Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread"

Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread" (Page 73)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2023, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Maybe you don't spend enough time around other conservative people, but I can tell you that they actually stand for very little and are blown around entirely by the culture war du jour.
I posit this is because many conservative values are in conflict with other conservative values.

Conservatives resolve these conflicts “on-the-fly” as it were, and then convince themselves there wasn’t actually a conflict in the first place.


Edit: in my estimation, conservatives stand for:

1) Promulgation of religion
2) Loyalty to other conservatives
3) Maintenance of hierarchies

The conservatives you know don’t consistently stand for these things?
( Last edited by subego; Apr 20, 2023 at 01:12 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2023, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If the GOP continues on this path, then it becomes more likely that Democrats might simply add a few Justices to the Supreme Court
Politics is a game of “what goes around, comes around”.

This strategy would energize conservative voters, and should they regain power they’ll stuff the court too.
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2023, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Politics is a game of “what goes around, comes around”.
Do you mean to say that, "Any risky, unconventional, or potentially underhanded tactic that you try, the other side will use back against you?"
( Last edited by Laminar; Apr 20, 2023 at 04:44 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2023, 01:29 PM
 
Yes.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2023, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What if I consider my best interests to be…

Religion playing a major role in shaping policy, as well as in society at large.
Maintaining the patriarchy.
Strict control over the education of my children.
Being armed.

Well funded police.

Edit: add a very well funded military.

Edit 2: and very strongly discouraging illegal immigration.[/b]
The dark items are expensive, and you didn't mention a balanced budget. I know, conservatives only mention that when Dems are in charge, and spend like water when they're in control. But supposedly, conservatives care about a balanced budget. So ...

Federal spending falls into 4 broad categories:
• Servicing the deficit: honoring T-bills when they come due. This category is the only one Constitutionally protected. Being unable to honor those is the Default condition that's coming up in current events.
• Military: DoD and most intelligence agencies, black programs.
• Social: Social Security and Medicare mostly, plus some smaller stuff.
• Discretionary spending: everything else. Keeping the lights on in the Capitol, etc.

When you have a shortfall, you can raise taxes to correct it. Or cut taxes to the rich, so the deficit grows. As for cutting spending, conservatives fav solution:

1) Cutting the entire Discretionary category would not balance the annual budget. The dynamic deficit is larger than this category.
2) Eliminating Social Security would about balance things, but only if you kept payroll taxes. SS is mostly self-funding (entirely so over the long term), so cutting SS would cause enormous pain, and lots of elderly homelessness. But if you don't keep payroll taxes, you get nothing.
3) Severely cutting military spending would have severe consequences for the world, and our position in it. Would almost certainly bite us in the ass within a generation - two at most. Modest cuts might be workable - though you may need a crystal ball to see which categories are safe to cut. Seems risky.

SS did run a surplus in the past, which the Feds borrowed for general spending. SS is currently running a shortfall due to demographics (baby boomers are being supported by the smaller later gens) so the Feds are having to pay back the SS surplus. So cancelling would save many billions in repayments today - but nowhere near enough to balance the budget by itself. You'd have to keep the payroll taxes, while cancelling SS benefits.

note: the demographic glitch is self-fixing over the long term. When the Baby Boomers die in a few decades, the program will be in balance again, and likely running a small surplus. Congress could loan SS money for a couple decades, but they're only talking about raising payroll taxes, and/or cutting benefits. Oh well - it will only affect our own retirements.

Above summary: you can only balance the budget by raising taxes, or cutting SS while maintaining taxes. Effectively a tax increase in all but name. Conservative pundits fail to mention this. Cutting taxes and expecting the economy to grow enough to erase the deficit: this approach has failed for 4 decades. Lets lean into it more.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Religion playing a major role in shaping policy, as well as in society at large.
Maintaining the patriarchy.
Strict control over the education of my children.
Being armed.

Well funded police.

Edit: add a very well funded military.

Edit 2: and very strongly discouraging illegal immigration.
Religion: we are talking ALL religions, right? Like the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amentment requires? Or are we talking only traditional Christian religion playing a role in shaping policy and society? What about the majority of society who do not want that? Final Solution time? Basically, this category is not only illegal, it overrides the rights of others. A majority of other citizens in my opinion.

Patriarchy: appears to violate the 19th Amendment. Also 15th (previous servitude in the kitchen) and perhaps 13th (abolition).

Strict control of education: apparently to prevent any melting pot. So conservative children are not exposed to others' ideas and values, so their future adult voters will not consider (or perhaps even comprehend) what their fellow citizens are concerned about. This is very close to brainwashing in my opinion. Do the conservative kids have any rights about this?

Being armed: guaranteed by 2nd Amendment. Few people advocate for removing the right - the discussion is about limits to protect other rights (ie - life). No right can be absolute - a right must stop when it infringes another's rights. The government gets to arbitrate what compromises are needed for this balance.

Illegal immigration: this seems to be code for curbing legal immigration - few people argue for protecting illegal immigration (exception: Dreamers/DACA). Legal immigration helps the Social Security shortfall (more workers contributing) and with filling minimum-wage jobs, which helps reduce things like food prices. Anti-immigrant looks as much like a bogeyman as a legit concern. Certainly deserves more attention than simplistic solutions like a Wall. Cancelling all immigration would hurt us, with few benefits.
( Last edited by reader50; Apr 20, 2023 at 05:13 PM. Reason: grammar)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2023, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
few people argue for protecting illegal immigration…
I’m only singling this out because I’m pressed for time.

Are sanctuary cities not what I think they are?


Edit: I mean, I argue for protecting illegal immigration (excepting by violent criminals) until such time as our legal immigration system more resembles something just.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 20, 2023 at 04:09 PM. )
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2023, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes.
Do we have examples of Democrats co-opting a religion for 40 years, successfully performing widespread gerrymandering, or purposefully grooming corporation-friendly judges to place in strategic federal positions?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2023, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are sanctuary cities not what I think they are?
I'd forgotten about those, but it's all good. Those are local governments setting local policy - conservatives should be pleased.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2023, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Politics is a game of “what goes around, comes around”.
Thinking of politics the way you summarize is IMHO part of the problem. It doesn't have to be like that. There are plenty of countries where politics is much more cooperative, and typically these countries have more faith in their institutions and a healthier society.

Look at other democracies, few seem to be as marred with problems as the US: low faith/approval of elected leaders, a sclerotic political system that makes change and holding politicians and judges de facto impossible, a failing medical system, opiate addiction, the highest number of incarcerated people (both in absolute terms and also relatively speaking when compared to democracies), a sick firearms culture, etc. Even basic things like passing ordinary budgets year-after-year is not something that happens regularly in the US.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This strategy would energize conservative voters, and should they regain power they’ll stuff the court too.
Yes, but at what cost? The GOP has its hand on the steering wheel, willing to drive the political system against the wall if it doesn't get their will all the time.

Being unwilling to lose sometimes is extremely unhealthy (even on a personal level). Politics is an endless game, and if one side isn't willing to stick to the rules (hard rules as in laws and regulations or soft rules like norms), then the game cannot continue.

Not even holding hearings for Garland is no different from appointing additional Supreme Court Justices. Both are perfectly constitutional, but both would violate political norms. It tipped the scales in the GOP's favor when it wasn't their turn. Plus, appointing Garland would have kept the split (5–4 in the GOP's favor), but with a moderate voice on the court.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2023, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
3) Severely cutting military spending would have severe consequences for the world, and our position in it. Would almost certainly bite us in the ass within a generation - two at most. Modest cuts might be workable - though you may need a crystal ball to see which categories are safe to cut. Seems risky.
I think the US could cut its military spending significantly, and still not lose top dog status. I don't think the consequences would be necessarily bad, it could end up as a net positive if done right. The latter modifier is important. The US was and is at its worst when it acts mostly unilaterally and draws other allies into quagmires. It is so tempting to do things just because you can make that decision by yourself.

Just imagine if the US couldn't have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan essentially by itself or at least stayed for as long as it did? If it decided to not go because it couldn't convince its allies. Ukraine is a good example where international collaboration is working.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Strict control of education: apparently to prevent any melting pot. So conservative children are not exposed to others' ideas and values, so their future adult voters will not consider (or perhaps even comprehend) what their fellow citizens are concerned about. This is very close to brainwashing in my opinion. Do the conservative kids have any rights about this?
It seems to me that the overriding motivation of many conservatives is to prevent exposure to uncomfortable ideas/facts of life, and to force others to accept their standards. Gay people exist, and you will be “confronted” with them when you live your life. Schools should expose their students to a wide gamut of society to prepare them for life. They or their parents need to accept all aspects, but I think any citizen needs to know what is out there to make informed decisions what (not) to do.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Being armed: guaranteed by 2nd Amendment. Few people advocate for removing the right - the discussion is about limits to protect other rights (ie - life). No right can be absolute - a right must stop when it infringes another's rights. The government gets to arbitrate what compromises are needed for this balance.
I'd go further: current gun culture seems sick to me. I think I have a good handle on American gun culture and how it developed. I don't think 20, 30 years ago most people found it acceptable to order food at Applebees while shouldering a rifle. Personal responsibility has disappeared from the minds of many gun owners in small ways and big. If you celebrate giving a gun to a two-year-old when I wouldn't even let them handle a kitchen knife, something is wrong with you. Or when you don't seem to teach basic gun safety rules to your kids?



I would say, though, that if the legal framework shifts more and more against where the vast majority of people is (e. g. universal background checks, including for private gun sales and sales at gun shows), then eventually, people will turn against the Second Amendment. The latter will be especially true if the Supreme Court adopts an ever more radical interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Illegal immigration: this seems to be code for curbing legal immigration - few people argue for protecting illegal immigration (exception: Dreamers/DACA). […] Cancelling all immigration would hurt us, with few benefits.
This is a big one. It is hard to argue that immigration is beneficial for society, but very unpopular with a sizable share of society as it would “change how things are”.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Those are local governments setting local policy - conservatives should be pleased.
That's one of those rallying cries conservatives only stick to when the outcome is convenient for them.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 02:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think the US could cut its military spending significantly, and still not lose top dog status.
It's not quite top dog status. In WWII, the US had to fight a two-front war. The oversized military budgets today are because we're maintaining a 2-front capability. So we can, for example, supply heavy resources to Ukraine and maintain elevated readiness in Eastern Europe, in case Putin tries anything.

While at the same time, beefing up readiness in the South China Sea area, to curb Chinese aggression. War simulations suggest we can fight and win a costly war with China if need be. As China can read the same reports, the invasion of Taiwan probably won't happen. Saving hundreds of thousands of lives (at least), and preserving the freedom of tens of millions of people. Likewise, the South China Sea will remain navigable for world trade.

If Russia disintegrates or becomes a real democracy after Putin is gone, then I think we could cut military spending a lot. Down to 1.5 war fronts perhaps. But without our huge military spending today, European NATO might have had to help Ukraine alone. While China pushed their neighbors heavily. With the US lacking the deep reserves to commit to either front, for fear the other would then flare up. And the world would be much worse off for it.

For a long time, I thought we could make deep military cuts. But there really are two geopolitical rivals, with democracy under threat worldwide. Someone has to be ready to face those threats, and I don't see anyone else doing it. Just look at all the 3rd world countries, that won't even condemn Russia's invasion. Not even with well-documented war crimes.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 03:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
It's not quite top dog status. In WWII, the US had to fight a two-front war. The oversized military budgets today are because we're maintaining a 2-front capability.
I don't think it is healthy to be ready for a two-front war all the time. To quote Londo Molari: “Only an idiot wages a war on two fronts.” I don't understand the fear of Americans seem to feel: sometimes the solution to a problem is not a bigger gun, but more friends and more brains.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
So we can, for example, supply heavy resources to Ukraine and maintain elevated readiness in Eastern Europe, in case Putin tries anything.
IMHO the US has an unhealthy obsession with needing to do all that alone. I think Europe could manage helping largely without the US. The most substantive help the US gives Ukraine is near-real time intelligence and satellite internet. That is the basis for all those pin point attacks.

A lot of other help is actually a twofer for the US, they are getting rid of old stockpiles of weapon systems that — had the war in Ukraine not happened — were destined for the scrap heap. (Not meant as an insult, I like recycling. Europe has done the same.) It also focusses on weapons and military action and rarely thinks of e. g. refugees.

I think Europe would be quite safe under a British-French nuclear umbrella. France's nuclear arsenal alone is enough to deter Russia from going nuclear. Yes, they “only” have about 200 warheads if memory serves, but that's enough to nuke Russia — or China.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
But without our huge military spending today, European NATO might have had to help Ukraine alone.
Yes, and I think that might have actually done quite as well. Like I wrote above, the most valuable contribution in my mind is the US supplying internet and real time intelligence. The former is extremely cheap, the latter is essentially free (as the US would keep tabs on Russia's military one way or the other).
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
While China pushed their neighbors heavily. With the US lacking the deep reserves to commit to either front, for fear the other would then flare up. And the world would be much worse off for it.
The US' biggest weakness isn't lack of military prowess, it is lack of commitment. Have a look at NATO during Trump and NATO during Biden's Presidency: one reason many Europeans thought NATO was useless is because they felt they couldn't count on the US. If, hypothetically speaking, Trump is re-elected in 2024, how do you think countries like Taiwan and the EU member states would feel? How about Ukraine?

The US has completely forgotten about its soft power and let that atrophy. Soft power means forging strong alliances.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
For a long time, I thought we could make deep military cuts. But there really are two geopolitical rivals, with democracy under threat worldwide. Someone has to be ready to face those threats, and I don't see anyone else doing it.
Someone is ready, but it is not a single nation, but an alliance of nations. There are plenty of nations whose interests align with those of the US in that instance.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 03:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, and I think that {European NATO helping Ukraine alone} might have actually done quite as well.
I've read that the UK would have run out of ammo within a few weeks, if they'd tried to sustain Ukraine's firing rate by themselves. Likewise for other European nations. Everyone had forgotten how rapidly ammo evaporates in a real war. All of free Europe would last longer, but within months, everyone's warehouses would be dry. By perhaps 3 months into the war, Europe (alone) would have had to limit Ukraine to newly manufactured ammo, to prevent everyone else from becoming vulnerable.

As of late last year, the US exceeded 1 million artillery rounds supplied to Ukraine. I think all European nations are in the 10K range each at best. The US total has probably passed 1.5M by now. And I don't know how many 100s of millions of small-arms ammo. Ukraine's needs would have drained Europe dry. Even the US is trying to up the ammo manufacturing - we're still drawing down our supplies. Manufacturing has yet to catch up with usage. And that's with just one war, with assistance from allies.

I've also read that European countries have let their long-range logistics capabilities atrophy, as they can depend on the US DoD global logistics system. So not only would Ukraine run out of ammo before the Kharkiv / Kearson counteroffensives happened, but Europe could not even get supplies to Taiwan if need be.

I'd like you to be right about allies being able to help shoulder the defense of Democracy. I really would. But while we over-spend, it looks like everyone else has been saving money. Leading to very limited capabilities.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 04:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I've read that the UK would have run out of ammo within a few weeks, if they'd tried to sustain Ukraine's firing rate by themselves. Likewise for other European nations. Everyone had forgotten how rapidly ammo evaporates in a real war.
I think this is a non-issue when you think on the correct time scales. After all, you won't cut US military spending in half over night, that's a process that will likely take at least a decade, perhaps two. During that time other countries could ramp up production and modernize their military.

The status quo leaves everyone co-dependent on the US and the US co-dependent on its partners. It doesn't want to give up the position at the top, making many decisions by itself, which means that other countries accommodate them. Think of it as Europe and Japan being the kids of the US who staid at home, because the parents won't let go. On the other hand, they make their home comfortable enough so that they don't have to leave. I hope my analogy makes sense.

Germany eliminated its dependence on Russian gas within a few months. European countries can move, including on the production of munitions and the like, if they are really forced to. Right now they are not. Don't forget that EU nations are also dealing with millions of refugees. Plus, they organize other crucial goods such as generators.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
[…] but Europe could not even get supplies to Taiwan if need be.
Europe isn't the US' only allies. South Korea and Japan are also on the list of allies and they are much closer. You can split the work.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'd like you to be right about allies being able to help shoulder the defense of Democracy. I really would. But while we over-spend, it looks like everyone else has been saving money. Leading to very limited capabilities.
Let me try another analogy here: The US doesn't let its allies shoulder their own weight, because they are control freaks and don't want to let go of control. (No offense intended, I'm just trying to make my argument.) I'm all for sharing more responsibilities, but that includes also sharing the decision-making. The US has to let go and leave space to other countries to take up that role. This type of relationship is not healthy and no longer necessary.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 08:39 AM
 
Gun and military talk is going to get Subego way off track...
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Do we have examples of Democrats co-opting a religion for 40 years, successfully performing widespread gerrymandering, or purposefully grooming corporation-friendly judges to place in strategic federal positions?
No.

I feel like this is supposed to be a “gotcha”.
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No.

I feel like this is supposed to be a “gotcha”.
I didn't intend anything underhanded or sneaky by it.

Republicans love complaining about how both sides are bad, usually after being presented with irrefutable evidence that Republicans are bad. Your concept of "what goes around comes around" implies that both sides will sink to equally low depths in an attempt to amass or maintain power.

The point of my post is that it's not a "both sides" issue and what goes around doesn't necessarily come around, at least when one party is still somewhat committed to sane governance.

A situation where I frequently see this referenced is when people complained about Trump bypassing the legislative process by using EOs willy-nilly - they were told that Obama did the same thing and "what goes around comes around."

Except Obama signed fewer EOs than W, Bush 1 (on a per-year basis), Clinton, Carter, Reagan, and more, so he certainly didn't abuse them.

Back in 2012, Trump had tweeted: “Why Is @BarackObama constantly issuing executive orders that are major power grabs of authority?”

That criticism continued once he entered the presidential race.

“The country wasn’t based on executive orders,” Trump said at a South Carolina campaign stop in February 2016. “Right now, Obama goes around signing executive orders. He can’t even get along with the Democrats, and he goes around signing all these executive orders. It’s a basic disaster. You can’t do it.”
And then Trump managed 55/year vs. Obama's 35/year.

All of that to say "what goes around comes around" sets me off in a few ways, but mostly because it's used to excuse shitty behavior that you wouldn't put up with if it was the "other side" doing it. But it's a very useful tool for those on-the-fly mental conflict resolutions you mentioned. Combine it with conservatives' inability to think outside of pure binary reasoning (they did it, but it doesn't matter how much, to whom, or in what context, it only matters that it was ever done), and they can justify anything they want to.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Your concept of "what goes around comes around" implies that both sides will sink to equally low depths in an attempt to amass or maintain power.
I hope me agreeing with your observation rather than challenging it is sufficient evidence that wasn’t what I was implying.

To hopefully state my claim in no uncertain terms, I consider not playing fair to be a defining trait of conservatism. This is not the case with liberalism.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 04:50 PM
 
Here’s a brief roundup of current bills expanding Florida’s war against the LGBTQ+ community...

SB254 — would allow the state to take children from their parents when they are "at risk" or "subjected" to gender-affirming health care. The bill is written so that even a child of Floridian parents living out of state could trigger the law.

HB1521 — prohibits businesses from utilising gender-inclusive bathrooms.

SB1438 — empowers the state to take punitive measures against businesses that host LGBTQ friendly shows or drag performances. It also gives the state the power to prohibit minors from attending events it deems "inappropriate." Minors will be barred from events even if their parents consent. It’s thought this would also likely mean the end of most Pride parades.
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I hope me agreeing with your observation rather than challenging it is sufficient evidence that wasn’t what I was implying.

To hopefully state my claim in no uncertain terms, I consider not playing fair to be a defining trait of conservatism. This is not the case with liberalism.
How does that knowledge affect the statement, "Politics is a game of 'what goes around, comes around.'"? If one party is significantly more committed to honest discourse than the other, then what goes around doesn't necessarily come around, no?
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Here’s a brief roundup of current bills expanding Florida’s war against the LGBTQ+ community...
The Heritage Foundation is feeding legislature straight to Iowa and we're just straight up signing it into law. I assume they're feeding Florida as well, but it's getting more attention there.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Iowa/commen...ation_meeting/

Our governor seems to be vying for a VP nom or some kind of political so she's trying to lead the way in shitty Republican policies.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2023, 09:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Here’s a brief roundup of current bills expanding Florida’s war against the LGBTQ+ community...
I talked to a gay friend of mine about all this. He's really distressed about the focus on transgender: it is the exact same playbook, they are just targeting a much smaller minority that hasn't been as broadly accepted as LGBTQ are. Plus, the GOP makes it into a spectacle, blows it up into a “real problem”. All these transgender athletes swamping sports and displacing “real women”. (What is super funny is that most commentators seem completely clueless about sports and ways that people can and already are accommodated in various ways.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2023, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
How does that knowledge affect the statement, "Politics is a game of 'what goes around, comes around.'"? If one party is significantly more committed to honest discourse than the other, then what goes around doesn't necessarily come around, no?
This is a good question.

It changes things in two ways I can determine.

The first change is what you point out. If one “team” refuses to use a tactic because they consider it unfair, should the other team use the tactic, said team will not have it revisited upon them.

The second change is this leaves the team playing fair as the de facto arbiter of what constitutes fair play. If the fair team uses a tactic, that tactic will be considered fair regardless of who uses it.

I see this applying here. If the Democrats stuff the Court, they legitimize the tactic for all players.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2023, 05:04 PM
 
Bonus question: what should the Democrats do in the following scenario?

Republican president.
Democratic senate.
New Supreme Court justice needs to be appointed.

Should the Democrats hold up the nomination? My answer is an unqualified “yes”.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2023, 06:11 PM
 
I agree - hold the nomination. At least the one time to balance the scales.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2023, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I agree - hold the nomination. At least the one time to balance the scales.
I argue it should be permanent.

It is better the true power over this decision be held by a distributed body instead of a single individual.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2023, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
this leaves the team playing fair as the de facto arbiter of what constitutes fair play
As an aside, it’s hard to overstate how much power this grants to the team who plays fair. For all intents and purposes, liberals make the rules.

This frightens the shit out of conservatives BTW, and is a big reason they go psycho.


Edit: for their part, Liberals have no idea they’re this powerful, and are genuinely confused when conservatives point it out.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 22, 2023 at 08:13 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2023, 07:13 AM
 
Sorry for the delay!

Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'd forgotten about those, but it's all good. Those are local governments setting local policy - conservatives should be pleased.
This points to an important, if not the most important rule of analyzing the conservative mindset.

With rare exception, when a conservative says they stand for something, it’s not true.

This doesn’t mean they don’t stand for anything, they’re just disincentivized from putting their finger on it because what they stand for is pretty gross.

What conservatives stand for is:

1) Presenting a unified front. Bad actors from within will be treated leniently in the name of unity.

2) Maintenance of hierarchies. This includes those of race, gender, class, and the relationship of the government to the people.

3) Purity of the tribe. This can be metaphysical, as it is with the tribal religion, or worldly, such as with institutional racism.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2023, 01:29 PM
 
subego, are you feeling OK? Usually, you're more considerate of conservatives. But for the past week, you've been ripping them a new one.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2023, 03:07 PM
 
I’m trying to dodge any accusations I cut conservatives too much slack.

How did I do?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2023, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I agree - hold the nomination. At least the one time to balance the scales.
Yeah, one time and Democrats should make clear why (including a “if you do it in the future …”). If they made it permanent, that'd gum up the US political system even more.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2023, 09:48 PM
 
What would gum up the works is the executive not accepting the balance of power.

If the senate controls the decision then the executive should be compelled to chose a candidate the senate approves of, even if that means someone who doesn’t dovetail with the executive agenda, whatever that might be.

If the executive can’t compromise, then the appointment gets blocked.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2023, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What would gum up the works is the executive not accepting the balance of power.
The Constitution gives Presidents the power to nominate candidates and the Senate needs to give advice and consent. Not scheduling hearings is outside of the intended mechanism.

I also don't think this shifts power to the legislative branch, gridlock makes it more likely that laws are not revisisted and the executive branch has to patch this with Executive Orders and such.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the senate controls the decision then the executive should be compelled to chose a candidate the senate approves of, even if that means someone who doesn’t dovetail with the executive agenda, whatever that might be.

If the executive can’t compromise, then the appointment gets blocked.
That is a really weird rewrite of history when it comes to Garland's nomination.

Garland wasn't even given a hearing or serious objections lodged against him (my theory is that the GOP didn't think they even needed to bother). Nor was there any attempt by the Senate to find a compromise candidate. Failed nominations happen (Bush's nomination of his former lawyer comes to mind, behind-the-scenes negotiations scuttled Myer's chances and a compromise was found). Just an unconvincing explanation that presidents should nominate Supreme Court Justices “when they are lame ducks”, just to break with their explanation when it inconvenienced the GOP.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 12:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That is a really weird rewrite of history when it comes to Garland's nomination.
I’m not saying this state of affairs was the intent behind blocking the Garland nomination, but it was the ultimate result. The senate controls the show now.

As historical context, here’s my commentary on the subject from 5 years ago:

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I posit this new paradigm for Supreme Court appointments the GOP has created is superior to what came before.

The politics of who a Presidential candidate would appoint to the Court used to be the most important consideration when deciding who to vote for. This was a reflection of the enormous amount of power the old paradigm entrusted to the Executive.

The new paradigm is the President’s input is taken at the pleasure of the Senate.

Who a candidate will appoint to the Court no longer competes with other considerations for a voter’s attention.

Power unnecessarily concentrated in a single individual has been decentralized.

These are both good things.

It sucks to be on the wrong side of it, which I am because I prefer a balanced court, but that happened under the old paradigm, too.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not saying this state of affairs was the intent behind blocking the Garland nomination, but it was the ultimate result. The senate controls the show now.
You seem to be going back and forth between very different stances. In your previous post you claimed “If the executive can’t compromise, then the appointment gets blocked.” It isn't about compromise, it is about power and flaunting the spirit of the Constitution.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Apr 24, 2023 at 02:12 AM. Reason: Fixed a tag)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 01:37 AM
 
“Compromise” was a poor choice of words. Apologies it confused the matter. I would agree it’s about power.

However, to me, the notion of the legislature acting as a check on executive power is very much in the spirit of the Constitution.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 02:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
However, to me, the notion of the legislature acting as a check on executive power is very much in the spirit of the Constitution.
The language in the Constitution is quite specific in this matter: the President picks a candidate, the Senate's role is to advise and consent. Yes, that's part of checks and balances, but the power to pick someone lies with the executive. Not holding hearings is not a check on power, it obstructionism. Had the Senate GOP simply opposed Garland, they would have held a hearing and made their reasons public.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 02:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m trying to dodge any accusations I cut conservatives too much slack.

How did I do?
Pretty good. Took me a week to react to.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The language in the Constitution is quite specific in this matter: the President picks a candidate, the Senate's role is to advise and consent. Yes, that's part of checks and balances, but the power to pick someone lies with the executive. Not holding hearings is not a check on power, it obstructionism. Had the Senate GOP simply opposed Garland, they would have held a hearing and made their reasons public.
I’m fine with cutting out the middleman. If they’re not going to confirm, don’t waste everybody’s time.

I don’t need a hearing to know the reason it was blocked: Garland wasn’t conservative enough.
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As an aside, it’s hard to overstate how much power this grants to the team who plays fair. For all intents and purposes, liberals make the rules.
I'm interested in this idea.

If one group will only do things it deems fair and kind, and another group will do all of those fair and kind things but also unfair and unkind things (while still managing to maintain power), that puts the fair and kind group at a disadvantage.

It's like someone who refuses to use swear words because regular words, well used, can also effectively convey a message. Well, someone willing to use swear words has access to all of the nice words AND all of the swear words, so they have more options. If the SFW group sets rules that we are not to use swear words, and the NSFW group keeps swearing, who is holding the power? The group trying to set standards that aren't being followed? If the SFW declares that "piss" is no longer a swear word and start using it, they have "set the rules," but the NSFW group was already saying "piss" all the time, so what difference does it make?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 12:45 PM
 
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 01:59 PM
 
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
I never read news, but I'm surprised how editorialized that article is.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I never read news, but I'm surprised how editorialized that article is.
CNN is brutal for it, along with Fox of course. Even the news must have take elements. It’s pretty embarrassing.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 08:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I'm interested in this idea.

If one group will only do things it deems fair and kind, and another group will do all of those fair and kind things but also unfair and unkind things (while still managing to maintain power), that puts the fair and kind group at a disadvantage.
It is a version of the paradox of tolerance, which is why there are no easy options for Democrats. Hoping the GOP will eventually just implode “by itself” is naïve.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I'm interested in this idea.

If one group will only do things it deems fair and kind, and another group will do all of those fair and kind things but also unfair and unkind things (while still managing to maintain power), that puts the fair and kind group at a disadvantage.

It's like someone who refuses to use swear words because regular words, well used, can also effectively convey a message. Well, someone willing to use swear words has access to all of the nice words AND all of the swear words, so they have more options. If the SFW group sets rules that we are not to use swear words, and the NSFW group keeps swearing, who is holding the power? The group trying to set standards that aren't being followed? If the SFW declares that "piss" is no longer a swear word and start using it, they have "set the rules," but the NSFW group was already saying "piss" all the time, so what difference does it make?
This implies there is no value in playing fair, there is no downside to playing unfair, and thus the best response to those who play unfair is to abandon one’s principles.

Is this what you believe? I certainly don’t.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
It is a version of the paradox of tolerance, which is why there are no easy options for Democrats. Hoping the GOP will eventually just implode “by itself” is naïve.
What the paradox of tolerance says what we must not tolerate are those who would teach “to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”.

Is this what you expect of the GOP?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 09:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What the paradox of tolerance says what we must not tolerate are those who would teach “to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”.
No, that's not what the paradox says. The paradox says that if society is completely tolerant, it also tolerates people who advocate for intolerance, who want to abolish tolerance. So complete tolerance has the potential of bringing about its own demise.

It has nothing to do with pistols and fists.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is this what you expect of the GOP?
I don't follow.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2023, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, that's not what the paradox says.
It’s a direct quote from it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2023, 12:07 AM
 
To give a more rounded definition, the people who mustn’t be tolerated are those who do not tolerate discourse. It is not simply those who advocate intolerance.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:31 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,