 |
| Silverfiddle Rant! |
A.B. Stoddard worries the Democrats may have nominated their last Supreme Court justice...
"Two years from now Democrats face a terrible map and will be defending red-state or swing-state incumbents in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, West Virginia, and Montana."
It's rough sledding when your campaign slogan the past few years has been "Defund the Police!"
The Right (with the help of sensible Democrats) is Winning the Culture War
Our Experts Aren't
From covid, to the economy, to foreign policy, Americans are waking up to the fact that our experts have failed us.
Republicans benefit from this...
... because they are seen as the anti-government party (probably because they can't govern). Democrats meanwhile are the party of government, because when they get in charge--unlike the feckless, dithering, double-talking GOP--they get it on, combining no-argument politburo-like decision-making with wrecking ball policies.
To Make Matters Worse, The Left Can't Meme
Just ask NPC Wojak, a "grey, lifeless figure who repeats empty phrases like ‘‘The future is female” and “Reality has a liberal bias.”" The Soyjak and Gigachad memes have gotten out of hand now, but they were so much of a threat to the left that that prig-faced pseudo-intellectual progressives whined and fretted and linked this tomfoolery back to Stalinist Russia and 20th century fascism. Meanwhile, the Crying Liberal, left with not even a participation trophy, continues to weep.
Even Worse, The Left is Losing the Tik Tok Wars
The Infotainment Media Complex and their high brow latte leftist set championed free speech when they were the gatekeepers. Those days are gone, so plutocrat papers like the Washington Post, New York Times and other Billionaire-owned outlets ring alarms, scream and compare Elon Musk taking over twitter to the Reichstag Fire.
Meanwhile, I'm noticing an increasing amount of lesbians, gay men, women of color, and other "natural Democrat Party constituencies" lambasting and lampooning the unhinged left.
The Washington Post punched down hard to expose and shame the previously-anonymous proprietor of the infamous and wildly popular "Libs of Tik Tok." (Libs of Tik Tok YouTube). The unethical writer of the WaPo hit piece bravely leaned into centuries-old anti-Semitic stereotypes, noting the 'Libs of Tik Tok' creator is a “‘powerful’ Orthodox Jew who is ‘shaping’ the media.” And not one person on the left heard echoes of glass shattering...
If you read no other link, please read this short article that encapsulates the Libs of Tik Tok Madness, and you will see why the humorless, authoritarian left is outraged:
Stop the Hammering!
I'm not a social scientist or political analysist. All I know is what I read, and people like James Carville and Ruy Teixeira are attempting to stand athward the Democrat Party and scream Stop! Stop the 'Latinks' woke madness, stop supporting illegal immigration, stop making excuses for criminals, stop opening new fronts daily in the LGBTQ, Race and trans culture wars. Normal people are fed up and turned off.
What say you?
Additional Links:
I agree with most of what you wrote, except for the GOP benefiting from it. That party is a political dumpster fire right now [deservedly so], and if they can't figure out which direction their going, the traditional and expected win during the coming mid-terms may fizzle like a wet sparkler.
ReplyDeleteFor better or worse, the left is losing their mantle as the party of big government.
The best we can hope for is one or the other party accidentally stumbles back into normalcy, is immediately rewarded for it, which causes the other party to do the same. Imagine everyone ignoring the screaming fringes and fighting for the middle... There I go dreaming again...
DeleteNot likely, but probably more realistic than what I hope for.
DeleteThe Republican Party has squandered way too many opportunities to make a condemnation of Trump a defining feature of the party platform, and their rhetoric falls way too short of telling Trump supporting election conspiracy theorists to go get a life in another country. It's like they don't even want to try to have me take them seriously.
DeleteThis year's midterm elections will disappoint the rats that didn't get off the ship in time.
Half the party is throwing elbows to try and prostrate themselves closest to the Cheeto Altar. The other half is looking at them in nervous disbelief.
DeleteWhile I'm not optimistic of Dems staying in power, in the teabagging days of 2010 & 2012, who would have thought Akin, Mourdock, Angle, and O’Donnell would be too unhinged for the voters of that era.
DeleteCould Greitens, Walker, Vance, Oz or even Johnson or for that matter, Lee be too batshit crazy today?
Greitens disappointed me as Governor after he campaigned with a machine gun to "fight the Democrats," yet never even pulled a slingshot on them. And then the revenge porn and spousal abuse stuff came out. It's doubtful Greitens will make it out of the primaries without massive assistance from the RNC, like they did with parachuting Josh Hawley in from Virginia.
DeleteGreitens was a Democrat before 2015... what's your point? Hawley led the "Insurrection".
DeleteRepublicans need to understand a simple piece of wisdom: you can't go forwards looking backwards
DeleteDonald Trump was also a Democrat.
DeleteWhat’s your point?
Isn't that you "conservative kiss of death", beamish?
Delete-FJ
Hawley wasn't even a resident of Missouri when he ran for Senate (and won). So, color me a little skeptical of the RNC meddling in state primaries.
DeleteOf the three neck-and-neck frontrunners for Missouri GOP Senate candidates, Greitens is in third place and polls the worst against "generic Democrat" while the other two blow "generic Democrat" out of the water. Trump endorsed Greitens, which probably does almost as much damage as his experience as Governor being ended after a year after his scandal(s). Unless the RNC has a hard on for losing Kit Bond's seat to a Democrat, we're done with Greitens. The other two Republican candidates would likely be decent Senators, except for the ethical lapses that keep them calling themselves Republican.
In the 1980's politicians still had clout. Their Executive and Congressional staffs wrote the budget bills that determined what money got spent by which boardroom and when. The boardroom to cloakroom pipeline was hopping. Votes were needed to pass those budgets. There was a "regular order" to contend with. Both parties had a say in where the money would go.
ReplyDeleteAnd then more and more debt built up, and the possibility of a catastrophic failure and default on that debt built up. The "regular order" became a threat to the smooth continuation of government and the economy. So the party in power would now do away with that "regular order" and write Omnibus appropriations bills. But the politicians in those parties didn't write those bills, their "staffs" did... taking the past year as a "baseline" an adding a designated percentage set by the politicians lobbyists for new pet projects. No negotiating was required. The boardroom lobbyists had became the Congressional and Executive staffs through K Street's revolving door. The politicians were then given the completed bill at the eleventh (doomsday/Armageddon) hour and told "pass it and you will find out what's in it". Don't pass it and we "default" on a $30t economic death bomb. The "deep state" bureaucracy had taken over the funding processes that ran America.
Once the boardroom to cloakroom pipeline that had been rendered obsolete, the politicians had to now just justify their existence, and so focused exclusively on culture war issues that would drive their re-elections. They served no actual purpose anymore, but to hide their purposelessness.
And that is where we are today.
And until the regular order to budgets is restored, the chaos we see now benefits the boardroom revolving door bureaucracy that runs the country. And believe me when I say, returning to the regular is "highly unlikely".
In other words, "The Left isn't Losing". America has LOST. Our government is a side show meant for "entertainment purposes only". We have become "Brazil".
Delete-FJ
:P
DeleteLord help us, you are so spot on
DeleteNobody self-respecting lobbyist needs to find a Congressional Cloakroom to do business anymore. Just follow your Congressman on Twitter and shoot his staffers your proposed legislation. But be SURE to "Like" ALL his posts and max out on your PayPal and PAC contributions to his Campaign and Non-Profit Foundation Accounts!
Delete-FJ
Oh, and if he can't get a military jet to zip your favorite candidate to his next Campaign Event, just have your private Lolita Express 727 standing by at Dulles, National or Andrews for his use. Remember, the next Pentagon Contract list comes out at 5 pm!
DeleteYou wouldn't want your designated POL to become unhappy and FIRE all your writers on his legislative staff.
DeleteI can't figure out which is worse, to be a Russian and be governed by their lumpen-bourgeoisie oligarch's or to be an American, governed by our lumpen-bourgeoisie oligarch's through a salaried lumpen-bourgeoisie political bureaucracy.
Delete-FJ
There is old joke from the defunct German Democratic Republic. A German worker gets a job in Siberia. Aware that his mail will be intercepted and read by censors, he tells his friends:
Delete"Let's establish a code: if a letter you receive from me is written in ordinary blue ink, it is true; if it is written in red ink, it is false."
After a month, his friends receive the first letter, written in blue ink:
"Everything is wonderful here: stores are full, food is abundant, apartments are large and properly heated, movie theatres show films from the West, there are many beautiful girls eager to have affairs - the only thing unavailable is red ink."
Does this not grasp our situation? In the West, we have all the freedoms we could want - the only thing missing is the "red ink." In other words, we feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our un-freedom.
Perhaps this, then, is the role of intellectuals: not to listen to the demands of the protesters and provide clear answers - the protesters themselves are the answers - but rather to pose the right questions. In other words, to give the protesters red ink.
-Slavoj Zizek, "Capitalism can no longer afford freedom" (2012)
...because it's pretty obvious what begins to happen under the latter...
DeleteBest crush all that "populist talk" and the "mutual knowledge" that comes from it before the "zombies" can achieve a critical mass.
DeleteConservative Tree House is late to the Party. Remember when I posted this back in February?
DeleteDomestic Terrorism 1, 2, 3
Indeed!
DeleteI agree with Stoddard that unless Dems somehow hold the Senate in Nov (which is unlikely) they've very well seated their last Supreme justice. Mitch won't let it happen.
ReplyDeleteAnd as I've mentioned before, once Rs retake the senate, there's no boundaries for red states to not only disenfranchise voters but to simply disregard their votes at will. They're already in the process of installing election deniers as electoral overseers.
A Republican controlled senate will no longer allow a Democratic president to appoint a supreme court judge and Republican controlled states will no longer allow their constituents to send a Democrat to the senate or house or the Oval Office.
All while the Gullibles howl about rigged elections.
How cute. You still think that "party" matters. And you call us "Gullibles".
Delete-FJ
@Ronald: "Republican controlled states will no longer allow their constituents to send a Democrat to the senate or house or the Oval Office."
DeleteHow exactly would that work?
Oh, you don't know. And all this time I thought you were just ignoring it as if it wasn't unfolding right in front of our eyes.
DeleteWhere should I start? Maybe here?
RJW, broken link.
DeleteAnother try
DeleteOr
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/27/opinions/gop-blueprint-to-steal-the-2024-election-luttig/index.html
Hmmm... That's a pretty muddled up opinion piece.
DeleteFirst off, State governments did violate their own election laws, citing the emergency of covid. Various state legislatures have tightened up those laws. Nothing wrong there.
As crack-brained as Trump's Kraken Team and their crack-brained legal theories were, some states nominated an alternate slate of candidates, did so openly, and did it to preserve their prerogative in the even they won their case in court. The electors did not fight with the real electors on Jan 6th and try to usurp their vote, so that is an example of leftwing propagandists taking a grain of truth and turning it into a scary bugaboo to scare more campaign cash out of the soft heads.
I do not agree with the legislative theory they posit, and I don't think it would stand judicial scrutiny barring a gross injustice or election fraud that had a pile of airtight evidence to back it up. That was not the case in 2020, and I don't see it happening in 2024, but it is a scary canard to pitch to continue shaking money out of the gullible leftweenies.
Most of this is planting the seeds for doubt and dissention by people who know they are bound to lose.
I agree with the legal opinion in the link. State legislatures are vested with the constitutional power to determine the manner of choosing the electors. For the past 100 years or so, all states do this by popular vote. Legislatures do not have the power to negate that on a whim after the vote if they don't like the result.
Deletehttps://www.justsecurity.org/73274/no-state-legislatures-cannot-overrule-the-popular-vote/
I've read stores of 'alternate electors' and they all descended into farce, with many of the individuals not even understanding the (dubious) legal theory behind the gambit.
DeleteBottom Line: GOP governors certified the true electors for Biden. The system worked, and it will work again.
The worst a campaign could do is tie things up for a few days until a federal judge bangs the gave down on their house of cards.
And if you think the Jan 6 trespassing rabble was an 'insurrectionist' force attempting a 'coup,' I can't help you further.
How cute, an opinion piece by another never Trumper.
DeleteGot me convinced. LOL
It's amazing how these money grubbing lawyers crawl out of the woodwork if they thing their insider connections are going up in flames and they might take a big hit in the pocket book or could it be he has a giant case of the ass because Trump didn't consider him for the Supreme Court?
Who you going to cite next, Rick Wilson and his pack of pedophiles?
Insurrection???
DeleteAnd all the arrests. How many have been charged with insurrection?
I'll give you a hint, none.
Why would that be? Most have been charged with trespass and other misdemeanors.
Meanwhile, they are held in jail without bail and I'll bet you they will continue to be held until after the election and then quietly be released because if they get released before the election, the Dems will take even a bigger hit at the ballot box.
SF, I have no idea of what "stories" you've read about "alternate electors" or your interpretation of them so it's unclear what this "descending into farce" you speak of means. It's a rather consistent and undisputed reporting that 84 Republican state lawmakers and party officials in Biden winning states took it upon themselves to join electors assembled in state Capitols to sign certificates declaring the winner.
DeleteThis was obviously an orchestrated attempt to invalidate the will of the people. They were openly admitting to it on FB et al.
As mentioned above, I really didn't know where to start with your Gomer Pyle eye-batting "duh, whattayamean" question of "How exactly would that work?". I really didn't know if you're serious or if you've actually distanced yourself from what's actually going on in politics today so I used the CNN link (which went online minutes after my original comment) as an example.
What I found most relevant to that link was:
"The Republicans are also in the throes of electing Trump-endorsed candidates to state legislative offices in key swing states, installing into office their favored state election officials who deny that Biden won the 2020 election, such as secretaries of state, electing sympathetic state court judges onto the state benches and grooming their preferred potential electors for ultimate selection by the party, all so they will be positioned to generate and transmit alternative electoral slates to Congress, if need be."
Now I can get into other shenanigans Rs have pulled such as North Carolina with more constituents voting Dem but yet Rs taking way more House seats, Dem voter purges, and the countless other voting obstacles (which it's unimaginable that you have isolated yourself from such things) but getting back to the issue at hand of your, "golly gee, I don't get it" question, red states have taken voter suppression to entirely new levels at the nod of the SCOTUS. The only glimmer of any restraint, IMO, is the fear that Manchin might say "enough is enough" and Dem would pass an election law limiting their assault on democracy. If they did this, which they strongly want to, it would be etched in stone. Rs, even if ending the filibuster and passing a counter bill, would only see a veto. Rs of SCOTUS would have to let it stand because it's what they've said all along-that it's the legislative branch's place to regulate voting rather than theirs.
So far so good? Questions?
Okay so, if Rs retake the upper chamber, there goes that hope. Red states can then go in full throttle election rigging. And red states are setting themselves up to do just that.
"How cute, an opinion piece by another never Trumper."
DeleteJ. Michael Luttig is a conservative former U.S. Circuit Judge appointed by GWHB, has considerable conservative credentials, and often compared to Judge Scalia.
Ronald, I got to give you credit for your studious ignorance. Go put your head back where you had it. I just gave you a fax-based adult discussion of the fact, and you are so indoctrinated all you can see is the propaganda you have been indoctrinated with.
DeleteThe very fact that the alternate electors gambit was out in the open, albeit stupid, shows that it was not a conspiracy. There were open lawsuits challenging the results of the election, that would not be decided until after the electors were chosen, therefore under this legal theory, they chose alternate electors in case they won the lawsuit. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand. As I said, I think the whole legal gambit was dubious and poorly carried out, but they did do it through the courts.
Also, I will point out again, since you ignored it, the GOP governors of those states where this was all in contention, certified the Biden electors, without exception.
DeleteYou're pretty much an open book with your deflections and spin as well as ignoring the argument while again accusing me of ignoring the argument.
DeleteOnce again, and read slowly, Luttig's opinion is not the entire story of the GOP's plot to erode our democracy for their power. Did you not read the section I found relevant? 50 Govs signing or not signing off isn't the issue.
I made a simple argument that if Dems fail to pass legislation on elections and Rs take over, it's open season for them to take over the voting process however they want and that the SCOTUS has pretty much given them that green light and McConnel would never bring a bill to the floor to deny that take over.
So let's go back almost a year ago when some 100 legal scholars wrote a letter of warning:
Well Warren, I'd say if Dems were to give an early release a mob of violent insurrectionist thugs who attacked our Capitol in order to prevent an electoral process and deny will of the people to seat a legitimately elected President, they SHOULD take a hit at the ballot box.
DeleteI think we've kick around the reasoning of lessor charges but Oath Keepers pleading guilty to seditious conspiracy ain't exactly small potatoes.
I read it all. There is nothing illegal about electing people.
Delete"The Republicans are also in the throes of electing Trump-endorsed candidates to state legislative offices in key swing states, installing into office their favored state election officials who deny that Biden won the 2020 election, such as secretaries of state, electing sympathetic state court judges onto the state benches and grooming their preferred potential electors for ultimate selection by the party, all so they will be positioned to generate and transmit alternative electoral slates to Congress, if need be."
Since you are pig ignorant and can't read, I'll state another fact: congressional districts highly dense in Democrats in an otherwise even state will result in more GOP congresspeople. Gerrymandering? Sure. Brace yourself, I know this triggers you: Both sides do it.
Voter suppression? Biden Democrats run DoJ. If states were out there breaking the law and denying people the vote, you'd think DOJ would be all over it. Maybe you should call their tipline.
Howling "DISENFRANCHISEMENT!" is the Democrat equivalent of stolen election. Speaking of which, many Democrats still the discredited and debunked conspiracy that Trump and Putin conspired to steal the 2016 election from Her Heinous Hellary.
DeleteSF, with the understanding that you'd genuflect to and protect your party if they machine gunned multiple bus loads of kindergarteners in broad daylight for no apparent reason with a promise to do it again if it meant owning your despised Dems, there really isn't much the DOJ can do when the Supremes say that state legislations stand unless the federal legislation branch legislates otherwise.
DeleteWhat part of that flies over your head?
I mean seriously dude, are you that stupid or are you just jerking me around here for fun?
By the way, your irrelevant one trick pony of invoking Putin stealing 2016 (well, you do have a spare of "they all do it) as some exoneration of of any misdeeds from the Party of Trump is getting rather old.
First off, I just told you I disagree with the kraken 'legal theory," Joe Biden is my president, and I criticize Trump where I believe he deserves it, so your continual comments about me genuflecting and gobbling fox news propaganda is stupid on its face, but you've already shown us your stupidity knows no bounds, despite the fact that you have shown yourself to be of at least average intelligence.
DeleteNow, on to your point. Legislatures make all kinds of laws. Some get struck down, some don't. The fact that these laws stand means they are legitimate, or no one has mounted an effective legal challenge against them. You're just all pouty because Dems don't control the courts anymore, so you stick out your lower lip and declare it all illegitimate. Very immature, and very corrosive to our society and our democratic institutions. Congrats, you're doing the same thing the Uber Trumpers are doing.
Aside from your inability of recognizing your own hypocrisy and the multiple times you've folded on your own beliefs (when called to duty from your puppet masters) like a cheap chair, it's still puzzling why you can't accept the simplicity of what we're talking about.
DeleteI understand the legislative process on most states and on the federal level and your tutorial comes up short.
I can look these up (as can you) but red states have enacted voter laws that were taken to the SCOTUS. What the right wing Supremes ruled on was that it wasn't their place to decide on individual state electoral processes and that it should be done by the U.S. House and Senate.
I again ask the question of: so far so good? Questions? Do you not believe that to be correct?
So once again to your "how so" question.
Red states have been blowing the lid off of redistricting, purging Dem voters, obstacles, counting processes, and more and this has been due to the go-ahead from the Judicial Branch. And as I've presented and there's volumes of supporting arguments, they are in the process of doing precisely that.
They only way to stop them is Federal legislation.
Now, slowly, if Rs retake the senate, there is no limits to how far red states can go. The Supremes have already said have at it and there's no longer a Dem controlled congress to change it. Rs will control and there will be no legislation stopping them. Lawsuits will be meaningless because the SC has already said.
Now if Dems were to suddenly enact laws, the SC couldn't very well go against their very ruling.
Why do you think those some 100 scholars I linked were concerned almost a year ago?
What's the hell wrong with you?
OK Ronald, I have parsed through your circuitous blather and I think your point boils down to:
DeleteYou support federalized elections, tightly controlled by the federal government.
Why didn't you just say so?
At bottom your argument can be boiled down to: If Democrats control everything, the government is legitimate. If Republicans control anything, it is illegitimate.
That is a mirror-image argument of many rabid Republicans. Congratulations, you and your leftish ilk are joining with these rabid Repubes to destroy faith in our institutions.
No my intentionally deflective friend, that isn't what I've said at all.
DeleteWhat I said was that the SCOTUS has left it up to the U.S. Congress to regulate state elections and if Republicans take the senate, there will be no legislation to reign in red states who are already in the process of ending democracy as we know it- that they will be free to rig elections to levels we've never seen.
I never came close to insinuating or alluding to: "At bottom your argument can be boiled down to: If Democrats control everything, the government is legitimate".
You rabbit hole dwellers like to just make up any stupid shit you want out of then air, claim victory to your fabricated conclusion, and then, "sur-prise! sur-prise! sur-prise!", bask in your glory of self-concocted superiority.
It's truly a sight to behold.
"You support federalized elections, tightly controlled by the federal government.
DeleteWhy didn't you just say so?"
I think the Legislative and Judicial branches should have jurisdiction over federal elections.
You don't?
Ronald, please don't take this as an insult, but you need to learn how to state your thesis up front, clearly and concisely, and then provide the source of your premise.
DeleteIs this what you are talking about?
https://prospect.org/justice/supreme-court-doesnt-overturn-majority-rule-state-legislatures-elections/
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/supreme-court-democracy-independent-state-legislature.html
Look at how many word and how much time you have wasted when all you needed to do was state your opposition to the “independent state legislature doctrine," and your fear the Supreme Court could end up endorsing it in a future ruling.
See also:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/justices-decline-to-reinstate-gop-backed-congressional-voting-maps-in-north-carolina-pennsylvania/
https://www.csg.org/2022/03/09/u-s-supreme-court-allows-pennsylvania-and-north-carolina-court-created-congressional-maps-to-remain-in-effect/
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/07/1084681375/supreme-court-stays-out-of-election-law-for-now
https://www.vox.com/22966311/supreme-court-gerrymandering-toth-moore-harper-chapman-north-carolina-pennsylvania-redistricting
Ronald,
DeleteYou would serve your cause much better if you dispensed with the ad hominem, blubbering about how people you disagree with are a 'basket of gullibles,' deflecting, hypocrisy, genuflecting, etc, and simply state your point.
You know, I have learned much from the many liberals I have interacted with here and at my old blog. Ducky has changed my point of view on a few subjects. He can be very nasty and vituperative, so his rhetoric didn't sway me, but the excellent writers he linked to did the trick.
You could learn some lessons in that.
Not meaning to be dismissive of the links but I have a few things going this weekend. But I will review them when time allows.
DeleteThere was really nothing ambiguous about the point I made and I don't know how I possibly could have made it more simple. Even breaking it down to the simplest form was met with you injecting opinions of me that were not there.
But again, do you not believe Legislative and Judicial branches should have jurisdiction over federal elections?
Actually SF, after you referring to me as indoctrinated in most every post along with you referring me as "Leftwing shitslinging baboons will not be satisfied until they have vandalized, destroyed or perverted every last word and cultural symbol." and from even your comments on this thread, I thought that was just part of the AOW jargan.
DeleteI state my opinions with the bark off, so sue me. I also make rational, fact-based arguments and back them up. I'm not just insulting people to insult them. When you call men women and women men, yes, you are vandalizing the language. The right does it too. Calling everyone on the opposite side "groomers" is the same linguistic vandalism coming from the other side.
DeleteLet me boil it down to one question for you:
DeleteIs your point your opposition to the “independent state legislature doctrine," and your fear the Supreme Court could end up endorsing it in a future ruling?
Yes or freaking No, please.
@ Ronald: "I think the Legislative and Judicial branches should have jurisdiction over federal elections.
Delete"You don't?"
I do. And I think we have a pretty good balance. Even though you've hidden your premise (a pernicious habit of yours, and a close kin of arguing in bad faith), I will address it:
I am not a lawyer, but based on the little I have read, I do not like the proposition that a state court may not review election-related actions by the state legislature. The question may hinge on what the state constitution says.
We need to remember the Supreme Court did not have constitutionally-acknowledged de-facto, de jure authority to review any law or ruling until Marbury v. Madison, so there is the role of precedent in our system.
So, its an open question.
I will add that, if the Supreme Court one day officially ruled in favor of "independent state legislature doctrine," the legislature is still subject to being overruled by the people in an election. We have a great track record in this nation of smacking down political overreach.
Anyway, I was not aware of this until your incoherent expression of it in this thread forced me to go out on the innerwebz and try to figure out what the hell you were raving about.
So, I will concede you have raised a legitimate issue that may be in play in the future. Having said that, you did not connect the dots on the fever swamp conspiracy theory of the GOP's nefarious "One Person, One Vote, One Time" plot to take over America.
Silver, my point was quite simple- that at the nod of the Supremes, R states have taken voter rigging to new levels and that a R senate would allow them to go way beyond. AND they are in the process doing so now.
DeleteAnd I've stayed on that point.
I honestly thought (and I haven't ruled it out by any means) that you were simply toying with me with some "huh, say what, I can't hear you" game because it's something unfolding right before our eyes.
But then I scanned our conversation and caught: " Various state legislatures have tightened up those laws. Nothing wrong there" and thought "hold your cards everyone, we have a Bingo!".
You are in denial of the problem. Recent gerrymandered unbreakable majorities in TX, GA, OH, NC and other R states is fine. GA giving its R controlled legislature the right to suspend county election officials and to name its own chair of the State Election Board is, well, "nothing wrong there". Nothing wrong with AZ taking the power of a D Secretary of State to defend election lawsuits and giving it to a R AG. Longer lines and shorter voting hours in Dem districts? Sounds fine. Take their drinking water while you're at it? What's the problem with that? Shutting down polling areas in Dem precincts and adding in Rs? Just tightening a few laws. Banning University IDs but allowing NRA IDs? Sure. Purging Dem voters?
I could go on but here lies the problem with today's so-called conservatives.
Anything, regardless of how destructive to our Constitution and laws that benefits their side, "nothing wrong with that" or "it ain't that bad".
139 Reps and 8 R Senators voting not to certify electoral college results? No big deal.
A deadly insurrectionist mob storming the Capitol to stop a legitimate electoral process? Just another tour guide.
A sitting POTUS bribing a foreign ally with congressional approved funding to get dirt on a political opponent? A perfect call.
A million dead from COVID? Meh.
Being hard core pro-free market and pro-free speech yet no big deal with cancelling and silencing Micky Mouse?
Undermining the integrity of NOAH and endangering people with a sharpie? Akin to a SNL skit.
Good Nazis? That the GOP doesn't even have a political agenda (other than an admitted intent to impose a $trillion tax hike on the lower income)? The transfer of wealth to the top? Climate denial? Pro-rape judges? Shithole countries? Build a beautiful wall?
Now I could go on and on for days and I'm uninterested in arguing any of the above issues but the point is that the left hating right cannot see or identify with a problem so long as it "owns the Dems". You can't understand my simple point because as you say "nothing wrong with that" (which may be an extension of "say what?).
I know you tire of me invoking Trump but he is still THE leader of the GOP and if so desired, will be the 2024 nominee. He and Trumpism still has a strong hold and influence. And he's instilled in his base a culture of denial which I've listed above. Had he ordered an air assault on Norton's Children's hospital in downtown Louisville, his base, Fox News and his propaganda outlets, and the GOP would have stood firmly behind him and blame Dems.
That mindset still has a hold while the GOP is dismantling our democracy. They continue to be brainwashed by their daily consumption of propaganda while convinced to avoid news outlets who will tell them what is real.
You don't see it. Nor will you see it. And even if you did, you'd defend it while following the instructions of the think tanks to blame Dems- and to call them indoctrinated in the process. You've been doing it for years.
So I guess as for my original point, well, never mind.
I see it, Ronald. I just see it differently from you.
DeleteThere are a spectrum of viewpoints, starting with leftwing fever swamps like Raw Story and MSNBC. Moving more to the center, NPR, CNN, Atlantic, etc. Then on to the rightwing fever swamps.
I don't gobble up any of it. I take it in and you've got to prove it to me. I don't take anybody's word.
Did you know that right now DOJ is suing Georgia over their new voting laws?
Did you know I support that lawsuit and all such lawsuits regardless of what corner of political ideology they come from?
Go to the search link I provided.
You will see people on the left characterizing this as the federal government fighting for voter rights that racist Republicans are trying to deny.
You can find the rare story that takes a balanced view, attempting to faithfully capture each side's case.
And then of course, on the right, articles point out how DOJ in "in bed" with leftwing organizations and Stacy Abrams.
Who's right? Who knows? This flurry of back and forth lawsuits will bring clarity. People can talk crap all day on tv--under oath in front of a judge, different story.
I'm not gonna argue whether the Dems have much of a chance in the mid-terms or 2024. Because I don't think they do.
ReplyDeleteBut I will say this... a lot of those views held by the people you cited and are featured in these articles are the fringes of the Dems. Biden and the great majority of candidates never said "Defund the Police". Most Dem leaders are a far from endorsing most, if not all of these views.
Thorples, Blackself and others?
I have no idea who or what these are. And neither do any of my friends. I'm not saying there are not folks pushing this stuff, but to me, they, and their supporters are the extreme crazies of the left.
Just like the right, we've got nutz on our side.
But unlike the those on the right, many of us lefties will name and call out those nutz.
Dave, point well taken. Defund the police is a fringe left issue, but unfortunately for the Democrats, the entire party got tarred with it.
DeleteAlso I am not among those I think a humongous GOP takeover is inevitable this November. 6 months is a lifetime in politics. The GOP risks making the same mistakes both parties make all the time: running against something instead of having a positive plan and running for something
Exactly. The "Defund the Police" cudgel hits like a pool noodle. For one, most police departments are funded at the state and local level, and for two, Biden and his Democrat-controlled Congress passed a massive spending bill that subsidizes the shit out of police departments. I'm not about playing defense for Democrats, but this Republican attack is weak sauce.
ReplyDeleteBlue... I think here's part of this issue and one I was trying to get at.
ReplyDeleteUS lefties certainly have our share of craziness and folks living in some nutty progressivelandia. But we own it. We name them, call out the extreme positions, and in many cases, disavow them.
What we've seen on the right as of late, as it relates to this theme, is an unwillingness or inability to call out any behavior or positions on the right as extreme. Sure, we hear phrases like "there are extremists on all sides" but there seems to be a general reluctance, even from bloggers and armchair quarterbacks to specifically name any extreme viewpoints with the conservative/rightwing viewpoints.
Silver is right... we've got issues on the left. Lots of them, some of which are on display in this post.
But I've got to wonder why the right remains so silent on their extremes. Is it because as one blogger told me one day...
Dave, there cannot be extreme views on the right because by definition, right, is right?
I just don't know.
We have our problems on the Right, Dave. But we've learned to NOT call our colleagues out because THIS is the ammunition that the Left use to attack us. All it takes now is one Republican dissenter like "Mitt Romney" or "Susan Collins" to defect from the party line, and it's National headlines used by Left leaning media to cudgel the rest of us with and say, "There, WE are the bipartisan ones... so-and-so (R) AGrre's with us!"
DeleteSo forgive us (R)s if we're once bitten, twice shy when it comes to "public disagreement".
It's the source of the "RINO" label.
Delete...like the one's Democrats now paint on Manchin or Sinema.
DeleteTribes HATE Free-Thinkers.
DeleteThey do make great scapegoats, though.
Delete"It is not difference that dominates the world, but the obliteration of difference by mimetic reciprocity, which itself, being truly universal, shows the relativism of perpetual difference to be an illusion. - Rene Girard
Yes, there are plenty of loonies and nut balls on the right, and the Democrat party in genuinely hands out the maverick award to people in the Republican party who pointed out. Brilliant. I wish the Republicans were that smart
Deletethe scapegoat mechanism is at the origin of archaic religion" - Rene Girard, "Violence and the Sacred"
DeleteThe 11th Commandment"
DeleteIn "private"... like here at AoW's... we sh*t ALL over one another. :)
DeleteIsn't "anonymity" grand? :)
DeleteDo I need to explain the difference between public and private knowledge again?
Delete:P
DeleteDon't you HATE it when your tribe's "private" knowledge becomes the "mutual knowledge" of another tribe, yet "theirs" remains private? Kinda like the Washington Post and NY Times, who leak private (classified) knowledge about Republicans, but never Democrats. There sure must be a lot of cloaks of Gyges in DCs Congressional "cloakrooms" for the lobbyists to wear. Jes sayin'....
Delete:*
DeleteI wonder who the Democrat's will scapegoat for their political losses in 2022... Biden? Harris? Pelosi? ...or most likely the ultimate outsider... Putin!
DeleteDisinformatzia!
-FJ
"DARPA...Unleash the ALGORITHMS!"
Delete:P
Deletebut can you do this?
Delete(That escalated quickly...)
I don't know... I haven't tried it in a while.
DeleteAnon replied, and I hope this gets in the right place...
Delete"We have our problems on the Right, Dave. But we've learned to NOT call our colleagues out because THIS is the ammunition that the Left use to attack us."
Well, that's an answer I've not heard before. But at least it's an answer.
But I'm not asking for names at all.
I asked for behaviors. Viewpoints. Actions.
The absence of any examples from the conservative right leads many to think that no behavior is beyond the pale. And completely flips Silver's post around.
The post where he excoriates the left, even as many on the left , even a great majority, reject the viewpoints he imputed.
So at least in my opinion, the continued reluctance of the right to even name a point of view that is extreme on their side is not about avoiding giving the left "ammunition" to attack you.
It's about not being willing to offend others who hold those views.
Behaviors. Viewpoints. Actions. ..that violate the US Constitution or the rights of a citizen (or minor) are pretty much it. We've got one god, the object of our deism, the US Constitution. Short of that, do, think, act, believe whatever you like. Not speaking in of other Republicans (11th Commandment) is our party's step into "religion". It's the equivalent of your party's restriction to "only speak "affirmatively" vis. "minorities", only we don't discipline or punish violators. That's your party's step greater step towards religion.
DeleteAnd conservatives all interpret the Constitution a bit differently at times, but that's no reason to exclude or censor pro-choice viewpoints. We use the "politics" of the system to try and make our interpretations "stick". We don't bully them, boycott them, scapegoat them "religiously" like Democrats do.
As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Deleteps - Jan. 6 was no "insurrection". It was a different opinion as to the way the electoral processes defined within the Constitution should be interpreted because the judicial processes had failed in the eyes of many party members to grant a fair hearing. The result was something of a party-based religious turn towards the "divine violence" and scapegoating Democrats had done all summer long.
DeleteSo what is divine violence? Its place can be defined in a very precise formal way. Badiou already elaborated the constitutive excess of representation over the represented: at the level of the Law, the state Power only represents the interests, etc. of its subjects; it is serving them, responsible to them, and itself subjected to their control; however, at the level of the superego underside, the public message of responsibility etc., is supplemented by the obscene message of unconditional exercise of Power: laws do not really bind me, I can do to you WHATEVER I WANT, I can treat you as guilty if I decide to do so, I can destroy you if I say so ... This obscene excess is a necessary constituent of the notion of sovereignty —the asymmetry is here structural, i.e., the law can only sustain its authority if subjects hear in it an echo of the obscene unconditional self-assertion. And the people's "divine violence" is correlative to this excess of power: it is its counterpart—it targets this excess and undermines it.
Delete-Slavoj Zizek, "From Democracy to Divine Violence"
Anon... who I think is -FJ. The Voltaire is attributed to him, but actually not him. It was fashioned by someone to explain his views. At least as I've always heard and read.
DeleteIt is a barely passable facsimile.
DeleteHere's the point, anyway:
ReplyDelete1st Amendment to the US Constitution - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"the scapegoat mechanism is at the origin of archaic religion" - Rene Girard, "Violence and the Sacred"
At the most abstract level of analysis, modernization leads to what Max Weber called “the disenchantment of the world.” It calls into question all the superhuman and supernatural forces, the gods and spirits, with which nonindustrial cultures populate the universe and to which they attribute responsibility for the phenomena of the natural and social worlds. In their place it introduces as a competing cosmology the modern scientific interpretation of nature by which only the laws and regularities discovered by the scientific method are admitted as valid explanations of phenomena. If it rains, or does not rain, it is not because the gods are angry but because of atmospheric conditions, as measured by the barometer and photographed by satellites.
In short, modernization involves a process of secularization; that is, it systematically challenges religious institutions, beliefs, and practices, substituting for them those of reason and science.
The above Weber extract on "modernization" was the "Enlightenment's" project.
Now, in arriving at the political situation today, parties are becoming less secular and more religious in nature (by disciplining/punishing heretics and scapegoats) and by demanding purity of thought and deed. Fundamentalist party Zealots are taking governmental institutions (like DoJ) over, and they're attempting to impose their parties privately held idea's of "the Good", by new laws, upon the rest of us as a new "Public Good", but with modification of what the Public Good really is (in violation of the existing 1st Amendment to the Constitution of "making no law respecting the establshment of religion).
It's what Berlin termed "the unavoidability of conflicting ends" or, alternatively, the "incommensurability" of values. He once called this "the only truth which I have ever found out for myself... Some of the Great Goods cannot live together.... We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss." In short, it's what Michael Ignatieff summarized as "the tragic nature of choice".
Our Republic was founded so that no singular secular or religious idea of the Public Good was enforced through disciplne and punishment except the secular Constitution (our "Social Contract"). We are all entitled to maintain and live our own ideas of private good, even if others believe those goods to be a foolish waste of resources and effort. The common/ secular good is religious and ideological "tolerance"... something sorely lacking in the political arena today.
-FJ
That's really messy above. I still don't have the right words. Sorry.
ReplyDelete-FJ
Convincing the young people on the chance of getting their Student Debt wiped clean if they vote Democratic IS EVIL..... Period!
ReplyDeleteAs long as the commie libtud lift is alive they win. A LOT of retroactive abortion needs to be done to make sure that the commie libturd left loses. This is the only way to make sure we stay free in this country.
ReplyDeleteHeltau