Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Anyone tune in for Trump's most recent rally? The chatter is that he gave the AG all the ammunition he needed to charge him.

I read some of the transcript. He says incredible things.

[Micro102]

The politicians you are talking about are a minority even within the party.

You know I cited things that were voted on, right? The vast majority of republicans wanted Greene to stay. They tolerated her anti-Semitic, lunatic conspiracy theories. Liz Cheney was kicked out by a vote. I don't know to what degree the vote was, but it was a majority, and it took less then half an hour for the meeting to take place. All but 10 republicans voted not to impeach Trump for his role in the coup attempt.

So no, they are not the minority. The republican party has stood arms locked with the fascists. Making them fascists.

It seems like you will refuse to call them fascists even in the face of a coup attempt. Until their politicians literally say "I want totalitarianism" or actually achieve such. It's unrealistic and dangerous.

[Rolan7]

It also doesn't help that the way FPTP style voting, together with our drunken mess of an electoral college system, basically guarantees that there's only room for 2 parties.

CGP Grey has an old video that more or less explains how FPTP voting in particular tends to nudge things towards two-party systems, and explains some other complications.

That's a good one!

The problem with any voting system is it is inherently "most points wins" which is a kind of tyranny by the majority, even if it only happens to be by the majority regarding one policy or elected person at a time.

I'd be really curious if there is any way to set up a system where policies can be meaningfully proportional according to votes, rather than the general policies we have today which are all-or-nothing.  I don't know how that would work in practice, given some things are inherently all-or-nothing, but it's an interesting lunchtime thought.

I disagree that every kind of voting system is tyranny by the majority!  There are actually options which let people vote what they want, not the least worst option.
Edit: sorry, while keeping minority interests relevant by letting their votes matter!

[Rolan7]

Yeah, I think it's a no brainer that the Republican party is currently, and sliding deeper still, into fascism. Moreover, it's obvious that that the Democratic Party is honestly so spineless and toothless that considering them anything less than Republican Enablers is being generous. My own pet theory however is that the trend towards Fascism is actively fueled not by Republicans, but by big business and the 1%. You basically can't run as a politician without donations, and the biggest donors are the very wealthy. The Wealthy Elite already have their mitts in our legislature, with generous contributions fueling the equally generous legislation from the government.

Yep.  Neo-liberal nationalism inevitably feeds into fascism.  In broad strokes:  If you value profit and your "nation" above all else, it's inevitable to degenerate into a slavery or xenophobic state.

I would say that the kind of Nazi-esque Fascism that we know from history won't happen, if only because in Nazi Germany businesses were suffocated by the Nazi bureaucracy, so much so that Germany would have economically collapsed even if they won WW2. I'm thinking that the new American Fascism we see brewing today is only a stepping stone to eventually behead the government, and usher in an era of corporatocracy. Government by corporations. No longer would the 1% simply be egotistic amateur astronauts, but the actual lords of the land that make the laws and control the armies. I'd say to stop the rush towards fascism, we simply need to completely halt the influence that big business has on the government.

It might surprise a lot of people (like me, two years ago) how much the third reich cooperated with companies.  if they were run by "true germans" and not "less-than-humans", obviously.  *retch*

It makes me uncomfortable because it's weirdly close to neo-liberalism.

[McTraveller]

I disagree that every kind of voting system is tyranny by the majority!  There are actually options which let people vote what they want, not the least worst option.
Edit: sorry, while keeping minority interests relevant by letting their votes matter!

I suppose that's possible in situations where there are more than two possible outcomes, but we'd have to restructure much more than just the voting system for that. It's also a philosophically interesting discussion - if a majority of people get their second choice, how is that still not some majority winning?  How can a minority's vote "count" if they (hypothetically) never have their viewpoint established?

I mean, you either allow LED headlights that are as bright as lightning (e.g., WAY brighter than the sun), or you don't.

Spoiler: traffic light rant go! (click to show/hide)

Can you tell how happy I am with the new model years of cars? I really hope the mandate in the infrastructure bill to update the headlight regs results in something like "GET COLOR TEMPERATURE BACK DOWN DAMMIT!", but I am not hopeful even in that seemingly mundane area of law.  And sadly it doesn't do anything about the millions of cars being built with the current design of headlights and all that dumb daytime running "electric white" accent lighting.

[MaxTheFox]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict_voting_following_the_2020_presidential_election

Might or might not include what was meant. You might or might not prefer a news-site version instead.

Sure. There were indeed cases of suppression. But not in all states, or even most. Most of those measures aren't at all restrictive for legitimate voters from a quick skim of the article.

Shortening opportunities to vote, lessening the locations to vote, increasing the possibility to throw out legitimate votes that you consider 'inconvenient', or prevent voting at all for a whole demographi..

Were cases, are cases, potentially will be (further) cases.

Oh, and the drive to allow faithless electors[1], once all's said and done (on top of the zero penalty situation still much prevalent).

Not all are 'totalitarian' in scope, but you said you'd not heard of legislation of that kind, and now you have. HTH, HAND.


And I'm not saying this is all Republicans. And I daresay there's Democrats trying to actively offset the other way, but on the whole with a completely different competence and/or ability. Either not getting much done about it, on average, or absolutely so hypercompetent that the Grand Plan is happening perfectly with absolutely nobody realising it (depending upon who you ask about it). My own opinion is that they're on the whole still happier playing the altruist in the Prisoner's Dilemma, despite past experience... But maybe there's some deviousness in there too.


[1] To which you could add the bipartisan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact if you wish to balance it.

Yeah that's fair.

It's worth marking as well that the voting restrictions are being made particularly in the what, eight, ten swing states that decide the margins on the electoral college? They don't have to be sweeping changes across the nation to change the results for the nation- you just need to make it difficult enough for the disabled, the poor, the minorities, the immunocompromised, busy parents, single parents, (the sorts of people more likely to vote left as a factor to their continued survival), to lack the time or means to register and vote to curve the outcome of the election. If your voting bloc is primarily old white people with unlimited time and the fear of God/existential peril of Communism/ the Mexicans drilled into their heads and you kerjigger it so that that bloc is the only group of people with the time and fervid commitment to vote, you've won. That's why having The Other as an enemy for the Conservative party is so critically important- there's nothing that the party offers them gratis that isn't steeped on a fear or hate that they themselves have cultured, but that's besides the point.

It's a bit like this- assume it was legislated that I needed a REAL ID driver's license to vote. The DMV is half an hour away, there's no public transportation that gets there, they're only open until 4:30, I work 8:30-5:00 every weekday, and they're closed on weekends. It's counting on me getting there during work hours with another form of ID (say, birth certificate, or SSN card), having those in my personal possession (and not, say, with my parents), having a means to get there, being willing to stand in the DMV for half an hour to get that information processed, and having the forty bucks or however much it costs for processing. Fortunately, I am not immunocompromised, I have PTO available to go do this (so my job is not jeopardized if I'm not there), I have my own car, I have my own passport, I have a driver's license already so I can legally drive there, I have no other obligations at home that prevents me from dedicating the 1.5 hours to get the whole thing done, or longer if I had to rely on public transportation, were it available.

Knock out any of those pegs and I'm no longer able to vote. All by no decision of my own, save that I wish to continue surviving. This is why voting by mail was such a boon for the common voter, and why republicans so viciously tried (and succeeded in places) to clamp down on our capacity to vote by mail in the future, and why the discussion around the Jan 6th Insurrection were around 'fraudulent' mail-in ballots.

I never said they were right. lmao

Yeah, I think it's a no brainer that the Republican party is currently, and sliding deeper still, into fascism. Moreover, it's obvious that that the Democratic Party is honestly so spineless and toothless that considering them anything less than Republican Enablers is being generous. My own pet theory however is that the trend towards Fascism is actively fueled not by Republicans, but by big business and the 1%. You basically can't run as a politician without donations, and the biggest donors are the very wealthy. The Wealthy Elite already have their mitts in our legislature, with generous contributions fueling the equally generous legislation from the government.

I would say that the kind of Nazi-esque Fascism that we know from history won't happen, if only because in Nazi Germany businesses were suffocated by the Nazi bureaucracy, so much so that Germany would have economically collapsed even if they won WW2. I'm thinking that the new American Fascism we see brewing today is only a stepping stone to eventually behead the government, and usher in an era of corporatocracy. Government by corporations. No longer would the 1% simply be egotistic amateur astronauts, but the actual lords of the land that make the laws and control the armies. I'd say to stop the rush towards fascism, we simply need to completely halt the influence that big business has on the government.

Isn't that in every country though? Politics always requires money, it always did. So that is not relevant, and that's why I really don't consider them fascist. But yes, corporations are a threat. I'd really rather have socialism, I just don't feel that Republicans and actual fascists are equivalent or even close.

The politicians you are talking about are a minority even within the party.

You know I cited things that were voted on, right? The vast majority of republicans wanted Greene to stay. They tolerated her anti-Semitic, lunatic conspiracy theories. Liz Cheney was kicked out by a vote. I don't know to what degree the vote was, but it was a majority, and it took less then half an hour for the meeting to take place. All but 10 republicans voted not to impeach Trump for his role in the coup attempt.

So no, they are not the minority. The republican party has stood arms locked with the fascists. Making them fascists.

It seems like you will refuse to call them fascists even in the face of a coup attempt. Until their politicians literally say "I want totalitarianism" or actually achieve such. It's unrealistic and dangerous.

I think defending her, while still terrible, was a matter of pragmatism. It doesn't mean they support her.

[Il Palazzo]

Isn't that in every country though?

In most democracies bribing politicians is illegal.

[MaxTheFox]

Isn't that in every country though?

In most democracies bribing politicians is illegal.

Yeah but you still need lots of cash to get into and stay in politics from what I know.

[martinuzz]

Over here you don't. Political parties are all funded equally by the treasury for their activities, some get some extra money from party membership fees, but you do not need money perse to get into parliament or government. Ofcourse, the economical right wing parties mostly have rich fucks as their politicians, but that is because they are the rich fuck parties that try to push rich fuck rights.

Note that we do not have silly things like rallies, or personal voting campaigns that costs millions. That's illegal over here. It is illegal also to spend personal money on political campaigning, and illegal to recieve large donations, either private or from business.

Recently, a new law was passed that enforces a 2 year cooldown period for ex-ministers. They are not allowed to take any job in a field that touches even in the slightest with the field of governance they had as a minister.

[MaxTheFox]

Over here you don't. Political parties are all funded equally by the treasury for their activities, some get some extra money from party membership fees, but you do not need money perse to get into parliament or government. Ofcourse, the economical right wing parties mostly have rich fucks as their politicians, but that is because they are the rich fuck parties that try to push rich fuck rights.

Note that we do not have silly things like rallies, or personal voting campaigns that costs millions. That's illegal over here. It is illegal also to spend personal money on political campaigning, and illegal to recieve large donations, either private or from business.

Recently, a new law was passed that enforces a 2 year cooldown period for ex-ministers. They are not allowed to take any job in a field that touches even in the slightest with the field of governance they had as a minister.

Huh. That's interesting. I knew America was more oligarchic than most of the rest of the First World but not to that extent. TIL.

[martinuzz]

I am Dutch so I was talking about our Dutch rules

[None]

Hey, you went from "I haven't heard of any voter restriction legislation" to "I never said they were right lmao." I'm not sure what you're being prickly about here, or where providing an example where voter restrictions could benefit republicans would prompt this answer. I'm elaborating on how you only need to peel away rights in a select few states as opposed to "all states or even most." What's the deal with that?

[Starver]

Not quite so good in the UK, I think ((in part reply/response to martinuzz, this is)), though there are limits on campaign funding (seperately local and national, and there have been penalties for mistepresenting spending on one as the other) and Party Political Broadcasts are by a fixed allocation of free slots on the various national broadcasters' channels, so minor-but-significant parties neither get priced out of the market nor so easily wipe the floor with everyone else by having a Sugar Daddy funder dominate the field. (To grossly influence UK politics by media, your best bet is to become owner of a newspaper group and then lean on the respective editors if they aren't already going your way.)

Administrative costs are paid (strictly?) from public money, campaign funds must still be raised per-party, but donations (>£7500, per donor?) must be declared. Including 'loans'. Membership fees (individually below that radar), patronage, organisational affiliation fees, etc are accountable for to various degrees, within the above circumstances.

Past issues with Cash For Questions/Honours/Influence have meant tighter rules (often with fall-out, politically, at the time) though how well they have restricted Cash-For- behaviour in government/opposition circles is dubiously calculated. Cash For Contact (buy the opportunity to have an afternoon playing tennis with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?) seems to still be a thing, but then again that's minor compared with the rest of the usual Lobbying that's done in all forms both in and out of the actual lobby of the Houses Of Parliament.

The most recent issue (ignoring Partygate, which was nothing to do with this - probably!) is second-jobs by politicians (esp. ministers). Generally it's considered good to have an elected official with real-world experience, possibly ongoing if they can still do their jobs as MPs, MSPs, AMs, councillers, whatever. Those with medical experience who have (re)joined work in their local hospital/surgery to help with the overload caused by the pandemic are applauded. Those with legal training who continue to take caseloads on (often of internationally significant questions) less so. Doing an outside job with close relevence to their ministerial position (or a recent one) are rightly decried but I don't think the rules are yet in place to actually ban this practice, beyond a more general oversight via the Register Of Interests - for which there are already penalities for being 'economical with the actualité'. Being found to be on the board of a medical-equipment business (or a business that suddenly went into medical equipment in a big way!) and/or your wife is, and/or your friendly pub landlord coincidentally turns out to be, is frowned upon but I'm not sure if that's had time to be properly looked at yet.

We have annual Party Conferences, for the national (or sub-national) organisations concerned. There'll doubtless be localised rallies (somewhere between the former events and the cross-partisan local-election 'hustings' events, but I don't think they're anything like the US events in the stadia, or with the backdrop of airforce bases. Those will have to be funded under the allowed-funds mentioned at the top, I'd guess, though might include conservatively-valued donations 'in kind' by the site owner for nominal gross fees and thus zero net ones.

And of course there are press-conferences (often somewhere you have to wear a hardhat and hi-viz, if not actually fumblingly get onto the controls of some handy work-vehicle to knock over a symbolical wall of coloured cardboard boxes to represent your current policy target or opponent) but not sure what happens there except that you have to count upon the news crews wanting to cover it, in order to not waste everybody's time more than you already have (by shutting down a large part of the site to set up any stunt, arranging a tour of anything worth being seen looking at and release willing employees from their shifts long enough for some 'with the people' photoshoots). Some stunts seem easier to do (be see in a good old graditional British pub holding a half-downed pint of gold old British bitter) and others might need a lot more arranging.


As a public, I don't think we generally accept that we're all that impressed by big-money attempts to get messages out to either loyal followers or the fringes of non-followers that might be swayed (media-led messaging, especially in echo-chamber-type appreciation of a given outlet, seems to be the big driver) but I imagine such moneys as are spent are generally pushed in directions that are fairly optimal and may hide a huge overt spending but still are proportionally effective compared to the actual costs.

[martinuzz]

Party Political Broadcasts are by a fixed allocation of free slots on the various national broadcasters' channels, so minor-but-significant parties neither get priced out of the market nor so easily wipe the floor with everyone else by having a Sugar Daddy funder dominate the field.

Yeah, same here. Starting two or three months before election day, every political party that reached the treshold to be on the voting lists (you need 30000 signatures in support to start a political party here) will all get their 5 minutes 'broadcasting time for political parties' on our public television network a few times a week, regardless of how big or how wealthy the party is. And within equal-for-all predefined budgetary limits, paid for by the treasury.

[martinuzz]

I just read that 130 federal prisons in the US have been placed under lockdown to prevent revenge killings, after two MS-13 gang members were killed in a prison fight in Texas.

What confuses me. Apparently the motto of this El Salvadorian crime syndicate is 'kill, rob, rape, control', and members are often obliged to commit heinous crimes to prove their dedication.


Why is it that IS and Al Qaeda are called 'terrorist organistation', but MS-13 is called a 'criminal organisation'?
Is that because IS and Al Qaeda are muslims and MS-13 are christians?