Politics XXXVII (The 12th Prime)

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Well, they have TIbet and Vietnam and several wars with India.  Probably as bad as the US, just more focused in their neighbourhood.

Hong Kong might "feel" like they got invaded too (even if it was more of a political than a military job)... and I know from Taiwanese friends that they don't necessarily sleep easily at night.

[Orogun01]

 

1 hour ago, Hurlshot said:

China doesn't have a reputation for invading other countries though. The US certainly cannot say the same.

Not militarily, but they have a knack for annexing regions economically and influence them culturally. Have you heard of the new Chinese province, Australia?

 

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Hurlshot said:

China doesn't have a reputation for invading other countries though. The US certainly cannot say the same.

[ktchong]

 

 

 

China has learned from the best.

Edited July 14, 2020 by ktchong

[Darkpriest]

6 hours ago, 213374U said:

That's far from the whole picture though. The success of peaceful Solidarity stems in part from the failures in Czechoslovakia and Hungary that weakened both the influence and resolve of the Soviet leadership to crush yet another anti-communist movement within its sphere of influence. Further, unlike in 1956 and 1968, by 1988 the Soviet Union was in economic dire straits and about to concede defeat in Afghanistan. Poland also received massive economic aid through the SEED act of '89 and the EBRD to become the market economy it is today. Not to mention that political unrest in communist Poland goes back at least two decades before the regime finally fell.

I'm not trying to detract from the massive effort made by Poles to rebuild their country after communism, mind. But they had significant outside help. The underclass in the US don't have any. They barely even have political leaders that truly work for them.

True, that the surrounding environment in the USSR was weak enough to allow this change, but the movement got the increasing support over years because is was targetting apparatus of the state, and not looting and destroying properties of people on every chance for protest. 

[Darkpriest]

6 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

It is still a bit of a mismatch to compare a homogeneous country to the situation of ethnic groups within larger demographics. I honestly can't understand why the need for the comparison.

Careful, you might be putting inadevrtly a good argument that homogenous societies are stronger than diverse ones. 

[Darkpriest]

@Zoraptor

I respect your point of view and it does have merit as well. We can return to this msg in 5-10ys and see how bad both of us predicted the reality.

We both have some assumptions and both can be immensly wrong. 

 

I'd say, it'll be interesting to look at who will have the most dynamic economic power, who will control most resources and production capabilities, and who will look more stable and show a strength of their culture in a more convincing way. 

[Gromnir]

a fun bit o obscure political calendar trivia which could become important in january.

new senate is sworn in january 3, 2021. 

new Presidential term begins january 20(?), 2021. might have exact date a bit wrong, but is a minor detail and we didn't bother to double-check.

a new senate could convict trump, preventing him from ever holding future office, even if biden gets elected.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Pidesco]

16 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

Yeah, there was very little prejudice in the US back in the 60's and 70's. Everything was bright and nice. 

So the Balkans are a worst case scenario, but Russia is now the dominant player on the world stage? So does that mean in like 30 years the US will re-emerge on the world stage minus a few bits and pieces? Personally I'm rooting for the Republic of California. We've got some good stuff going for us if we don't fall into the Pacific Ocean.

Generalizing a country made up of 50 separate and unique states as ignorant is not necessarily how I would make my first foray into the politics thread, but welcome aboard!

30 years ago was the 80s. AKA, part of the late 1900s.

 

I think your old age is showing.

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

But without US military power, China would likely begin establishing their hegemony over the South East Pacific. Add their investments in Africa and it would give them a sphere of influence that's strategically greater than EU.

Yep, but that is precisely why you'd get the 'South East Asia Treaty Organisation' in response. Their leaderships' insularity makes China monumentally tone deaf when it comes to such things, and while a lot of countries in the region don't like each other much- Japan and ROKorea, for example- an aggressive China would drive them together pdq.

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Published in several Indian newspapers as their new 'official' map of China, I believe. It's all just passive aggression, but there are real pushes to rename the South and East China seas too which speak to the deep antipathy felt by China's neighbours.

55 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I respect your point of view and it does have merit as well. We can return to this msg in 5-10ys and see how bad both of us predicted the reality.
 

Yep.

(Somewhere around 2011, buried in the depths of these forums, there is a post with me confidently predicting that the Arab Spring wouldn't come to Syria. May have got that prediction a bit off...)

[Darkpriest]

@Gromnir

I was wondering, what's your view on the SCOTUS ruling around the Oklahoma case?  Is that really pulling legal oversight from the state and makes it an area directly under fed oversight with local laws secured by old treaties? 

[HoonDing]

Actually the Manchurians conquered China.

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Actually the Manchurians conquered China.

Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC Mandarin Chinese is the dominant language of China and it originated in Manchuria. Sort of like how Greece conquered Rome..... eventually. 

[Raithe]

Heh, apparently the Washington Post's factchecking team have plotted the number of Trump's "distortions of truth" since he took office, and it looks a lot like the covid-19 graphs in the US.

Supposedly it took him 827 days to reach his first 10,000 lies, but just 440 days to reach his second 10,000 lies.  And they've released their study as a book "Donald Trump and his Assault on Truth"...

[Darkpriest]

36 minutes ago, Raithe said:

Heh, apparently the Washington Post's factchecking team have plotted the number of Trump's "distortions of truth" since he took office, and it looks a lot like the covid-19 graphs in the US.

Supposedly it took him 827 days to reach his first 10,000 lies, but just 440 days to reach his second 10,000 lies.  And they've released their study as a book "Donald Trump and his Assault on Truth"...

Do they do so for all politicians and journalists as well? 

 

Pretty sure that would be in the average, especially around the Russiagate, supremacism, riots, etc. 

 

Also, who fact checked the fact checkers? Where do you get the confidence and assurance that these are accurate? 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Darkpriest

[ShadySands]

11 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Do they do so for all politicians and journalists as well? 

 

Pretty sure that would be in the average, especially around the Russiagate, supremacism, riots, etc. 

Not sure if serious

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

@Gromnir

I was wondering, what's your view on the SCOTUS ruling around the Oklahoma case?  Is that really pulling legal oversight from the state and makes it an area directly under fed oversight with local laws secured by old treaties? 

am a bit too close to this, so am gonna keep brief for the nonce. 

the parade of horribles described by the state o' oklahoma is not to be ignored. however, is not as if we are talking 'bout giving 47% of oklahoma back to native peoples-- like it or not, lands were sold in past and no fed court is gonna overturn sales or add to compensation already granted, even if compensation were unfair.

am honest not certain how taxes gets handled, particular past taxes paid by natives to oklahoma for a long time. in theory, all that money were taken illegal. taxes may be easiest issue however as am expecting the tribes work out deals with oklahoma. perhaps counterintuitive, money is easiest legal issue with which to contend.

is gonna be literal hundreds and perhaps thousands o' habeas corpus actions with which to contend.

more numerous, and more concerning, is all the state adoptions and custody battle cases which had previous been determined, is now, arguable, meaningless.

there were a similar case many years past... well, similar in terms o' implications for native peoples. oregon v. smith. a native prisoner wanted a sweat tent constructed in the prison so he might maintain hos religious observances. scalia, and the majority, effective caved to practical considerations as 'posed to strict adherence to first amendment jurisprudence and fed treaty law. woulda' caused chaos in many prisons and so Court made a decision based on real world practicalities as posed to precedent. disappointing, but understandable. very disappointing from our pov. 

gorsuch ignored practical and followed law. good for him. is a win for justice, but...

if it weren't for all the adoption and custody cases, we could easily live with the consequences, but there is a whole lotta kids who is gonna now be pawns in revisited legal battles. adoption and custody battles is the most contentious, emotional and heart wrenching proceedings you will ever experience. murder and death penalty cases don't compare to the kinda emotion one needs endure with custody and adoption cases. 

will be interesting to revisit this in a year or two, and am hopeful solutions is achieved for most o' the anticipated horribles, but the tribes and Congress ain't gonna be able to make deals which bind parents involved in custody battles. parental rights is fundamental rights and Congress may only legislate so much when fundamental rights is in play.

ok, so brief for Gromnir if not actual brief.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Darkpriest]

6 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Not sure if serious

Why so? I have just healthy amount of skepticism. 

If something looks too good or too shocking, it usually is not true. 

 

I do not know the methodology.

What were the sources, against which the facts were chcecked? 

Can these sources be verified? 

And so on and so forth. 

 

I do not study every Trump opinion and statement, but based on political personalities closer to where I live, I'm fairly sure booth sides of argument lie with similar frequency. 

 

Whatever absurd you'll pull for one side, I'm confident that you can pull a similar from the other side. 

[Darkpriest]

@Gromnir

Do you think, this sets up some precedence? 

What about other territories? Do you think there are more in a similar state? 

What about resource exploitation on such lands? 

What about estates? Infrastructure? 

What you think might be the consequences? 

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, ShadySands said:

Not sure if serious

were kinda funny reading the mueller op-ed, 'cause he still can't bring himself to talk like a person as 'posed to being a lawyer. all those "russiagate" folks don't seem to be aware that the mueller report found considerable evidence o' obstruction, and the op-ed stressed how there were no sustainable basis for legal conspiracy charges 'gainst the trump organization, but for all intents and purposes mueller tried once again to get people to understand there were definitely collusion 'tween russia and trump org given any ordinary understanding o' the term.

'ccording to mueller, russia were looking for dirt on hillary and were active working to help trump. trump org were  active encouraging russia to help and made it known they would welcome aid from russia. however, in part due to trump bumbling incompetence (Gromnir editorializing and not a mueller specific point from the op-ed) there were not enough intentional entanglement and organized planning for a finding o' conspiracy.

mueller report did find much evidence o' obstruction and there were also a pattern o' collusion... just not enough coordinated collusion to merit criminal conspiracy. 

most o' the media lies concerning russiagate is based on successful gaslighting by barr and trump. btw, two fed judges has condemned barr's summary o' the mueller report as implausible given any reasonable reading of the mueller report. were deemed impossible for anybody with any meaningful legal background to read mueller report and to have concluded as did barr. 

sure, the media gets stuff wrong all the time, but the above is major stuff and somehow media getting it right has been inverted and perverted so that +30% o' the country sees what should be media vindication by mueller as the opposite. 

@Darkpriest

every scotus case is precedent worthy, but scotus is free to ignore scotus precedent. lower fed courts should read as binding. however, Congress has actual repudiated most treaties with indians, so is not too many additional situations where mcgirt will apply. mcgirt didn't says that wherever the US has broken a treaty, the natives get their stuff back, or anything even close. mcgirt were viable specific 'cause Congress never actual broke treaty. 

have already addressed land ownership. mineral rights is part o' property law.

have no idea what you mean by estates and infrastructure is overboard. am s'posing if oklahoma state built a road or ferry on 47% land, then charge natives a toll could be inappropriate. build the road or ferry  itself on land which had previous been sold to state is not gonna result in a new issue. 

already discussed our concerns 'bout consequences. most money issues will be addressed. tribes in ok have already made clear they is willing to make deals to address basic monetary issues. what ain't ez to predict is where mcgirt touches fundamental rights. will need be handled individual, which will take a whole lotta time and money and effort.

HA! Good Fun!

ps if one wishes to review our comments on mueller report will see 'pon initial reading, two things struck us.

1) were no way to read barr's summary as anything other than intentional misleading.

2) a side-by-side comparison with nixon misdeeds made trump look far worse particular all the obstruction stuff and mueller explicit observation he believed trump were not truthful in his interrogatory responses, which in and of itself were highly unusual.

have been genuine baffled by the degree to which trump admin misrepresentations and far-right media efforts to gaslight were so successful. is just no possible way to read mueller report as some kinda exoneration, and yet...

Edited July 14, 2020 by Gromnir
apologies: extreme late edit... all in ps

[Volourn]

Yet another cop murdered by BLM and Antifa. Aren't they just so cute.

[Skarpen]

13 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

Also, who fact checked the fact checkers? Where do you get the confidence and assurance that these are accurate? 

Recently in an interview by CBS I think Trump stated that more white people get shot by police than black. And while media agreed it's factual true they claimed that Trump was wrong regardless. So factchecking Trump rules are:

1. Trump is always wrong

2. If Trump is right, see p.1

 

[Maedhros]

Trump is a notorious liar who lies even when he doesn't have to. The amount of lies is unprecedented.

Yes, the media gets a ton of stuff wrong, and other politicians lie too. Doesn't mean Trump is not a special case. 

[ShadySands]

18 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Recently in an interview by CBS I think Trump stated that more white people get shot by police than black. And while media agreed it's factual true they claimed that Trump was wrong regardless. So factchecking Trump rules are:

1. Trump is always wrong

2. If Trump is right, see p.1

 

That's one of those should be obvious type things. Last I checked black people only make up about 13% of the population so if they got shot more in total numbers than non-Hispanic white people, which are over 60% of the population (I think all white people are around 75%), then something would be really, really wrong.

Also, who checks the fact check checkers?

[Volourn]

Police kill more men than women. They are clearly sexist. 

 

P.S. Last I heard whites are 65%ish of Amerika. The 75% number just doesn't add up. 13% for blacks. Latinos are more. That would mean with just whites, blacks, and latinos, you have over 100%. What about the asians, Indians, arabs, etc.

 

Come on, people. If you are gonna try to blow smoke up everyone's behinds, don't make up  such obvious nonsense.