Random political thought thread.

[Virtual ghost]

Who else could they hang out with who wouldnt be pestering them all day about some little people issue?

That is exactly why similar people prefer to hang out together. The same works for politicians as well.
However in the end that is kinda the election interference. Not to mention scenario that one of them has an army of ordinary partisan people who will try to (re)elect a friend of their leader. What is something that is happening all across the globe for sure. After all if you help elect leaders that think like yours that can lead to various forms of trade and sharing interests. What can then lead into personal profit for you or it can help with reelecting your own leader. Alignment between the political establishments is one of the strongest political tools that ever existed.

 

[The Cat]

That is exactly why similar people prefer to hang out together. The same works for politicians as well.
However in the end that is kinda the election interference. Not to mention scenario that one of them has an army of ordinary partisan people who will try to (re)elect a friend of their leader. What is something that is happening all across the globe for sure. After all if you help elect leaders that think like yours that can lead to various forms of trade and sharing interests. What can then lead into personal profit for you or it can help with reelecting your own leader. Alignment between the political establishments is one of the strongest political tools that ever existed.

 

[Kephalos]

The US has been interfering in other countries elections for so long, any comment on foreign interference on our elections is laughable hypocritical.

"Taking sides" in an election is, I think, a much broader (and perhaps less malign) than is usually meant by the term "interfering". Suppose that some foreign President openly and publicly supported one candidate over another in an American election, or vice versa, that an American President takes sides -- openly -- in some election or in favor of a political party or even particular candidate in one or all of the hundreds of elections that happen all over the (Western, properly democratic) world? This happens all the time (and is happening more and more, or at least I think so).

There is no question of interference, just a question of talking, of openly taking a stand. It doesn't even have to be a politician currently in power, but a politician or a party that hopes or expects to be in power some time in the future. Let me give a concrete example: (then) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before a Joint Session of Congress in 2015 poisoned (and in my opinion continues to poison) Israeli-American relations. But then again, world leaders give speeches in Congress all the time, but Netanyahu openly took sides, without the power actually to interfere, against the then-President Barack Obama and in favor of his opponents. You don't need to interfere to take sides and for the circumstances spoken about in the article to take place in the real world.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

Reform or die? If the US gets its way, the WTO might do both

The organization is seen as contaminated and therefore it has to go. That would be an interesting election talking point.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll case

 

[Virtual ghost]

Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll case

I mean it is really the time that Republican party and Republican voters just move on without regrets. This simply isn't the dude that will fix the country and there are truly better people inside the party for the job. This just isn't worth the effort of trying to make it work.

 

[Red Herring]

Republican who called drag shows a threat to kids quits after sex with intern

A Republican Texas state lawmaker who once proposed banning children from attending drag shows to supposedly shield them from being groomed for abuse has resigned after he was found to have engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with a 19-year-old intern.

Bryan Slaton, 45, resigned on Monday while facing mounting calls from the state’s Republican party and conservative groups to step down. A state house investigation last week determined that he supplied alcohol to the intern and another young staffer, had sex with the intern after she had become intoxicated, and later showed her a threatening email while saying everything would be fine if she kept quiet about the encounter.


House investigators noted as well that Slaton had asked a fellow lawmaker to keep his behavior secret.

Two of the women said they tried to dissuade the intern from spending time with Slaton and suggested his behavior was inappropriate. But the intern, who one complainant described as “naive”, agreed to Slaton’s request to visit his apartment. The other women went with her, and the lawmaker served them alcohol, according to the report.

One of the young women drank enough to vomit, and the others were intoxicated enough to become dizzy and experience “split vision”, investigators said.

Two of them eventually left but the intern stayed, according to investigators. She told her friends Slaton drove her home the next morning, stopping at a drugstore so she could obtain emergency contraception.

Slaton at one point proposed to penalize the use of emergency contraception, including what is known as the Plan B pill.

 

[ceecee]

lol

Rep. George Santos faces federal criminal charges, AP sources say

U.S. Rep. George Santos has been charged with federal criminal offenses, two people familiar with the matter told @AP. The case is under seal. Reached by phone on Tuesday, Santos said, “This is news to me. You’re the first to call me about this."

apnews.com

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm not used to awful people actually facing consequences for their actions if they happen to be in politics. It wasn't this way when I was young; I'm generally puzzled. Is it because these people are that incompetent that the blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice actually manages to catch up with them, despite her handicap? This I think is one of the things I'm referring to when I say I don't even know how to respond to these new paradigms.

I'm used to people doing atrocious stuff and nothing really happening to them, with maybe some low-level dweeb being the only person who actually suffers, and I'm supposed to content myself with that. But I'm not kidding when I say I don't know what to make out of all of this. I don't know what to say other than I don't know what to say.

 

[ceecee]

I'm not used to awful people actually facing consequences for their actions if they happen to be in politics. It wasn't this way when I was young; I'm generally puzzled. Is it because these people are that incompetent that the blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice actually manages to catch up with them, despite her handicap? This I think is one of the things I'm referring to when I say I don't even know how to respond to these new paradigms.

I'm used to people doing atrocious stuff and nothing really happening to them, with maybe some low-level dweeb being the only person who actually suffers, and I'm supposed to content myself with that. But I'm not kidding when I say I don't know what to make out of all of this. I don't know what to say other than I don't know what to say.

I'm rather cynical about all of it too. That's the way I have always felt - I guess like most of Gen X. But it feels to me like the people historically paying the least amount of attention are starting to realize that's no longer in their interest. Maybe this is why younger people are politically literate much earlier in life. Much less likely to negotiate away their leverage or abide by that bipartisan bullshit. I see this as a positive but I can understand why it would feel unsettling.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm rather cynical about all of it too. That's the way I have always felt - I guess like most of Gen X. But it feels to me like the people historically paying the least amount of attention are starting to realize that's no longer in their interest. Maybe this is why younger people are politically literate much earlier in life. Much less likely to negotiate away their leverage or abide by that bipartisan bullshit. I see this as a positive but I can understand why it would feel unsettling.

I don't find it unsettling, rather, I feel that I no longer know what's going on here, and, given that, I have nothing to say. I was clueless about this mayoral election because of other reasons, but I'm nonetheless glad it worked out the way it did. This is another example where I have no idea what's going on, and I suppose I'll need to step back and watch rather closely.

It sounds like it could be a consequence of millennial (or younger) pressure upon the Democratic party forcing them to present themselves as an alternative rather than the centrist bipartisan bullshit. If the right people are actually understanding how politics (even if it took them a while) works, then good for them.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm not used to awful people actually facing consequences for their actions if they happen to be in politics. It wasn't this way when I was young; I'm generally puzzled. Is it because these people are that incompetent that the blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice actually manages to catch up with them, despite her handicap? This I think is one of the things I'm referring to when I say I don't even know how to respond to these new paradigms.

I'm used to people doing atrocious stuff and nothing really happening to them, with maybe some low-level dweeb being the only person who actually suffers, and I'm supposed to content myself with that. But I'm not kidding when I say I don't know what to make out of all of this. I don't know what to say other than I don't know what to say.

This is pretty simple to explain and this simply means that the place is evolving from wild west into genuine first world. In other words the genuine rule of law is perhaps the key difference here. Therefore some of us have all kinds of politicians and billionaires in prison or on trials. This is just how the rule of law should actually work. The bad news is that the situation is so bad that a bunch of people realized that they simply have to throw bad apples off the deck before the ship sinks. I mean with the rise of internet generations it is becoming possible to see various different models on how to solve various social problems.

 

[The Cat]

I'm not used to awful people actually facing consequences for their actions if they happen to be in politics. It wasn't this way when I was young; I'm generally puzzled. Is it because these people are that incompetent that the blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice actually manages to catch up with them, despite her handicap? This I think is one of the things I'm referring to when I say I don't even know how to respond to these new paradigms.

I'm used to people doing atrocious stuff and nothing really happening to them, with maybe some low-level dweeb being the only person who actually suffers, and I'm supposed to content myself with that. But I'm not kidding when I say I don't know what to make out of all of this. I don't know what to say other than I don't know what to say.

Justice is blind because its so hard to get if you cant afford to pay her to take the blindfold off...

 

[ceecee]

lol

Rep. George Santos faces federal criminal charges, AP sources say

U.S. Rep. George Santos has been charged with federal criminal offenses, two people familiar with the matter told @AP. The case is under seal. Reached by phone on Tuesday, Santos said, “This is news to me. You’re the first to call me about this."

apnews.com

This keeps getting better and better.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656289281910927366

 

[The Cat]

This keeps getting better and better.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656289281910927366

He broke the one rule. Don't rob rich people.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Justice is blind because its so hard to get if you cant afford to pay her to take the blindfold off...

I thought you would like that bit. I was channeling you, after all.

 

[Stigmata]

I mean it is really the time that Republican party and Republican voters just move on without regrets. This simply isn't the dude that will fix the country and there are truly better people inside the party for the job. This just isn't worth the effort of trying to make it work.

All of that would imply that the average Republican voters actually cares about policy or the overall well-being of the country.

Republicans care more about ending ‘woke’ policies than preserving Medicare: Poll

The sooner people stop treating Republicans as good-faith actors, the sooner everyone will stop going through the mental gymnastics of trying find some sort of rationalization to their insanity -- The modern Republican party is a contrarian anti-establishment authoritarian party. Why do they do the things that they do? Why do they seemingly vote against their own interests? Because they hate liberals/leftists and anyone they believe champion ideas and virtues typically associated with them.

Why do they support Trump despite deep down he's a colossal liar and a scumbag? Because he makes liberals mad. If Trump was exactly the same as he is now but was the democratic nominee, they'd hate his guts. Literally, that's it. They. Hate. Liberals. It's really not much deeper than that.

Their entire ideological movement is fueled by greviance towards the other side.

 

[Virtual ghost]

All of that would imply that the average Republican voters actually cares about policy or the overall well-being of the country.

Republicans care more about ending ‘woke’ policies than preserving Medicare: Poll

The sooner people stop treating Republicans as good-faith actors, the sooner everyone will stop going through the mental gymnastics of trying find some sort of rationalization to their insanity -- The modern Republican party is a contrarian anti-establishment authoritarian party. Why do they do the things that they do? Why do they seemingly vote against their own interests? Because they hate liberals/leftists and anyone they believe champion ideas and virtues typically associated with them.

Why do they support Trump despite deep down he's a colossal liar and a scumbag? Because he makes liberals mad. If Trump was exactly the same as he is now but was the democratic nominee, they'd hate his guts. Literally, that's it. They. Hate. Liberals. It's really not much deeper than that.

Their entire ideological movement is fueled by greviance towards the other side.

If they want to crash Medicare then this is a policy. Probably a bad one but it is something genuinely political. While this whole Trump cult thing is simply a genuine waste of everyone's time. This is exactly "We hate the liberals" mentality you are talking about. So I stand by my claim that the party desperately needs new leadership. How they will set their priorities is one thing but new leadership is evidently needed. Because the only real product of the current one is mass mental illness. All these people are simply mentally stuck and that has to change. How exactly will that happen is a difficult topic but that doesn't change that this has to happen. Too large chunk of the population is stuck in there that you can just watch the other way.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

All of that would imply that the average Republican voters actually cares about policy or the overall well-being of the country.

Republicans care more about ending ‘woke’ policies than preserving Medicare: Poll

The sooner people stop treating Republicans as good-faith actors, the sooner everyone will stop going through the mental gymnastics of trying find some sort of rationalization to their insanity -- The modern Republican party is a contrarian anti-establishment authoritarian party. Why do they do the things that they do? Why do they seemingly vote against their own interests? Because they hate liberals/leftists and anyone they believe champion ideas and virtues typically associated with them.

Why do they support Trump despite deep down he's a colossal liar and a scumbag? Because he makes liberals mad. If Trump was exactly the same as he is now but was the democratic nominee, they'd hate his guts. Literally, that's it. They. Hate. Liberals. It's really not much deeper than that.

Their entire ideological movement is fueled by greviance towards the other side.

All of this true, but I want to point out that they never liked Medicare to begin with. They just haven't been able to do much about it because it's too popular.