Random political thought thread.

[ceecee]

None of those words make sense when you string them together like that. It's like saying "Honest Billionare" or "Non greedy Corporation", "Flat earthers" and "Disney Adult."

I thought about deleting the non-profit part but I never came back to actually edit as all of them are right, especially the libs, and none of them do much thinking.

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

I thought about deleting the non-profit part but I never came back to actually edit as all of them are right, especially the libs, and none of them do much thinking.

lib think tanks can be some of the more irritating ones because for people paid to think they sure dont seem to do much of it about anything anyone who works for a living can access.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Unexpected slowdown in economic growth stokes uncertainty for Biden

 

[Virtual ghost]

World’s cartoonists on this week’s events

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/12/student-loan-cancellations-7billion-biden

What they're saying: President Biden pledged in a statement Friday that he will "never stop working to cancel student debt – no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stop us."

• "From day one of my Administration, I promised to fight to ensure higher education is a ticket to the middle class, not a barrier to opportunity," he said.

This is one reason I'm voting for him. It seems that he means what he says. And I was extremely reluctant to support him in 2020, although I did so because I was anti-Trump.

This is less about how it affects me. I have not benefited from any of this. The consistency with which he's pushing on this is a pleasant surprise. I don't expect things to turn out perfectly, but I want politicians to signal that they give a shit. I've said before that what we need is a fighter, and to my surprise, Biden ended up being that.

 

[Red Herring]

Mexico is banning conversion therapy.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

LOL. I love how they didn't mince words these days.

Now we get this:

Trump bemoans lack of immigrants from majority-white countries to the US

Ex-president avoided past ‘shithole countries’ racist invective, but said the US hadn’t gotten enough immigrants from ‘nice countries’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Coriolis]

Now we get this:

Trump bemoans lack of immigrants from majority-white countries to the US

Ex-president avoided past ‘shithole countries’ racist invective, but said the US hadn’t gotten enough immigrants from ‘nice countries’

www.theguardian.com

Trump should ask himself why folks don't want to come here from those countries like they used to.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Trump should ask himself why folks don't want to come here from those countries like they used to.

It's probably because they have things like universal healthcare and mandatory vacation days and they don't want to give those up. Not even for beautiful scenery and diverse biomes.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It's probably because they have things like universal healthcare and mandatory vacation days and they don't want to give those up. Not even for beautiful scenery and diverse biomes.

That is just tip of the iceberg. For other example no one is trying to openly wipe out all of your health benefits. While not only that you get a month of paid leave but you have old or even ancient cities all over the place. Which you can explore over that month for small amounts of money. Actually since they are close you can even do it over the weekends. Plus today you have Schengen area and Euro. What means that you can travel across the continent without passport and there is single currency. What makes business and traveling around much more easier in US-like sense.


But there is much more. GMO food as well as various dangerous chemicals are banned, what is really good for your health. Public transport is much more developed and it can get you for pocket change on the other side of your metro area in reasonable time. Plus since that transportation generally runs on electricity or newly even on hydrogen the air is fairly clean. There are also various subsidies for getting your fist living space or making your home more energy efficient. College is generally socialized just as healthcare. Therefore no matter what happens to you your kid will have an option of getting high education (what is the option that isn't a long shot). You also have much more rights in online spaces and issues. Public debt next to GDP is lower and in many places it is even falling for years. Also the streets tends to be much safer because the system is build in a way that you can't get mass mental health crisis. Especially since gun bans lower the amount of PTSD in the system. The same goes for labor laws that sanction outright abuse at work and 15 hour work day. Plus there are hundreds of little perks that are often local in nature.


What means that changing Europe for US just isn't worth it for most people. If they give you some very well paid job and you as young person go to US for a few years it can be worth it. But in general it is not worth it for most people. At this point even some of the post Communist countries in Europe have started to surpass US when it comes to providing the basics (since they have all of the mentioned above). What means that Europe has made it's own United States that is called "European union". What means that US has lost it's "reputation" as irreplaceable place. In other words if you are really ambtious you can just move into some richer and more ambitious EU member state (since that is today treated as domestic movement). Also today you can work for US company online, plus many of those have their own infrastructure in Europe.

In other words today you can do in Europe pretty much everything that was previously possible just in US. While at the same time you are at home in your own culture (or at leats you can visit often or over the weekeend). While on the other hand you have plenty of perks that don't exists in US. In other words most people have all they need on the Eastern coast of Atlantic and thus they don't have to cross the ocean in mass as they used to. At this point the mass exodus of Europeans into US from 100 or 150 years ago is quite unlikely to happen again.



Just saying.

 

[The Cat]

Donald Trump is the kind of man who tells his family:
I will never hit you as long as you don't make me hit you.​

 

[The Cat]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So, shouldn't our ridiculous primary system start with Illinois, Florida, or Pennsylvania? None of the states now at the beginning are really all that representative, none of the 10 states above are included.

I am convinced that primaries are ways for the Party to control who the nominee is, not for the people to have a voice. This would explain why the "representative states" don't include any of the ones mentioned above.

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

View attachment 30578

So, shouldn't our ridiculous primary system start with Illinois, Florida, or Pennsylvania? None of the states now at the beginning are really all that representative, none of the 10 states above are included.

I am convinced that primaries are ways for the Party to control who the nominee is, not for the people to have a voice. This would explain why the "representative states" don't include any of the ones mentioned above.

It's less about wanting to control the nominee, since the big news conglomerates and social media handle that(in the sense of riling up the mob, or rather the people who form the mobs). It's more in line with how difficult it is to change the direction of the wheels of bureaucracy, once they've been grinding one way for so long. Florida and Pensylvania and Illinois all seem to have bigger things going on for them to want to push the issue, and the ones who have it now, would throw the biggest shit fits if it changed because they put so much stock into that being part of their state identity.

 

[ceecee]

View attachment 30578

So, shouldn't our ridiculous primary system start with Illinois, Florida, or Pennsylvania? None of the states now at the beginning are really all that representative, none of the 10 states above are included.

I am convinced that primaries are ways for the Party to control who the nominee is, not for the people to have a voice. This would explain why the "representative states" don't include any of the ones mentioned above.

I'll go you one better. The Michigan Supreme Court candidates are chosen by the parties it's the only state that does it this way. They hold nominating conventions to select candidates to run in the nonpartisan general election. Candidates in the general election run without party labels. Incumbents may skip the nominating process by filing an affidavit affirming their desire to run for re-election. So, unless you do some homework, you won't know who these people are (until 2020 there was little to no advertising for SCOMI candidates), or their affiliation. And they run one incumbent and one new candidate concurrently on a single ticket. Given the incredible importance placed on state Supreme Courts at this point, it's vital to know how ones state runs things. It's currently Dems 4-3 in Michigan and they will likely pick up another given this environment - one R justice is retiring and no R incumbent nominee.

 

[Red Herring]

I'll go you one better. The Michigan Supreme Court candidates are chosen by the parties it's the only state that does it this way. They hold nominating conventions to select candidates to run in the nonpartisan general election. Candidates in the general election run without party labels. Incumbents may skip the nominating process by filing an affidavit affirming their desire to run for re-election. So, unless you do some homework, you won't know who these people are (until 2020 there was little to no advertising for SCOMI candidates), or their affiliation. And they run one incumbent and one new candidate concurrently on a single ticket. Given the incredible importance placed on state Supreme Courts at this point, it's vital to know how ones state runs things. It's currently Dems 4-3 in Michigan and they will likely pick up another given this environment - one R justice is retiring and no R incumbent nominee.

Speaking as a European, the idea that a Supreme Court judge is a political office and that these jusges have party affiliations or clear political leanings seems highly problematic. Shouldn't they be neutral referees for complicated political-legal issues, guardians of the constitution against elected politicians, not themselves politicians or protegees of politicians?

It makes me think of Poland and Hungary (where far-right governments wanted to decrease the independence of the courts and the EU santioned them and there were protests on the streets) or Israel (where the far-right fovernment wanted to decrease the independence of the constitutional court which lead to massive protests that might have spelled the end for Netanjahu if the Hamas attacks hadn't happened).

Naturally every country will have to find its own solution and there probably isn't a one-fits-all formula. Over here in my small part of the world half the judges of the constiutional court get elected by the lower house and the other half by the upper house. Judges' terms are limited to 12 years without an option for reelection or when they reach 68 years of age. I'm in my mid-40s and don't remember the constitutional court or any constitutional judge ever being at the center of a controversy or scandal and the constitutional court is one of the most trusted institutions in the country (and has been so for decades on end according to surveys). They are just a bunch of highly qualified judicial experts that tend to be sort of middle of the road politically and not make their private opinions very visible.

 

[ceecee]

Speaking as a European, the idea that a Supreme Court judge is a political office and that these jusges have party affiliations or clear political leanings seems highly problematic. Shouldn't they be neutral referees for complicated political-legal issues, guardians of the constitution against elected politicians, not themselves politicians or protegees of politicians?

It makes me think of Poland and Hungary (where far-right governments wanted to decrease the independence of the courts and the EU santioned them and there were protests on the streets) or Israel (where the far-right fovernment wanted to decrease the independence of the constitutional court which lead to massive protests that might have spelt the end for Netanjahu if the Hamas attacks hadn't happened).

Naturally every country will have to find its own solution and there probably isn't a one-fits-all formula. Over here in my small part of the world half the judges of the constiutional court get elected by the lower house and the other half by the upper house. Judges' terms are limited to 12 years without an option for reelection or when they reach 68 years of age. I'm in my mid-40s and don't remember the constitutional court or any constitutional judge ever being at the center of a controversy or scandal and the constitutional court is one of the most trusted institutions in the country (and has been so for decades on end according to surveys). They are just a bunch of highly qualified judicial experts that tend to be sort of middle of the road politically and not make their private opinions very visible.

The only thing Michigan does similar to German it seems is that there is an age limit. I think 68 or 70 then they can't run for another term. Should they be non political? Yes. Are they? No and they never have been although since 2010 it has accelerated massively.

 

[The Cat]

I'll go you one better. The Michigan Supreme Court candidates are chosen by the parties it's the only state that does it this way. They hold nominating conventions to select candidates to run in the nonpartisan general election. Candidates in the general election run without party labels. Incumbents may skip the nominating process by filing an affidavit affirming their desire to run for re-election. So, unless you do some homework, you won't know who these people are (until 2020 there was little to no advertising for SCOMI candidates), or their affiliation. And they run one incumbent and one new candidate concurrently on a single ticket. Given the incredible importance placed on state Supreme Courts at this point, it's vital to know how ones state runs things. It's currently Dems 4-3 in Michigan and they will likely pick up another given this environment - one R justice is retiring and no R incumbent nominee.

I was going to say something about it must be something about the water thats good for the brain up there, then I remembered the other thing about the water, and figured it might be in poor taste. Like the water. -_-