Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3308 3309 [3310] 3311 3312 ... 3336

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 2861956 times)

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49635 on: September 21, 2022, 02:00:26 pm »

The x has been pressed for doubt. There's not exactly much indication that would be particularly true in US history, if we ever stop murdering the left-wards parts of our political spectrum enough it could begin to happen. Corruption has been an issue, but the US right has been a disproportionately persistent and murderous problem at least as long as the US has existed at all. "As bad or worse" than the folks that have literally murdered entire towns (multiple, in several states) at one point or another in US history is a hell of a claim.

There's stuff going on with the ideologies grouped up on the sides of the US political spectrum that just don't lead to the same results even when they do go unusually bad, nevermind the blatant and persistent differences in negative outcomes at all the other points in time.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

McTraveller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49636 on: September 21, 2022, 02:32:46 pm »

Please, please stop with such statements of unfounded certainty like "all politicians exist solely for..."; it's statements like that which help perpetuate distrust all institutions of governance which will ultimately lead to social instability*.

This is a good example of my earlier observation in another thread about how, all too often these days, sentiment is "everyone in control is always working in the most nefarious way possible!"

*Of course the people 'in power' are trying to stay in power - they believe that their worldview is worth establishing as 'the worldview'.  Real TroubleTM occurs when what happens is focusing too much on staying in power, rather than on promoting a particular worldview (see DJT, who was just about power, didn't appear to really care about a particular platform, just what would get him there) or even worrying about which worldview should be promoted...
Logged

Dunamisdeos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Duggin was the hero we needed.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49637 on: September 21, 2022, 02:42:26 pm »

I don't remember voting for any governmental official anywhere on the basis that their job was to promote their fukkin' worldview.
Logged
FACT I: Post note art is best art.
FACT II: Dunamisdeos is a forum-certified wordsmith.
FACT III: "All life begins with Post-it notes and ends with Post-it notes. This is the truth! This is my belief!...At least for now."
FACT IV: SPEECHO THE TRUSTWORM IS YOUR FRIEND or BEHOLD: THE FRUIT ENGINE 3.0

Folly

  • Bay Watcher
  • Steam Profile: 76561197996956175
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49638 on: September 21, 2022, 02:56:40 pm »

Please, please stop with such statements of unfounded certainty like "all politicians exist solely for..."; it's statements like that which help perpetuate distrust all institutions of governance which will ultimately lead to social instability*.

A little social instability is necessary to achieve political revolution.
And yeah, my statement may have been needlessly extreme. I'm sure there are a few politicians out there with some degree of moral fiber.
But the fact is that US politics exist within a late-stage capitalist economy, with utterly inadequate rail guards separating the two. Big Money buys up however many politicians they need to ensure they can continue widening the gap between themselves and The Poors, and most politicians not taking their money cannot remain competitive. If there are politicians who are not corrupt, they will never be enough to have any impact on the bigger picture.
Logged

Dostoevsky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49639 on: September 21, 2022, 04:08:23 pm »

I get a bit of whiplash from this:

“If you look at the bill, it’s got some components, like it allows more lawsuits to drag out elections, to allow trial lawyers to change states’ election laws that were debated in their legislatures, which goes against the democratic principles that even the Constitution lays out for how elections should work,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters Tuesday morning, confirming that he will vote against the measure.


Why? In New York, it was Trial Lawyers that got the Courts to fix the Democrat Majority's gerrymandering...

The Trial Lawyers lobby is a classic bad guy / boogeyman for congressional Republicans, for whatever reason. (They do take positions contra-Republicans on some 'law & order' legislation, if I recall.)
Logged

EuchreJack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lord of Norderland - Lv 20 Paladin
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49640 on: September 21, 2022, 04:21:31 pm »

Republicans use gerrymandering way more and are poking at the idea of getting the supreme court to allow them to just ignore votes and send pro-Republican electors instead. Any regulations or observation will simply impede their ability to rig elections.

I would very much like to seem some actual statistical evidence on this, rather than the vague "The news seems to keep talking about Republican gerrymandering, and only that weird EJ has mentioned Democrat gerrymandering, so I conclude it's mostly the Republicans"

Regardless, your idea of the political right seems to be absolutely bonkers now, and it's downright bizarre. It's like having a black man as president *actually* broke the brains of half the country.
Black man becomes President, overt racism empowers opposing party. Only a brit couldn't see that coming.

I get a bit of whiplash from this:

“If you look at the bill, it’s got some components, like it allows more lawsuits to drag out elections, to allow trial lawyers to change states’ election laws that were debated in their legislatures, which goes against the democratic principles that even the Constitution lays out for how elections should work,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters Tuesday morning, confirming that he will vote against the measure.


Why? In New York, it was Trial Lawyers that got the Courts to fix the Democrat Majority's gerrymandering...

The Trial Lawyers lobby is a classic bad guy / boogeyman for congressional Republicans, for whatever reason. (They do take positions contra-Republicans on some 'law & order' legislation, if I recall.)
This is a good point.
It dates back to when The Trial Lawyers were the Plaintiff Attorneys on Tort suits. In fact, the Trial Lawyers Academy IS tort attorneys, like they're the only ones that have trials. Republicans 20 years ago were very anti-Tort due to their Pro-Corporate attitudes. They've sort of moved on, but many of the sitting congressional Republicans remember those days.

We also have Plaintiff Lawyers in NY that have successfully run for State Congress as Republicans, so it's a weird state as far as mainstream Republicanism comparisons go.

EuchreJack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lord of Norderland - Lv 20 Paladin
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49641 on: September 21, 2022, 04:25:46 pm »

The x has been pressed for doubt. There's not exactly much indication that would be particularly true in US history, if we ever stop murdering the left-wards parts of our political spectrum enough it could begin to happen. Corruption has been an issue, but the US right has been a disproportionately persistent and murderous problem at least as long as the US has existed at all. "As bad or worse" than the folks that have literally murdered entire towns (multiple, in several states) at one point or another in US history is a hell of a claim.

There's stuff going on with the ideologies grouped up on the sides of the US political spectrum that just don't lead to the same results even when they do go unusually bad, nevermind the blatant and persistent differences in negative outcomes at all the other points in time.

I think you're forgetting the Cold War and pre-Cold War, where the Soviet Union was aiding/controlling the Communists. Which kind of annoys me.

But yeah, it would be nice if the US could stop its love affair with the Far Right.
Maybe Putin will help, since he's Far Right and moving his country into Enemy Nation status. Plus there is some distance between the Soviet Union & Communism.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49642 on: September 21, 2022, 05:21:39 pm »

I think you're forgetting the Cold War and pre-Cold War, where the Soviet Union was aiding/controlling the Communists. Which kind of annoys me.
I'm not. Even during that period there wasn't parity between left and right extremism in the US, especially in terms of actual violence and whatnot. There weren't soviet backed mobs lethally depopulating towns in the US, as far as I'm aware. There's more than just one or two ruins from or monuments to exactly that on US soil from when our right wing extremists just mobbed up and murdered a bunch of people in earlier periods of our history.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

None

  • Bay Watcher
  • Forgotten, but not gone
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49643 on: September 21, 2022, 08:09:44 pm »

The pre-Cold War, when McCarthyism and the Red Scare was used to alienate political opponents, which is to say democrats?

Quote from: Wikipedia
The primary targets for persecution were government employees, prominent figures in the entertainment industry, academics, left-wing politicians, and labor union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive and questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations and beliefs were often exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and the destruction of their careers and livelihoods as a result of the crackdowns on suspected communists, and some were outright imprisoned. Most of these reprisals were initiated by trial verdicts that were later overturned,[13] laws that were later struck down as unconstitutional,[14] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[15] or actionable,[16] and extra-judiciary procedures, such as informal blacklists by employers and public institutions, that would come into general disrepute, though by then many lives had been ruined.

gee willikers isn't this familiar

Maybe Putin will help, since he's Far Right and moving his country into Enemy Nation status. Plus there is some distance between the Soviet Union & Communism.

"I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat" has been flying on flags since like 2018 here, my dude, and the right still believes that the war against Ukraine was started by NATO aggression. Which is weird messaging when they still consider Russia to be communists and also anyone left of far-right to be communists, but not when that's inconvenient to the modern McCarthyism, y'know?
Logged

MorleyDev

  • Bay Watcher
  • "It is not enough for it to just work."
    • View Profile
    • MorleyDev
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49644 on: September 21, 2022, 08:26:50 pm »

I don't remember voting for any governmental official anywhere on the basis that their job was to promote their fukkin' worldview.

Their world view, political ideology and skills they possess to implement it successfully therein, is supposed to the basis on which they are chosen as the one you vote for. So promoting their worldview is their job to get elected, then when elected their job is to implement things in accordance with the view they hold, and so demonstrate the benefits brought by their worldview and so promote it and receive further support to keep implementing it.

So yeah promoting their worldview, both by argument and by action, is supposed to quite literally be a politicans job. That their personal brand of political ideology and theory and the prinicpals held therein will inform their decision making, so that is what needs to be 'sold' to the electorate.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2022, 08:28:49 pm by MorleyDev »
Logged

EuchreJack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lord of Norderland - Lv 20 Paladin
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49645 on: September 21, 2022, 08:56:06 pm »

The pre-Cold War, when McCarthyism and the Red Scare was used to alienate political opponents, which is to say democrats?

Quote from: Wikipedia
The primary targets for persecution were government employees, prominent figures in the entertainment industry, academics, left-wing politicians, and labor union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive and questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations and beliefs were often exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and the destruction of their careers and livelihoods as a result of the crackdowns on suspected communists, and some were outright imprisoned. Most of these reprisals were initiated by trial verdicts that were later overturned,[13] laws that were later struck down as unconstitutional,[14] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[15] or actionable,[16] and extra-judiciary procedures, such as informal blacklists by employers and public institutions, that would come into general disrepute, though by then many lives had been ruined.

gee willikers isn't this familiar

Maybe Putin will help, since he's Far Right and moving his country into Enemy Nation status. Plus there is some distance between the Soviet Union & Communism.

"I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat" has been flying on flags since like 2018 here, my dude, and the right still believes that the war against Ukraine was started by NATO aggression. Which is weird messaging when they still consider Russia to be communists and also anyone left of far-right to be communists, but not when that's inconvenient to the modern McCarthyism, y'know?
I wasn't talking about this year...

None

  • Bay Watcher
  • Forgotten, but not gone
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49646 on: September 21, 2022, 11:02:18 pm »

Sorry, let me try another quote from the same wikipedia article:

Quote
McCarthyism is the practice of making false or unfounded accusations of subversion and treason, especially when related to anarchism, communism and socialism, and especially when done in a public and attention-grabbing manner.[1][2]

The term originally referred to the controversial practices and policies of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting from the late 1940s through the 1950s.[3] It was characterized by heightened political repression and persecution of left-wing individuals, and a campaign spreading fear of alleged communist and socialist influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents.[3]

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccarthyism

Gee willikers, this is familiar to this year because we literally have a name for the bullshit you're insinuating annoys you as truth, and it's being used today to damage reputations same as it had in the past. You like jobs, right? 12,000 people lost theirs to the soviet communism boogeyman. Not only that, it was used to target queer people or ostracized people for presumably being queer, because of course it was:

Quote
suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for "sexual perverts", who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in over 5,000 federal workers being fired, and thousands were harassed and denied employment.[86][87] Many have termed this aspect of McCarthyism the "lavender scare".[88][89]

See also: the hateful bathroom bills Bumfuck, America keeps passing in the present day.

Soviet union aiding radical leftists in the pre-cold and cold war era. Who sold you this version of history?
Logged

Dostoevsky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49647 on: September 21, 2022, 11:53:04 pm »

Republicans use gerrymandering way more and are poking at the idea of getting the supreme court to allow them to just ignore votes and send pro-Republican electors instead. Any regulations or observation will simply impede their ability to rig elections.

I would very much like to seem some actual statistical evidence on this, rather than the vague "The news seems to keep talking about Republican gerrymandering, and only that weird EJ has mentioned Democrat gerrymandering, so I conclude it's mostly the Republicans"

Gerrymandering is really a state-by-state thing more than a federal thing. Nationally Republicans are (largely) against anti-gerrymandering policies and nationally Democrats (largely) support them, but at the state level most majorities embrace the gerrymander. Since Republicans hold significantly more state legislatures (arguably due to them making a concerted effort over the 90s and 00s to gain and then consolidate control at the state level), you get more Republican gerrymanders than Democratic ones. We've also seen more republican-legislature states facing court troubles over their plans than democratic-legislature states, but I'm not sure if that's a greater ratio to their overall control.

Which states have independent/nonpartisan commissions taking over seems more a matter of state-level dynamics than party dynamics; there's been some welcome movement here in both blue and red states. That said, taking a look through the NCSL compilation of states I think I'm seeing a higher percentage of democratic states using independent/nonpartisan commissions than in republican states.

One aspect is that, either by coincidence or by design, around the time Republicans built up major control of state legislatures is also when the science of gerrymandering made major advancements (in part thanks to 'big data'). So you see the 2010 redistricting cycle really push the envelope of how bad gerrymandering can be, right after the tea party wave which saw both a republican wave and an increase in, well, tea party sorts. Only now in the 2020 cycle are we seeing more democratic states embrace ruthless envelope-pushing gerrymandering. (Aside from Maryland I guess, which has always been ruthless.)

There's also the fact that republicans have been the ones challenging redistricting laws at the national level (see e.g. the 2013 voting rights act case and the upcoming case next term) and trying to overturn independent state commissions or similar concepts at the state level, though the latter may be more a Trumpist / tea party phenomenon.

[The elephant in the room during all of this is the racial element, which is a much bigger ball of wax. On that I'll just say that democrats have an advantage there as their gerrymandering tends to target certain subsets of the white population, whereas republican gerrymandering tends to target near-entire non-white populations. Those latter populations are heavily democratic, so in that sense one can say it's not necessarily a racial thing, but that's missing a larger context of certain elements of the republican party post civil rights act...]
Logged

Micro102

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49648 on: September 22, 2022, 04:13:08 am »

Republicans use gerrymandering way more and are poking at the idea of getting the supreme court to allow them to just ignore votes and send pro-Republican electors instead. Any regulations or observation will simply impede their ability to rig elections.

I would very much like to seem some actual statistical evidence on this, rather than the vague "The news seems to keep talking about Republican gerrymandering, and only that weird EJ has mentioned Democrat gerrymandering, so I conclude it's mostly the Republicans"

The amount that gerrymandering that appears in the news is a statistic that suggests that one party does it more. But I figured that another good statistic to jump to when looking at the differences between republicans and democrats is lawsuits. And I found this: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/redistricting-litigation-roundup-0.

And as expected, the majority of the litigation is in red states.

Then we can look at the wiki for a broader history of gerrymandering, which points us to REDMAP, a program made by the republican party to specifically abuse gerrymandering.

Also, this reminded me of an old comment I had saved on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/eyho0g/republicans_are_spreading_voter_fraud/fghifzl/

So yeah I'm very confident in saying that the republican party in it's entirety is against democracy itself.
Logged

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • WHERE'S YOUR MOTIVATION!?!?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49649 on: October 11, 2022, 06:13:24 pm »

Ah well, I see it's been a few weeks since we've had something to sicken the mind and spirit.

Enjoy.

https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1579852329628860417?t=ob6g_2b6OudF70Zjxw_UTg&s=19

Quote
An all-white jury convicts a Black man of killing his white wife. Three jurors oppose interracial marriage because people should “stay with their Blood Line.” His lawyers don’t object. Jury sentences him to death. No problem, says the Supreme Court.

The SC has basically said "racial animus isn't enough to invalidate a jury." If their lawyer were worth a damn they would have never been sat on the jury in the first place. But even then, the SC just basically handed the South all the freedom it needs to judge the defendant by just about anything.

The unwritten part of this is that the black man is schizophrenic and WAS convicted of killing their wife. So I'm sure the position is that "race had nothing to do with it" since they supposedly sustained the conviction just based on the evidence.

Remember a time in the US, that when people said blatantly racist shit their other critical, opinions got viewed in light of that, and that actually mattered? Like how guilty people dodge charges because of police procedural mistakes with evidence handling, because the handling of evidence is so crucial that it's worth invalidating a guilty person's trial over it being done wrong?

I guess that's not true for race.

--

So reading deeper, this is an appeals case that was argued before the SC, on the basis of racial animus in the jury and ineffective representation of counsel. Evidenced by the failure to challenge these jurors before they were sat, and failing to object to clearly objectionable statements by jurors and the prosecution targeting the defendant's race.

Let's make no mistake. This guy is fucked up:

Quote
Andre Lee Thomas (born March 17, 1983) is an American convicted murderer and death row inmate known for removing both of his eyeballs in separate incidents and ingesting one of them. In 2004, Thomas killed his estranged wife Laura Boren, his four-year-old son and her one-year-old daughter in Sherman, Texas. He cut open the chests of all three victims, and he removed the two children's hearts.

Quote
Thomas, whose mental health problems began with auditory hallucinations at about age ten, was in the ninth grade when Boren became pregnant with his child. They married when Thomas was 18, but they separated soon thereafter. In the weeks leading up to the murders, Thomas had suicidal thoughts, drank heavily, and used cold medication as a recreational drug. In jail a few days after his arrest, Thomas pulled one of his eyes out of its socket. A jury rejected his insanity defense and sentenced him to death on a capital murder conviction. In 2008, he removed his other eye and ingested it.

Thomas was diagnosed with schizophrenia after his arrest, and his case has raised ethical questions about executing the mentally ill. His trial verdict was upheld by a state criminal appeals court in 2008 and by a federal appeals court in 2021. While he is still under a death sentence, Thomas is housed in a Texas prison facility for inmates with psychiatric problems.

So you have a clearly disturbed individual, who did unthinkable things, who had their insanity plea rejected, had terrible counsel and at least a partially prejudiced jury. This case before the SC was the last attempt to get an appeal based on these elements, and it was rejected.

Setting aside feelings about the death penalty and the "rightness" of the original verdict, we still have to ask "What if he'd been innocent?" Who cares about the guy who by all accounts is clearly guilty and had his race used against him by jurors. What about the guy who is innocent and his race is held against him by jurors? Or by his own counsel? If racial animus isn't enough to even at least get a new trial, then everyone is fucked. "How do you feel about insurance salesmen?" "I fucking hate them sir and would see them all rot in hell." "Welcome to the jury!"
« Last Edit: October 11, 2022, 06:49:52 pm by nenjin »
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti
Pages: 1 ... 3308 3309 [3310] 3311 3312 ... 3336