conservatives are honorable losers, so even if Barett does make it to the bench, I suspect they still will sit on their hands and be honorable for the next 30 years, while lower courts dictate national policy.

[Sinekein]

Considering the amount of medical attention she can have, it is hard to say. Cancers are less agressive among the elderly because cell division as a whole is not as fast. The problems are more the side-effects of having a cancer.

But to give you an idea, one of our Presidents, François Mitterrand, was re-elected in 1988 aged 71 while secretly suffering from cancer, and he lived through the 7 years of his mandate - granted, towards the end, he survived more than anything, but he only died 6 months after his successor was elected.

Now he was significantly younger, but he held for 7+ years, and cancer research has made tremendous progresses since.

It'll also depend on whether the cancer she has now is the same she has had before or not. If doctors know of an efficient way to fight it, it significantly increases life expectancy.

Health considerations aside, I think RBS must be in a bind right now. On one hand, she is unlikely to want to be a SJ who does not do her job. On the other, I doubt she wants to give Trump a third chance at a nomination. It would be a sad irony that in four years that guy whose mandate is going to be talked about for decades afterwards as an example of what not to do when you are the POTUS gets to choose more supreme justices than Obama or Bush who had 8 year tenures - granted, one of these picks was explicitly robbed from Obama by Mitch McConnell, but still.

Though as it has been mentioned, conservatives are honorable losers, so even if Barett does make it to the bench, I suspect they still will sit on their hands and be honorable for the next 30 years, while lower courts dictate national policy.

The main question is whether making abortion illegal again, aside from the moral issue, will really help Trump get reelected or if it might be a burden for his campaign. He already has the evangelists' vote because he's GOP, it was proven by them supporting him no matter how crass a human being he can be just because he is "the conservative guy"

Repelling abortion is a great way to unite liberal voters against you, and to make them see past their infighting which is significant at the moment. It's better used as a campaign slogan than anything.

Plus I don't see how you can repel abortion and excpect to hit significant numbers among female voters afterwards. Now Trump by himself seems to be a great repellent to women, but as long as he does nothing, then it's just "him". If he makes abortion illegal, he'll pass that status to all GOP politicians that will succeed him, and I am not sure they want that.

[Mobius_118]

Conservatives are not honorable losers. Look at how much shade was thrown at President Obama. Conservatives were making up the birther movement, created by the conartist in office right now, and trying to prove that Michelle Obama is actually a man.

They're not honorable winners either, because look at what's happening now. They're shitting their pants dancing around actual issues while screaming "WE WON FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGS."

And the moderates are in the middle trying to do the right thing, but those right-wing fuckbags do not have reality on their side. They never did. But the time for moderation is over. As the Mueller Investigation dredges up more guilty trump cabinet members, as trumps very own words betray him, it's not a question anymore just how guilty he is. It's how long his rope should be when it finally hangs him.

[Raga]

Eh, I can't remember where I saw it. I think it was a Pew poll some news article linked, but it's relevant. People were asked something like "what is the main thing you want the new Congress to address" and there were 20ish issues for them to choose from. Guess what was tied for last place on the list of things voters cared about seeing addressed?

"Impeaching Trump" tied squarely with "making abortion illegal."

If I find it again I"ll link it.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Eh, I can't remember where I saw it. I think it was a Pew poll some news article linked, but it's relevant. People were asked something like "what is the main thing you want the new Congress to address" and there were 20ish issues for them to choose from. Guess what was tied for last place on the list of things voters cared about seeing addressed?

"Impeaching Trump" tied squarely with "making abortion illegal."

If I find it again I"ll link it.

Trump doesn't give a shit about abortion anyway. If Ginsberg kicks off during his term he'll have to replace her with a moderate, probably a woman. Replacing the "liberal" stalwart of the Court with some Evangilocon would be a bad idea. It's why Kavanagh was picked as the replacement before this. He was also a moderate.

Trump is a Manhattan billionaire. He's not some bible thumping christian reactionary.

[Raga]

Yea, but there's aspects of the religious right who have been proposing going into "bunker mode" for a while now, largely because of Obergefell, which they see as a sort of cultural turning of the tide for society's general acceptance of orthodox (little o not big O) Christians (or Jews or Muslims for that matter). They sincerely believe that their belief that homosexuality/transgenderism is a sin will result in mainstream society treating them only slightly removed from the KKK - that they will become unemployable, that schools will try to get their kids taken away, and so on.

What's interesting about that is that "bunker mode" is basically how they operated roughly between the Progressive Era which ended around 1920 and roughly the 1970s, when the Republicans figured out there was this huge pool of potentially conservative voters who just didn't vote that they could rally.

For people in this particular school of thought, the hyperfocus on conservative justices isn't really about trying to enact some Evangelical vision on the rest of society (which they think is almost certainly lost and about to go into a moral Dark Age they have to survive). It's more like a rearguard action as they retreat.

Hence, their focus on things like baker's not being required to bake cakes for gay couples or their resistance to narratives about transgenderism that encourage transition at the earliest age possible and parents being child abusers if they don't accommodate that.

They want to establish a legal framework that will allow to them to live in "bunker mode" without the government making it completely economically and logistically untenable to do so.

Now, I have 0 insight into what percentage of orthodox types have this as their opinion. Probably a marked minority. But it's definitely present and growing. And the less the Republicans actually listen to conservative Christians and get their policy agendas done, the more likely more and more of them are to slip into this ideology and potentially give it up and stop voting altogether.

I doubt Trump is savvy enough to understand this, but I think a lot of other party leadership totally does. If the Christian right checks out, the GOP has literally 0 left but some rich tycoons, a bunch of redneck racists, and *maybe* some number of irreligious pissed off white working class people screwed over by globalization.

That's like what? 20% of the population maybe?

[Vol]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... r-25-years

Of the 66 women on the billionaire's list, only 6 are self made, compared to 313 men.

Puts the daily struggle into perspective that the soon to be richest women on the planet earned it by having the government take half her husband's wealth.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I doubt Trump is savvy enough to understand this, but I think a lot of other party leadership totally does. If the Christian right checks out, the GOP has literally 0 left but some rich tycoons, a bunch of redneck racists, and *maybe* some number of irreligious pissed off white working class people screwed over by globalization.

That's like what? 20% of the population maybe?

They're currently ideally positioned to corner the market on the white working class vote. It's a significant voter base that the Democrats used to be able to rely on fairly consistently. The Evangelicals are a less formidable voting block than they were in the past but religious conservatives have a pretty good record of voter turnout even for a candidate that isn't particularly religious like Trump is.

The paradigm that formed in the 90's is breaking down. Neoconservatives and Neoliberals are both becoming increasingly unable to energize their own base. The Republicans began adapting first. Their adoption of "Trumpian" populism may very well be a winning formula, we'll see going forward. The Democrats however face schism. The far left portions of their party, your Red Cortez's and the Neoliberals like a Biden are having a harder and harder time to find common ground. Left Wing Populism could give the Democrats new vigor but if it is FAR Left populism it won't be viable.

It's just a question of which party abandons their 80's-90's era neocons/libs first.