Random Politics Thread

[The Cat]

 

[ceecee]

The Michigan door is always open for you

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Just listened to this. Holy Shit.

 

[SensEye]

It's a pretty good song. I read on FoxNews he turned down an 8 million dollar offer from some record company or another. If that's really true (obviously I am skeptical of anything from Fox) his esteem would rise in my eyes.

I figure he'll cave in and take the money eventually (99.999% of the population would, including myself), but he'll have my admiration if he just sticks to his knitting or makes money from concerts that will be much better attended due to his newfound fame.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ok, but when someone is talking about "Republicans" I always picture it in a sense that this implies the voters as well. What is due to the mix of how party membership is decided in US and my local political culture. Plus there is that awkward "deplorables" speech made by Hillary. After all if we consider that she lost MI, WI and PA by less than a point it is quite possible that this is what spilled the glass.


It is just that my impression is that no one genuinely tried to talk to the rural people, with exception of people like Trump or Tucker. So now in those places there are plenty of people that sound like those two. Something that was probably avoidable all things considered. I also have the far right around the country and it is always strong in the places where the mainstream politics systematically messed up over the decades (and then they seem to have forgotten about the place). Plus if you rise democratic support in rural areas by just a few points that basically means that you are winning all the swing states. Therefore making a move here actually makes sense. I mean a good chunk of these people probably doesn't know for anything better and this is where a simple talk can probably make a difference.

What do you think should be negotiated here?

I don't see a need negotiate dealing with rural poverty or addressing disparities in rural healthcare because I already support that. But I'm also atypical and always support "fringe" candidates in presidential primaries, so I'm not representative of the Democratic party as a whole.

 

[Virtual ghost]

What do you think should be negotiated here?

I don't see a need negotiate dealing with rural poverty or addressing disparities in rural healthcare because I already support that. But I'm also atypical and always support "fringe" candidates in presidential primaries, so I'm not representative of the Democratic party as a whole.

I was talking about talking to rural population that seem to be mostly republican voters, while negotiating means talking to Republican politicians.


However if you are asking me what to offer to rural people:

Fixing basic infrastructure step by step.
Making sure that financial sector designs project/object that should be build in various rural areas. Once that is defined it will be easier to find investors.
You should try to explain to the farmers how climate change is evidently something that should concern them (since that is true).
Make sure they have clean water.
You should try to build supply chains in a way that the rural areas are supplying the cities more with various resources (instead of other countries).
Maybe you should try separating gun laws in urban and rural areas. (first neighbor at 2 meters and 2 miles just aren't the same social atmosphere)
Try to explain to them how single payer healthcare works, some will probably like the idea. Especially since it saves money.
When you are doing a trade deal ask them for some kind of a collective opinion.

Etc.


I mean in the end it all comes down to the common sense stuff and nothing making their lives hell. Because if you do that you will get crazy people and revolutionary mindset (what is bad for pretty obvious reasons). Just making sure that cities are supplied more from rural areas instead of abroad would be a huge deal. Since that basically means that you have economically round up the country once again. What significantly lowers the odds of large scale violence.

 

[The Cat]

Extry Extry Read all about it: Astroturfed, Pandering dog whistles to allow bigots to continue to remain divided from their neighbors and perpetuate the system that keeps actual working class people chained to poverty while being raved and praised by rich men with impoverished compassion and threadbare souls as "authentic" to the working class...where have I heard music like this before...oh yeah...

Pandering Stadium Country Music. If rich men and their pawns are telling you "Rich Men North of Richmond" is your working class hero anthem... and you actually believe them... I've got some beach front property in Miami that's really gonna be a good investment in the next ten years.
The rich are afraid of the working class and utterly dependent on us, everything the rich boost as being for the working class...isn't designed to make you stronger, or give you a more fair shake or better wage.
It's designed to keep you in the place they want you to stay:
Bitter, bigoted, and Isolated from your real power structure.
Your neighbors, Unions, and Community Networks.
Anyone who tells you differently is trying to exploit you for profit.

Also fun trivia: Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy.
North of Richmond is where the yankees lived.
This is RW song, not a worker's anthem make no mistake.


​

 

[Tomb1]

Ok, but I think you missed my point. Which is that the best way to win the election is by pushing for the policies that are most likely to help people. From what I understand the structure of electorate in US is something like 30% Democrat, 30% Republican, 40% independent. Therefore if you manage to present good enough policy you can win up to 70% of the electorate and that on the map will look as a pure landslide. Feel free to take a look at the map of how Johnson won in 1964 and Regan in the 80s. Results like that don't happen on itself and US right now needs one victory like that. Since that will make things more clear and the new administration will have the mandate to take things into it's hand in order to try dig the country out of shit. While the current victories just aren't that, 0.2 point win in Michigan, 0.3 point in Arizona, 0.25 point in Georgia ..... etc. Plus the senate is 50:50. What just lacks ideological clarity even if there is some kind of formal result.


My point was that it would perhaps be smart to think less in the term of partisan label are more in the aspect of policy. Since that is how you will much more easily attract those 40% that are completely tired of the partisanship. Plus that is how you get none voters to show up (half of the people doesn't even vote). I am from multi party system and thus I have anything from the leftists that smear LGBT people to far right that has environmentalist wing. So when you watch from that perspective maybe it would make sense to try win huge amount of the electorate with more constructive message. Since constructive and round up message is the only thing that can't really attract huge amount of various social groups. Since in the end you are trying to win over a fairly diverse group of people.


Therefore why going to some totally partisan race that in the end will surely be close since it was build om the premise of winning instead of content. While on the other hand you can try shooting at much wider audience and at those that feel forgotten. After all it is kinda the rule that the higher turn out is helping the democratic party. So if you are Democrat you should think about the ways how to increase the turnout (since that means winning almost by default). However increasing turnout is best done by proposing policy in more detail and what I don't see being done enough (if we judge by my book at least). In other words you can explain your plans in detail and still slam the opponents. But in US this is almost always done in some form of social shaming instead of getting into details. Abortion: make sure that president puts the nation in front of TVs and then you give the mic to some doctor that will try to rationally explain in 15 minutes why banning abortion is horrible policy, Especially since there is something called medically justified abortion. I simply miss that kinda of "juice" in US campaigns. There is almost always that lack of "Why" in the arguments. What makes shallow debates and that in the end decreases the turnout.


Plus we seem to have different cultural understanding of what it means to be independent. For me that simply means that you don't belong to a party and you will vote for whoever offers you the best deal by your standards (since I usually have about 20-30 parties to choose from). For me being a independent voter doesn't mean that you will actually vote for the independents (but you can do that as well).


Just my 2 cents I suppose.

I got your point but I don't agree with about 80 percent of it. I think some of what you are saying becomes more effective in the general election when it comes to winning over swing states. Candidates move more to the middle as a practical matter. Also, I think what you are saying is applicable for a politician speaking before a certain type of audience. But you have to remember that the average voter has too much going on in their own lives, too many problems to tend to, too many bills to pay, to sit around giving the time and energy towards digesting policy at that level of minutiae....In a primary candidates have to win over the base of the party, and the base of each party is partisan....also don't forget the practical reality that these candidates are running with donor's money. A candidate who is not in it to win it and are mainly there to push policies into the mainstream has no business being an election in my opinion unless they are self-funded....i would be shocked to learn that there are donor who don't have an interest in their horse doing the necessary things to win

Also, I think you have misunderstood the reasons that Reagan beat Carter and crushed Mondale and that LBJ beat Goldwater. Neither Reagan nor LBJ stood out as policy wonks. Reagan marketed simple ideas and confidently sold the republican brand through catchy phrases, personal anecdotes (some true, some maybe not true), comedy, and an outgoing, gregarious, affable temperament. He also reinvented himself from a Hollywood Liberal into a California Republican into like a Texas Rancher. He was a great marketer and the worst example of a policy wonk....he was well known to leave all the details to staffers and wanted all his briefings pared down to one page. LBJ ran great attack ads and developed a lot of shady political connections. He was master of the horse and pony show and extremely extroverted. That fear-mongering daisy ad won him the election against Barry Goldwater and an example of why it is essential to attack your opponent's record to have any shot of winning a presidential election. These days, attacking an opponent's record means destroying their character which is another story but still works, because ultimately these political elections are street-fights and whoever loses momentum in the fight for the ideal of keeping everything positive, clean and sanitized ultimately gives the other side leverage to will their perceptions into reality. Bruce Lee had a saying, meet an attack with a better attack. If they hit you with a stick, hit them with a rock. That's winning. Policy is just the window dressing....first and foremost, politics is about personalities.

 

[ceecee]

It's a pretty good song. I read on FoxNews he turned down an 8 million dollar offer from some record company or another. If that's really true (obviously I am skeptical of anything from Fox) his esteem would rise in my eyes.

I figure he'll cave in and take the money eventually (99.999% of the population would, including myself), but he'll have my admiration if he just sticks to his knitting or makes money from concerts that will be much better attended due to his newfound fame.

He had a phenomenal opportunity to write a song that would have appealed to most people (as most people are working class). Instead he decided to punch down and blame his (and the rest of the country's) ills on taxes, cultural elites and I guess, welfare fraud. The people that will most appreciate it most are the rich men north of Richmond.

 

[ceecee]

Extry Extry Read all about it: Astroturfed, Pandering dog whistles to allow bigots to continue to remain divided from their neighbors and perpetuate the system that keeps actual working class people chained to poverty while being raved and praised by rich men with impoverished compassion and threadbare souls as "authentic" to the working class...where have I heard music like this before...oh yeah...

Pandering Stadium Country Music. If rich men and their pawns are telling you "Rich Men North of Richmond" is your working class hero anthem... and you actually believe them... I've got some beach front property in Miami that's really gonna be a good investment in the next ten years.
The rich are afraid of the working class and utterly dependent on us, everything the rich boost as being for the working class...isn't designed to make you stronger, or give you a more fair shake or better wage.
It's designed to keep you in the place they want you to stay:
Bitter, bigoted, and Isolated from your real power structure.
Your neighbors, Unions, and Community Networks.
Anyone who tells you differently is trying to exploit you for profit.

Also fun trivia: Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy.
North of Richmond is where the yankees lived.
This is RW song, not a worker's anthem make no mistake.


​

Every other phrase coming out of my mouth these days is - You all need a union.

 

[The Cat]

Every other phrase coming out of my mouth these days is - You all need a union.

Same.

 

[SensEye]

He had a phenomenal opportunity to write a song that would have appealed to most people (as most people are working class). Instead he decided to punch down and blame his (and the rest of the country's) ills on taxes, cultural elites and I guess, welfare fraud. The people that will most appreciate it most are the rich men north of Richmond.

Hmm. Seems to me the left blame taxes a lot too. Too much on the working class, not enough on the wealthy class. So I would say both sides are in general agreement there. The left seems to hate the elites too. The welfare stuff seems a bit of a low blow, but everyone has certain hot buttons, guess this is one of his.

I think most of the "outrage" coming from the left is just partisanship. If the right likes something, the left feel obligated to hate it (and vice versa). All part of the divisiveness of current times.

Bet there aren't too many pro-union folks among the rich men of North Richmond or their state counterparts (and none among their wealthy donors).

 

[ceecee]

Hmm. Seems to me the left blame taxes a lot too. Too much on the working class, not enough on the wealthy class. So I would say both sides are in general agreement there. The left seems to hate the elites too. The welfare stuff seems a bit of a low blow, but everyone has certain hot buttons, guess this is one of his.

I think most of the "outrage" coming from the left is just partisanship. If the right likes something, the left feel obligated to hate it (and vice versa). All part of the divisiveness of current times.

Bet there aren't too many pro-union folks among the rich men of North Richmond or their state counterparts (and none among their wealthy donors).

The left hates the fact that working class people pay more in taxes than the wealthy. Liberals, eh, not so much (as you can see from Dem policy). Other than the points I made, I liked the song. I just think he blew an opportunity is all.

I would certainly argue the pro-union point, especially at the state level.

 

[The Cat]

The left hates the fact that working class people pay more in taxes than the wealthy. Liberals, eh, not so much (as you can see from Dem policy). Other than the points I made, I liked the song. I just think he blew an opportunity is all.

I would certainly argue the pro-union point, especially at the state level.

guy has a great voice for sure, and he could have resurrected country folk music and snatched it from the soulless clutches of Stadium Country, but instead...a voice that could have united the working class, is now being used to divide it against itself. If people fall for it that is.

 

[ceecee]

guy has a great voice for sure, and he could have resurrected country folk music and snatched it from the soulless clutches of Stadium Country, but instead...a voice that could have united the working class, is now being used to divide it against itself. If people fall for it that is.

It would be awesome if there came a county artist that railed against corporations for price gouging, OPEC for raising the price of gas, big pharma for stealing taxpayer money to develop drugs then making them pay for it twice, lobbyists and donors who are the reason nothing changes in DC... but they never will. They will continue to sings songs that divide. And their target audience will keep believing that bullshit.

 

[The Cat]

I had a feeling it would be Ocoee that stood up.
I've always believed that other white men killed those two white men and they used it to incite outrage.
Rosewood was also razed and it shouldnt be forgotten either.​

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

This guy ain’t no woody guthrie. Also, being a local (sort of), I can tell y’all there are a ton of great, better musicians from the Farmville VA area. There are better written, catchier political folk songs, and there are better produced, catchier political hip hop songs than the garbage Tom Macdonald is making. Lol at the people who always say these are the greatest songs they’ve heard from these genres, usually after prefacing such declarations with “I don’t normally listen to this type of music”. And overlooking the musical structure and composition, the messaging and lyrical content in “Rich Men…” is clunky and awkward. The lyrics are awkward and don’t quite fit the meter, and it sounds like he’s saying “the Richmond north of Richmond”. And is he mad at rich people or people on EBT? Make up your mind.

“A lot of y’all aren’t ready to hear what he’s saying.” Uhh what exactly is he saying that hasn’t been said for years? We’ve been hearing the same talking points on welfare abusers and no one caring about miners from pundits for over 40 years

 

[ceecee]

This guy ain’t no woody guthrie. Also, being a local (sort of), I can tell y’all there are a ton of great, better musicians from the Farmville VA area. There are better written, catchier political folk songs, and there are better produced, catchier political hip hop songs than the garbage Tom Macdonald is making. Lol at the people who always say these are the greatest songs they’ve heard from these genres, usually after prefacing such declarations with “I don’t normally listen to this type of music”. And overlooking the musical structure and composition, the messaging and lyrical content in “Rich Men…” is clunky and awkward. The lyrics are awkward and don’t quite fit the meter, and it sounds like he’s saying “the Richmond north of Richmond”. And is he mad at rich people or people on EBT? Make up your mind.

“A lot of y’all aren’t ready to hear what he’s saying.” Uhh what exactly is he saying that hasn’t been said for years? We’ve been hearing the same talking points on welfare abusers and no one caring about miners from pundits for over 40 years

View attachment 29248

I thought of how much better say, Sturgill Simpson is. And how this guy is not a Sturgill Simpson.

 

[Kephalos]

McGinnis, John O., and Michael B. Rappaport. "The Judicial Filibuster, the Median Senator, and the Countermajoritarian Difficulty." The Supreme Court Review 2005, no. 1 (2005): 257-305.

Abstract: In this essay, we explore the effects of the application of the filibuster to judicial confirmations. We conclude that the judicial filibuster has fundamental implications for both the composition of the courts and nature of constitutional law. If employed, the filibuster will change the kind of judges who are confirmed and so over time reshape the Supreme Court itself. We argue that the filibuster will lead to more moderate judges. With the help of spatial models from the political science literature, we contend that supermajority confirmation rules, of which the filibuster rule is an example, will tend to make justices more moderate, where moderate means having a jurisprudential view closer to the view held by the median Senator. We thus identify an apparent paradox that a supermajority rule for judicial confirmation actually furthers the views of the legislative majority. We also analyze the Filibuster Deal, an agreement of 14 moderate Senators designed to preserve the filibuster. We contend that the deal furthered the political self-interest of this group, because the filibuster generates the appointment of the moderate judges that these Senators support. We also make predictions about how the key terms in the deal will be interpreted. Our argument that the filibuster rule generates more moderate judicial appointments also suggests that the rule will temper the countermajoritarian difficulty - the problem created by an unelected judiciary invalidating the decisions of the popularly elected branches. We maintain that a supermajority confirmation rule that generates appointments that accord with the median senator's view is also more likely to produce judges who act based on a majority of the public's view of judicial review. In this way, judicial review would be more likely to impose the limitations on popular government that a majority of the people desire. In developing this argument, we unpack the countermajoritarian difficulty into three components - jurisprudential, temporal, and confirmational. Finally, we use our framework to explicate other important features of the confirmation process. We show that the presence of a filibuster rule will lead the President to select more stealth nominees, but that such nominees will still tend to be more moderate than those nominated under majority confirmation rules. We also show that whether a filibuster occurs will depend on a variety of factors; that nominees for the court of appeals are more likely to be filibustered than the Supreme Court nominees; that filibusters are more likely toward the end of the President's term; and that the decision whether to filibuster a nominee will depend on expectations about future nominees and the type of reputation the Senate minority wants to develop.

"I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we’re going to be able to get judges done with a majority. It takes only a simple majority anymore (sic). And, it’s clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told ’em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate." Harry M. Reid (1939-2021), former Senate Majority Leader (109th-114th Congresses).

 

[Virtual ghost]

Trump says he will be booked Thursday in Atlanta