Print

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

[Bumber]

A Russian conquest of all of Ukraine is by no means impossible if the United States cuts off all military assistance and Europe follows suit.

There's a bit of lifting being done here.

[Strongpoint]

Israel keeps saying it wants the USA to be "peacekeepers" after fighting stops.

The US should not be involved. Peacekeeping requires neutrality, and there is are multiple conflicts of interest.

I disagree. Peacekeeping is better when troops are neutral but it is not strictly necessary. The simplest example - NATO peacekeepers in Kosovo. They are most definitely not neutral in the Serbia-Kosovo conflict but they are quite effective in keeping peace.

But I believe that American involvement is a bad idea. USA proved that it DOES NOT work well with the Muslim population, failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are spectacular.

I would love to see peacekeepers an occupying force from Arab countries + Israeli army units consisting mostly of Arab Israeli citizens. It is the way for long-term improvement.


Oh... I am getting carried away. Back to the topic of American politics: IMO, putting any force in Gaza doesn't benefit American interests in any way. Neither it will be a popular move.

[Random_Dragon]

It probably says something about them when they think we'd do a better job at it...or more likely, they know we'd do a shit job at it in our usual fashion (exporting "freedom" at extreme velocities) and that's what they want more of. :V

[Starver]

I'm minded of The Sum Of All Fears (the original book, not the extensively revamped film[1]) from Tom Clancy. The initial/interstitial bit about solving the Middle East problem by getting the neutral Swiss Guard to police Jerusalem/etc on behalf of a tri-faith coalition and... ah, well. It's perhaps not exactly a fully baked plan that'd work right now. (And, of course, the book also contains the whole thing about nuclear terrorism happening, so... not exactly an "I'd like the events of this book to come to pass" thing, I suppose.)



[1] Which had the involvement of resources from Ukraine, so also sort of topical, but not in the way I mean above.

[Starver]

So the Colorado Supreme Court (just about) makes an interesting decision...

[da_nang]

SCOTUS will have to take that up. Republicans are already speedrunning impeachment into a joke; Colorado's ruling will make them speedrun 14A §3 into a joke as well if SCOTUS doesn't step in.

Simplest out: 14A §5 and U.S.C. 18 §2383 prevent state enforcement similar to the dormant commerce clause.

[Random_Dragon]

What'd I miss?

[hector13]

They kicked Trump off the state ballot.

[Criptfeind]

SCOTUS will have to take that up. Republicans are already speedrunning impeachment into a joke; Colorado's ruling will make them speedrun 14A §3 into a joke as well if SCOTUS doesn't step in.

Feels like the scotus stepping in would be said speedrunning of the 14th amendment into a joke.

[da_nang]

SCOTUS will have to take that up. Republicans are already speedrunning impeachment into a joke; Colorado's ruling will make them speedrun 14A §3 into a joke as well if SCOTUS doesn't step in.

Feels like the scotus stepping in would be said speedrunning of the 14th amendment into a joke.

Only if they decide to touch the Officer question, which they don't have to given §5.

Personally, I find Republicans' finding the flimsiest of arguments, probably border or "laptop" related, running it to the reddest county court, and letting the preponderance of the evidence by MAGA decide Biden's eligibilty, to be speedrunning harder.

Hell, the 14A doesn't specify the required standard of evidence, either, so if we're going by the "No conviction required" crowd's logic, then who knows how low the Republicans will go.

[anewaname]

Does it matter if the federal supreme court allows Trump on the ballot or not?

From the Colorado SC's pdf:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”
• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions

Will the federal supreme court disagree with that part of the two lower court rulings? What reasoning could they possibly use? And if they agree, can additional legal proceedings be opened against those who participated in the insurrection, like against those congressmen and senators who Trump was calling on Jan 6 from his burner phone?

It looks like someone placed a baited trap near the federal SC's burrow entrance... am I wrong about this?

[Random_Dragon]

What reasoning could they possibly use?

Fascist wannabes gonna fash, if they decide that they're a-okay with the orange fuckstick inciting a domestic terror attack in an open attempt at an autocoup, logic is not at play here.

[Lord Shonus]

What reasoning could they possibly use?

Fascist wannabes gonna fash, if they decide that they're a-okay with the orange fuckstick inciting a domestic terror attack in an open attempt at an autocoup, logic is not at play here.

Thomas and possibly Alito might not care, but the other Conservative justices aren't likely to eat a figurative bullet to bail him out. If SCOTUS pushes too far outside the realm of precedent and law, they break the system. If they break the system, they cease to be anybody important - SCOTUS can only exist as a meaningful institution if the system remains intact. Every controversial decision they've made has been firmly bounded in existing precedent even when the cases were astroturfed, and they've largely shied away from including major overreach in the Majority Opinion.


I've seen some more detailed legal analysis from people who know a lot more about it than I do, and the conclusion is that the only way for the Court to overturn it would be to try judging the case on merit - concluding either that January 6 was not an act of insurrection or else that Trump was not responsible for it. The purely procedural channels are cut off.

[ChairmanPoo]

Yeah so I think I should clarify my stance. What I want is effectively a universal labor union, not these piecemeal industry- and geography-specific unions.  Ostensibly that is what the labor laws in the US did for a while, and was partly why the unions got weak - the workers had their protections in law, and they were paying for it with taxes, so didn't really want to double-pay by also paying union dues.

There are universal labor unions in Spain. I was (still am, though I should really sign off now that I've not worked there in 4 years) a member of one back in Spain.  In Ireland I'm a member of a trade-specific one (the IHCA).

Both approaches have their pros and cons. Obviously 'universal'unions are bigger, which gives them more theoretical strenght. Trade specific ones might cater to needs that are more specific to yourself.


I think its important to know how to use unions. I think its important to join one, but its also important to understand that they are another burocracy you'll have to navigate, not an instant 'sort out my problems'card

My other concerns are the unions are targeting the employers - which are the entities that generally are actually creating wealth - instead of targeting the industries that are charging people lots of money.  You don't get a functional economy by stressing the entities that actually create wealth.

I dont know what you mean by this. Obviously unions target the employers not the workers. Thats how collective bargaining works.

I almost think we don't need labor unions, but we need consumer unions.  Collective bargaining for housing, for instance.  I dunno how you'd swing that, to be honest, but it's an interesting thought.  Make a resident-owned real-estate conglomerate, with the goal not of making money, but of keeping prices down.

Consumer associations also exist. But what you're proposing is actually  in effect a state bureau for housing. I dont disapprove mind you, but I never took you for a communist

[Bumber]

Does it matter if the federal supreme court allows Trump on the ballot or not?

From the Colorado SC's pdf:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”
• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions

Will the federal supreme court disagree with that part of the two lower court rulings? What reasoning could they possibly use? And if they agree, can additional legal proceedings be opened against those who participated in the insurrection, like against those congressmen and senators who Trump was calling on Jan 6 from his burner phone?

It looks like someone placed a baited trap near the federal SC's burrow entrance... am I wrong about this?

5th and 14th Amendment due process. Trump hasn't even been charged with the crime of insurrection, let alone convicted. SCOTUS is can definitely rule that the Colorado courts erred concluding Trump committed a federal crime he hasn't been legally charged with. There's also the argument that it doesn't apply to POTUS's qualifications based on the wording of a section of the statute.

Otherwise red states are going take Biden and Harris off the ballot for "engaging in" this little "insurrection" through their personal actions. If SCOTUS can't challenge Colorado, then they've tied their hands here.

Also, let me throw in that Democrats don't believe in democracy and every accusation of disenfranchising voters is an admission. GOP didn't launch the first ballot nuke.