The All Things Political Topic - Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Raithe said:

For the amusement value in the cheap seats, I did see this:

 

hard to believe, but not even technical true. is nothing in the Constitution 'bout "voting rights." voting is mentioned, and so the Court observes rights for voting is necessarily implied. worse, the Constitution does specific observe the individual state legislatures is responsible for elections, which is why jim crow laws which created literacy tests and discriminatory limits on voting were deemed Constitutional by the Court until Congress passed legislation to protect voting rights. however, there is nothing in the Constitution which forces or compels Congress to pass laws to protect implied rights.

converse, there is a specific right to free exercise o' religion, which would be meaningless if it didn't cover jesus, odin and Gozer The Destructor. likewise, the process for admitting states is described even if the names is not pre established. etc. 

that said, there is a whole lotta implied rights in the Constitution most o' us take for granted. well of course interracial marriage is a right... isn't it? we mentioned in a linked post how loving is at risk from this Court. right to privacy. miranda rights. right against self incrimination. possible most immediate relevant is the right to die. according to the Court, a person suffering may forgo medical treatment or even take their own life, albeit unassisted.  such a right to die as it were is based on much o' the same reasoning as roe. if roe fails, then why would a right to die persist, a right which also has considerable history and tradition which would weigh in favour o' state efforts to criminalize?

as should be obvious by now, Gromnir is not a fan o' roe from a legal pov. there has never been a decent consensus Court explanation as to what were the basis for a right to abortion. weak. however, the manner in which J. alito dismantles the abortion protection in his draft opinion is placing numerous other implied fundamental rights w/i reach o' termination with naught but a suspect history and tradition analysis offering any kinda valid argument for their maintenance. abortion is getting all the attention at the moment, but all those misinformed folks who did rage for the past few years 'cause o' how the government, those jack-booted thugs, were trampling on their god given Constitutional rights by requiring patrons to don masks in the local piggly wiggly should be livid with the roe opinion by alito. most o' the rights the maga crowd believes they is entitled to don't actual exist, but the roe opinion puts at risk a whole lotta rights they do in fact enjoy 'cause the namby-pamby activist Justices o' the past created substantive due process rights and implied rights which is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution.

is a whole lotta stoopid and misinformation guiding the current debate. any bets on whether fox news corrects the misapprehensions o' their audience?  

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 6, 2022 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

Esper: Stephen Miller called for a "quarter-million troops" to respond to migrant caravan

given the pause before "ridiculous," am betting a different and more colorful adjective were used to describe miller's plan.

speaking o' speculation,

Ted Cruz Speculates Clerk of Sonia Sotomayor 'Most Likely' Leaked Roe Draft

so, w/o proof, a US senator public suggests a clerk o' J. Sotomayor were responsible for the leaked opinion?

HA! Good Fun!

 

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, alanschu said:

I'm enjoying all of the "This doesn't make abortion illegal. It just means it's up to the states as it should be. This doesn't change anything."

Just this idea of "I'm so committed to the overturn of this ruling, so that ultimately nothing will change" is so laughably disingenuous hahaha.

I dont know, I have never lived in a Federal system and in SA our Constitution applies to all our provinces. So for example LGBT marriage and the right to choose to have an abortion is national and thats how I prefer it 

But their are lots of Americans who prefer individual states to decide most laws and regulations so when the point gets made " its up to the states to decide " its not disingenuous but rather exactly the design of the US political system and for me its exactly what American   Democracy is about because its up to the citizens of each state to decide what political party they want in charge when they vote and that vote should be based on the political policies\views the party espouses 

And it goes both ways ideologically, for example in Democrat controlled states you have these "sanctuary cities"  which many people see as encouraging illegal immigration. But these cities exist because the Democrats believe in them and people in California, for example,  continue to ensure the Dems stay in power

So in closing, if the citizens of any state are opposed  to any law or regulation then they need to vote for a party that represents their political views. But if the majority of people dont support your views then you have to accept it because that is the will of the people in a particular state

Edited May 6, 2022 by BruceVC

[alanschu]

13 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I dont know, I have never lived in a Federal system and in SA our Constitution applies to all our provinces. So for example LGBT marriage and the right to choose to have an abortion is national and thats how I prefer it 

But their are lots of Americans who prefer individual states to decide most laws and regulations so when the point gets made " its up to the states to decide " its not disingenuous but rather exactly the design of the US political system and for me its exactly what American   Democracy is about because its up to the citizens of each state to decide what political party they want in charge when they vote and that vote should be based on the political policies\views the party espouses 

The point of my post is that no one is going to super strongly advocate for this repeal without the hope that changes actually occur. Their claims that "ultimately nothing will change" are at best naive, but frankly just feel like disingenuous lies. Especially given that many states already have legislation in the works (or literally already passed legislation that has a trigger condition if the repeal happens).

Claiming nothing will change is grossly incorrect when you have literally passed laws that have a condition of going active if Roe v. Wade is repealed.

Edited May 6, 2022 by alanschu

[Raithe]

 

[rjshae]

[rjshae]

I would postulate that reversing Roe v. Wade is the end result of Super Tuesday. This arrangement has given the South a major role in the selection of the US President for many decades, and the elected Presidents in turn have nominated the current justices. The northeastern states still haven't caught up to its impact. At least California has joined in.

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, rjshae said:

This is very clever and makes a good point 

[BruceVC]

29 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I think you may be conflating a few things... EU is not something people identify themselves with. It doesn't enjoy popular support (unless you belong to the political or industrial elite). I don't know if you remember Black Isle's old parent company, Interplay? Their motto was 'By gamers for gamers'. Unlike that, EU was never a 'By the people for the people' thing. Hence why nobody really likes it (gross generalization). Europeans are happy to get together to support Ukrainians and help out where they can, but this more despite the EU than because of it.

Okay, time will tell. I stand by the view that the EU is not going collapse and end up as separate countries and it less likely after the invasion of Ukraine

But nothing is certain, the greatest risk to the EU is from right-wing and " anti-EU " parties like Le Penn

However  then its the will of the  majority of people and if countries want to leave the EU then thats Democracy and I will accept it 

But you raise a good question, do people like the EU and want it to continue ? I wonder what our EU forum friends think about that 

@Elerond, @Azdeus @Pidesco @xzar_monty @Mamoulian War @bugarup@Chilloutman@213374U@Lexx@pmp10and others I may have forgotten 

What do you guys think, do you believe in the EU or would you prefer it to dissolve ?

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

48 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Okay, time will tell. I stand by the view that the EU is not going collapse and end up as separate countries and it less likely after the invasion of Ukraine

But nothing is certain, the greatest risk to the EU is from right-wing and " anti-EU " parties like Le Penn

Actually, the biggest threat to EU has historically been the far left...

To take some of the guess work out of it...

(pre-brexit)

Most of those bar charts only show 9-10 countries (which means, they only show 1/3 of the countries). Assumption of mine is they picked the outliers and some in between.

 

[Pidesco]

I'm going to disagree with Gorth. There's a rough rich/poor division in support for the EU. In rich countries, support for the EU among the masses is not high. In poorer countries, however it usually is somewhat higher. This is, of course, entirely selfish. The notion in poorer countries is that the EU helps monetarily. Also, there's a degree of prestige associated with foreign investment. In Portugal, specifically, the left supports the EU. The far right, not so much. 

The idea in richer countries is, of course, the converse. The population there often feel the EU syphons away money to poorer countries, that would be needed internally. The argument is also put forth that the money is mismanaged in poorer countries. This is not entirely untrue. 

This is not to say that there are not exceptions. Greece is poor and hates the EU due to the austerity measures from 10 years ago. 

[Gorth]

Moved a few posts from the Ukraine thread over here as it's not really related to the war and more about European politics in general...

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the high approval rating in Poland is directly related to the low approval rating in the UK. Brexit was all about putting a stop to the Polish migration to England (Polish being the second most spoken language in England now)

 

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

I'm going to disagree with Gorth. There's a rough rich/poor division in support for the EU. In rich countries, support for the EU among the masses is not high. In poorer countries, however it usually is somewhat higher. This is, of course, entirely selfish. The notion in poorer countries is that the EU helps monetarily. Also, there's a degree of prestige associated with foreign investment. In Portugal, specifically, the left supports the EU. The far right, not so much. 

The idea in richer countries is, of course, the converse. The population there often feel the EU syphons away money to poorer countries, that would be needed internally. The argument is also put forth that the money is mismanaged in poorer countries. This is not entirely untrue. 

This is not to say that there are not exceptions. Greece is poor and hates the EU due to the austerity measures from 10 years ago. 

I can see from both yours and Gothfuscious posts how nuanced and complicated the question of " support for the EU " is 

What do you personally think about the EU, would you prefer it to dissolve ?

 

[Gromnir]

am thinking most people in the US look to what is happening in russia when protesters dare to question the special military operation and those democracy loving americans are appalled. people have even been arrested and jailed for holding up blank signs in moscow, st. petersburg and elsewhere. thank goodness the US is different than russia, eh?

The Year Montana Rounded Up Citizens for Shooting Off Their Mouths

"Some 200 people were arrested, and approximately 125 people went to trial, under the Montana Sedition Law, which criminalized nearly everything said or written against the American government and its conduct when it passed in February 1918. The penalties--a maximum of 10-to-20 years in prison and up to a $20,000 fine--were tough, and the pressure on “disloyal” citizens was relentless. The vast majority of people were rounded up for casual statements, off-the-cuff remarks deemed pro-German or anti-American. Citizens turned against one another, joining “patriotic” organizations like the Montana Loyalty League with its stated goal of keeping the Treasure State from “going over body and soul to the Kaiser.”"

and am thinking nobody would be surprised by a few o' the more racist state laws passed democratic in states after the civil war.

Black Codes

In South Carolina, a law prohibited Black people from holding any occupation other than farmer or servant unless they paid an annual tax of $10 to $100. This provision hit free Black people already living in Charleston and former slave artisans especially hard. In both states, Black people were given heavy penalties for vagrancy, including forced plantation labor in some cases.

ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)

California led the way for fifteen states to pass legislation preventing “aliens ineligible to citizenship” from owning land. Although occasionally used against other Asians, these laws were directly aimed at Japanese immigrants, who were perceived as gaining undue economic power through agricultural holdings. Legislation using the words “Asian” or “Japanese” would clearly be unconstitutional, hence the circumlocution. Violators would have their property revert to control by the state. But at least some Japanese manage to evade the law, and the legislature moved in 1920 to strengthen its provisions as well as prohibit the practice of immigrant Japanese (as guardians) placing land in the legal hands of their citizen children.

...

we could go on and on and on. 

am gonna hazard the core disconnect here in the US, and in much o' the west, is we are taught democracy is the source o' freedom and rights. is sooooooo not true. the majority is all too quick to blame their problems on them and they. is always a few skeevy politicians trying to take advantage o' the greed and pettiness which is common in the human animal and our democratic republic makes it all too easy for those politicians to successful promote laws which ensure they have less rights. any government, by its very nature, places limits on liberty. needs be a monopoly on violence for a government to even exist-- day 1 and already liberties is being limited. democracy makes it so the majority chooses whose rights are most important and which o' those rights deserve protection. you don't need much imagination to guess what happens when the me and mine majority decides who should benefit from the efforts o' a working democratic republic, eh?

the bill of rights, and many o' the amendments, represent those rights Americans has set aside as too important to leave to democracy. the Constitution, sans the amendments, grants almost no rights to Americans, but instead focuses on the structure o' a democratic republic the founders believed would avoid the tyranny of the majority which plagued athenian democracy. 

J. alito, whose questionable history approach is already being challenged by many, has us look at the history and traditions o' the US at the time a law were passed to decide which rights is fundamental but not enumerated in the Constitution. is a questionable approach for many reasons, but as we stated earlier, roe and other privacy rights is linked to a penumbra/gestalt o' the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. is understandable why a considerable % o' the nation's women, ethnic & religious minorities and political/social undesirables is unnerved by the realization substantive due process rights need by reduced in a crucible based on values o' the majority o' Americans in 1791 and 1868. 

for democracy to work as envisioned by the founders, you need an informed and educated electorate. the war on crt and wokeism in classrooms across the country, along with the internet and cable tv networks making it possible for americans to only hear the news with which they already agree, makes an educated and informed electorate less likely than were possible ten or twenty years past. so we change the rules regarding substantive due process and count on the people in louisiana, florida and texas to look to the better angels of their nature? can't guess what could go wrong for people who were not favored by tradition and history in 1791 and 1868.

as already stated, overturning roe as J. alito is trying to do ain't gonna result in an overnight apocalypse for american women, but am thinking most o' the freedom loving americans who is constant railing 'bout their rights is in for rude awakenings... though as one might expect, minorities and women is gonna be taking the brunt o' the pain. no surprise there, eh? is a continuation o' the history and tradition o' democracy at work in the US.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 7, 2022 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/04/san-francisco-los-angeles-da-recalls/629701/

Sadly not an expected outcome from how some of the Democratic controlled states have handled the outcomes of BLM and how they have pushed through " reforms " that have just increased crime rates in many places in the US 

To quote from the article " “It’s almost as if the summer of reckoning in 2020 has never happened,” says Lara Bazelon, a University of San Francisco law professor who serves on a commission Boudin established to review possibly wrongful earlier convictions by his office. “People are happy to be progressive and happy to be anti-racist as long as their bike doesn’t get stolen, or they don’t watch a viral video of a theft at Walgreens. Once that happens, or they feel vulnerable in some way, they throw out the high-minded ideals that made them vote for a reformer.”

 

This type of comment is exactly the problem from this type of liberal perspective, they not interested in understanding the actual problem on the ground and are more about defunding the police and fixing " structural racism " irrespective if crime gets worse 

No one has ever suggested their shouldn't be accountability or consequence for any policeman that break the law or do what happened to George Floyd. But many people in states like California dont feel safe and I am not surprised if you consider the far left views of district attorneys that are supposed to address crime first and foremost 

@Gfted1 and @Guard Dog

This was a concern we have discussed, now citizens have to deal with the outcomes and you will find most people just wont  accept it. I expect to see more of  these types of recalls in Democratic states where crime is on the increase ?

 

[Gorth]

52 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

No one has ever suggested their shouldn't be accountability or consequence for any policeman that break the law or do what happened to George Floyd. But many people in states like California dont feel safe and I am not surprised if you consider the far left views of district attorneys that are supposed to address crime first and foremost 

Reducing crime is not really an option as long as you're unwilling to address the underlying causes. Anything else will just be band aids and election promises (sounds nicer than "lies"). As long as poverty is rampant, a society that feels safe is a pipe dream. Just handing out a few peanuts here and there wont solve it either. Structural changes that addresses the wealth inequality and its consequences in noticeable ways is needed. This is also what the less progressive parts of society fears the most, because it smells like socialism if you give all your citizens a fair go at life and it can't be a real society with winners without a significant amount of losers.

 

[Gromnir]

since 2019, crime has increased in the US regardless o' whether is democrat or republican jurisdictions, so a bit o' the conservative wailing 'bout crime in california or democrat run cities is misleading. fbi and other law enforcement agencies predicted a pandemic related upturn in crime, so... duh. that being said, the post floyd responses by municipalities to address law enforcement concerns has exacerbated issues in a few burgs 'round the nation. expected post pandemic increases coupled with inefficiency due to changing policies and personnel is a double hit. as often as not, the changes made by cities were  warranted and overdue, but is not ez to sell unavoidable costs of change... which is precise why meaningful change is so rare in politics.

have linked articles in the past o' this thread showing how efforts to restructure law enforcement is not a one-year exercise but more a long-term goal. is ez to blame on defund (fox news exploits every opportunity to do so) but perhaps the biggest reason for more crime is inevitable resistance from police and their unions to change, at times requiring near complete change in personnel. those d-bag cops who contributed to the culture o' casual violence which resulted in the death o' george floyd (and the countless episodes o' excessive violence short o' homicide levels not captured by a bystander with a phone) become angry and indignant when is suggested that changes is warranted and all too often they decide en masse decide to quit or they silent protest by refusing to get outta their vehicles and actual do their jobs... is easier to ride out a a few years 'til they hit their 20. even before floyd, what happened in baltimore post freddie gray (2015) is illustrative o' obstacles facing a department attempting to bring change to law enforcement.

'course if you live somewhere which is seeing crime rates rise, being told things will get better, maybe better, in a couple years after they get worse is hardly reassuring news and a less than popular pitch for a politician. ny rejected progressive and principled candidates and instead chose a doofus for mayor, a tough-on-crime doofus. not a surprise and democrats nationwide need take notice. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps keep in mind am not suggesting all cops is bad. am knowing such is a popular position on this board, but am not one o' those people. 

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

Reducing crime is not really an option as long as you're unwilling to address the underlying causes. Anything else will just be band aids and election promises (sounds nicer than "lies"). As long as poverty is rampant, a society that feels safe is a pipe dream. Just handing out a few peanuts here and there wont solve it either. Structural changes that addresses the wealth inequality and its consequences in noticeable ways is needed. This is also what the less progressive parts of society fears the most, because it smells like socialism if you give all your citizens a fair go at life and it can't be a real society with winners without a significant amount of losers.

 

So you suggesting until the US addresses inequality and poverty then  the rising crime cant be meaningfully dealt with?

Please dont take this the wrong way but if you make a career move dont become a politician  or mayor in the US 

[BruceVC]

@Gorth if you have an interest please post that article for Gromnir to read, he blocks my posts so he wouldnt have seen it 

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

 

@Gfted1 and @Guard Dog

 

 

Don't hold your breath on "the people" correcting any bad management by their political leaders. God help us all the day "the people" do more than elect the same types of candidates and bitching about why things never change. 

As for the rest of your point regarding the "defund" movement (and this also applies equally well to any question where "the people" are led into rabbit holes by politicians) I'll quote you an answer from a man far wiser than I will ever be:

“The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer - and they don't want explanations that fail to give them that.”

Thomas Sowell

[Mamoulian War]

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Okay, time will tell. I stand by the view that the EU is not going collapse and end up as separate countries and it less likely after the invasion of Ukraine

But nothing is certain, the greatest risk to the EU is from right-wing and " anti-EU " parties like Le Penn

However  then its the will of the  majority of people and if countries want to leave the EU then thats Democracy and I will accept it 

But you raise a good question, do people like the EU and want it to continue ? I wonder what our EU forum friends think about that 

@Elerond, @Azdeus @Pidesco @xzar_monty @Mamoulian War @bugarup@Chilloutman@213374U@Lexx@pmp10and others I may have forgotten 

What do you guys think, do you believe in the EU or would you prefer it to dissolve ?

 

Support in the Eastern Europe for EU is really strong, because we see EU as a collective of countries who helped us with raising our living standards and have taken us away from the old USSR sphere. If Slovakia would not be part of EU, we would be now politically and wealthiness probably on par with Ukraine, Moldova or Belarus... And all people who have more than basic education, knows that. So pre-war even a lot of people who were looking up to Russia very favourably, still wanted to be part of the EU. Support for Putin here was above 60% pre-war, now his support is down to 22%. And the support for EU and NATO have dramatically risen.

[Raithe]

[Gromnir]

After the leaked Roe opinion, Justice Thomas says the Supreme Court can't be bullied

"We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like," Thomas said.

...

Virginia Thomas urged White House chief to pursue unrelenting efforts to overturn the 2020 election, texts show

The messages, which do not directly reference Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court, show for the first time how Ginni Thomas used her access to Trump’s inner circle to promote and seek to guide the president’s strategy to overturn the election results — and how receptive and grateful Meadows said he was to receive her advice. Among Thomas’s stated goals in the messages was for lawyer Sidney Powell, who promoted incendiary and unsupported claims about the election, to be “the lead and the face” of Trump’s legal team.

Legal Scholars Are Shocked By Ginni Thomas’s “Stop the Steal” Texts

Richard Hasen, an expert in election law who teaches at the University of California, Irvine, also believes that Justice Thomas should never have participated in the case weighing whether Congress had the right to review Trump’s papers. Hasen told me, “Given Ginni Thomas’s deep involvement in trying to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election based upon outlandish claims of voter fraud, and her work on this with not only activists but the former President’s chief of staff, Justice Thomas should not have heard any cases” involving disputes over the 2020 election or Congress’s investigation of the January 6th riots. It has now become clear, Hasen said, that “his spouse’s reputation, and even potential liability, is at stake.”

is it possible justice thomas don't realize his comments would at best ring hollow given his wife's involvement in the Stop The Steal movement? regardless, the bullying thomas believes is current directed at The Court in the wake o' alito's leaked opinion is precise the kinda political free speech even his narrow reading o' the First Amendment is designed to protect. but perhaps we missed the hundreds and thousands o' roe supporters who stormed the United States Supreme Court building in a bid to prevent the draft opinion from becoming a final ruling? 

our opinion o' justice thomas has been complete altered these last couple o' years. pre 2016-17 thomas had earned our grudging respect for his role as a consistent and principled judge if not his skill as a justice o' The Court. 2022 thomas leaves us with feelings o' mild disgust given his new role as a partisan creature who obvious has no sense o' self awareness.

HA! Good Fun!

[rjshae]

A key benefit of that separation for the church is limits on the federal government's ability to tax them.

[alanschu]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

our opinion o' justice thomas has been complete altered these last couple o' years. pre 2016-17 thomas had earned our grudging respect for his role as a consistent and principled judge if not his skill as a justice o' The Court. 2022 thomas leaves us with feelings o' mild disgust given his new role as a partisan creature who obvious has no sense o' self awareness.

Stuff like this is why I struggle to agree with your earlier post that Republicans recognize that going after abortion would not be in their best interests (I think it was you that said this... apologies if I am incorrect!). I suppose it remains to be seen if this is actually the case, but it does feel like Republicans in recent years are playing the game with a different approach that earlier in the century.

I don't feel that Trump was specifically the catalyst, but rather a symptom of movement within the the GOP (and I feel a wider movement coalescing in a lot of countries - from Tea party stuff to further right fractions that took over control of conservative parties in Canada/Alberta) that almost seemed like a flip in what significant parts of of the voting base held as key/important and the resulting pivot we saw in a lot of GOP politicians, new and old, shifting their public calls to action to much more direct and aggressive measures in policy pursuits.

My first feeling for stuff like this was probably McConnell not only lame ducking Garland, but the subsequent and explicitly stated wishes of GOP Senators stating that they wouldn't do so for the duration of Clinton's president should she win in 2016. It was a red flag, though one I probably didn't take seriously enough as I definitely felt that it was super unlikely that Hillary would lose the election.

It does feel like conservative politics has shifted to a much stronger stance. Unfortunately I get the feeling from a lot of long time, entrenched Democratic politicians that this is a blip and bipartisanship can be restored with relative ease but I'm not particularly convinced that this approach is the best one Democrats can do. Though admittedly my politics have slid past the DNC as well and I am often not a particular fan of a lot of their **** either so... /shrug