US PoliEra 2019 |OT3| YOU WERE AT MY WEDDING, DENISE

Status
Not open for further replies.

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,149
Well, Putin doesn't work for her so I'm not sure that threatening to kill their career is going to be as effective as when she did it to her staff.
Also, thinking that being an asshole to people with no power over you that have to take your shit or lose their job makes you "tough" is yet another reason for me to hope her campaign crash and burn.
You're taking her comment too abstractly. I think she's saying she'll bring office supplies to diplomatic meetings and throw them at other people.

Not necessarily, but I think that the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are a different beast because the US had such an interest in stepping in and creating a viable two-state solution (and we'll get more violence if the UK insists on blowing that solution up via Brexit).

India and Pakistan isn't working out well at all right now, but that's because of the haphazard way in which the British left the region and carved it up on the way out. That situation is maybe comparable to some of the issues that African states are having because of the way that colonial powers divided them up (a problem that South Africa had, to be fair, but that didn't cripple it because the imperial power stayed in the country and helped the transition to a country with equal rights and representation).

In any case, Israel and Palestine just strongly reminds me of South Africa, where even with implicit support for apartheid from world powers like the US and the UK, de Klerk worked with Mandela to lead the country toward open elections and equal rights for black and brown South Africans. Maybe the issue is that there isn't an imperial power willing to step in and broker a solution.

Honestly, having read what I wrote, maybe the successful solutions aren't necessarily one-or-two-state solutions, but are solutions where imperial powers actually step in and try to solve the problem instead of being a) indifferent or b) actively antagonistic. However, South Africa got a one-state solution done on its own and the situation there reads like Israel's, so maybe a more center/center-right party in Israel can be sick of the violence and human rights violations and, like de Klerk and the National Party, broker a one-state solution without needing anyone to step in.



This post also explains why I favor a single-state solution. If de Klerk pulled it off when Boer South Africans were vastly outnumbered by black South Africans, then the right leaders in Israel can pull the same thing off even if they are outnumbered by Palestinians. I guess that's why I favor a one-state solution: I have evidence that it can work in the modern era even though the people in minority rule are outnumbered.
I think I'm more in favor of a one-state solution at this point, but it's a tough one for me. I'm fundamentally opposed to ethnostates. But on the other hand, basically every time in history Jewish people lived with anybody else, the other group eventually tries to kill them all. After thousands of years of that, I understand why Jewish people were keen to have an ethnostate.

I do think a superpower needs to come in and tell them that this situation isn't currently working, and that they need to consider other ways of keeping themselves safe. Kinda how we get smaller countries to denuclearize.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,799
Oh boy. Daily Fail is at it again. Trying to normalize the NZ nazi by saying he became radicalized after traveling to NK and Pakistan, that he was a country boy, and just wasn't the same after his father died of cancer.
 

Soul Skater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,367
I don’t actually think the media *faces*—reporters, hosts, anchors, the people you generally see etc.—want Trump to win again, not even the access journalism folks. But at the highest levels, the C-suite media execs... yeah.
It isn’t any different than fossil fuel companies having a vested interest in not reducing pollution

They are making more money and getting better ratings than ever before. It’s bad for America and democracy but it’s good for them so they don’t care.
 

patientzero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,432
I will have to learn their names, and their faces.

It pains me. But I will have to. So that when I see a meme referencing them, I can respond appropriately. To fight this shit you have to wade knee deep into it. I fear that most don't have the stomach for it.
This is more about the larger political movements at play, specifically right-wing parties, but I'd recommend the book Go Back to Where You Came From: The Backlash Against Immigration and the Fate of Western Democracy.

The author takes a more global approach, barely touching on the US aside from obvious parallels, in order to examine the myriad ways in which Europe, Australia, and, briefly, South Africa's burgeoning right-wing parties are enacting policies and debates over immigration, refugees, and the coming wave that will kick into high gear with mass climate change.

The main caveat I have given before is that the book features a LOT of right-wingers being quoted at length. While the author makes it clear that they disagree with those views, and competing ones are given time, you will wade through mountains of bullshit all for the necessity of getting into that mindset.

The book can be a little disjointed in its approach and needed some focusing, but does try to illuminate some specific points about the movements and their policies - Australian offshoring, using hard immigration policy as deterrence to immigrate, how South Africa's immigration issues bely race, etc.
 

plagiarize

Untethered once more
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
7,494
Cape Cod, MA
This is more about the larger political movements at play, specifically right-wing parties, but I'd recommend the book Go Back to Where You Came From: The Backlash Against Immigration and the Fate of Western Democracy.

The author takes a more global approach, barely touching on the US aside from obvious parallels, in order to examine the myriad ways in which Europe, Australia, and, briefly, South Africa's burgeoning right-wing parties are enacting policies and debates over immigration, refugees, and the coming wave that will kick into high gear with mass climate change.

The main caveat I have given before is that the book features a LOT of right-wingers being quoted at length. While the author makes it clear that they disagree with those views, and competing ones are given time, you will wade through mountains of bullshit all for the necessity of getting into that mindset.

The book can be a little disjointed in its approach and needed some focusing, but does try to illuminate some specific points about the movements and their policies - Australian offshoring, using hard immigration policy as deterrence to immigrate, how South Africa's immigration issues bely race, etc.
Ordered. Thank you.

I hope it covers how someone who immigrated to a country, then got profiled as a terrorist for their race, a few decades later could vote for Brexit.
 
Mar 5, 2019
99
A feel like a big takeaway with the Klobuchar controversy that's not pointed out enough is that it's probably a bad idea to replace a president with a comically low staff retention with one who also has a comically low staff retention.
 
Last edited:

Ithil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,137
Don't worry. He doubledowned.

In case you needed a direct example of how right wingers and conservatives literally live in Opposite Land. That clown claiming a Muslim terrorist would receive "Lone wolf, mental illness, not representative of the whole" talk, but supposedly white terrorists don't? The exact complete opposite of reality, but there he is claiming it as a whiny complaint.
They do the same with everything. If you actually listened to their complaints about "the left" or "Democrats" or "SJWs", they continuously are describing the right wing, worldwide, to a tee. Like it would be funny how spot on their descriptions are, if it weren't dangerously deranged.
 

patientzero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,432
Ordered. Thank you.

I hope it covers how someone who immigrated to a country, then got profiled as a terrorist for their race, a few decades later could vote for Brexit.
Oddly, the UK comes up very little. The main actors being analyzed are in France, Denmark, Australia, and South Africa.

And be warned, the author does bring up "economic anxiety". To be fair, that seems like a more, not legitimate....salient argument in states with very integrated safety nets.

For instance, and I had no clue about this, South Africa's constitution grants citizenship rights to anyone physically present in the country, including access to all social benefits. Thus, an argument arises pretty quickly on how those benefits can survive mass migrations placing an ostensible strain on the system. Of course, this then raises questions about those societies barring or otherwise discouraging engagement with employment to protect their native populations, creating a feedback loop of "immigrant cannot be gainfully legally employed, but we afford them benefits, and then get angry when they want to work but cannot."

This comes up a lot in the French and Danish chapters. Failures of integration, not on the part of the immigrant but imposed by the state, create feedback loops.

There's also talk about these predominately secular societies not having any clue how to approach engaging with more religious immigrant communities. It's here that the author does blame both sides, and makes a pretty convincing argument, while also pointing out the myriad right-wing Euro movements that still erect Nativity scenes, claiming they are cultural rather than religious and never seeing the irony.
 

plagiarize

Untethered once more
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
7,494
Cape Cod, MA
Oddly, the UK comes up very little. The main actors being analyzed are in France, Denmark, Australia, and South Africa.

And be warned, the author does bring up "economic anxiety". To be fair, that seems like a more, not legitimate....salient argument in states with very integrated safety nets.

For instance, and I had no clue about this, South Africa's constitution grants citizenship rights to anyone physically present in the country, including access to all social benefits. Thus, an argument arises pretty quickly on how those benefits can survive mass migrations placing an ostensible strain on the system. Of course, this then raises questions about those societies barring or otherwise discouraging engagement with employment to protect their native populations, creating a feedback loop of "immigrant cannot be gainfully legally employed, but we afford them benefits, and then get angry when they want to work but cannot."

This comes up a lot in the French and Danish chapters. Failures of integration, not on the part of the immigrant but imposed by the state, create feedback loops.

There's also talk about these predominately secular societies not having any clue how to approach engaging with more religious immigrant communities. It's here that the author does blame both sides, and makes a pretty convincing argument, while also pointing out the myriad right-wing Euro movements that still erect Nativity scenes, claiming they are cultural rather than religious and never seeing the irony.
Well don't give me the cliff notes for the whole book! I'm going to read it :P
 

BoboBrazil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,079
There's been 0 Beto emails today. I wonder if he's holding off due to the NZ attack? Maybe get be why there aren't fundraising numbers.
 

Googleplex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
309
The AP says Jane Sanders wasn't being compensated. However, her son was bringing home 100k a year for running the foundation, which means around 17% of the foundation's entire fundraising went to him. Nothing unusual about that!
The hypocrisy of Bernie railing on the Clinton foundation while this shit was going on is astounding.
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,285
The AP says Jane Sanders wasn't being compensated. However, her son was bringing home 100k a year for running the foundation, which means around 17% of the foundation's entire fundraising went to him. Nothing unusual about that!
Bernie is a hypocritical grifter. Truly shocking news!
 

BigWeather

Member
Nov 4, 2017
610
That Cult of the Dead Cow -- where's the name come from? Anything to do with the old way of marking uninitialized memory as hex DEADBEEF?
 

Iolo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,220
Britain
So I read that Beto's court packing scheme he mentioned a couple days ago involves Democrats picking 5 judges, Republicans picking 5 judges, and then those judges picking 5 more judges! Which I thought was naive, unconstitutional, further cements two party rule, and finally, gives too much power to the judiciary.

But then I heard Buttigieg suggested the exact same thing two weeks ago on Pod Save America:

https://crooked.com/podcast/2020-pete-buttigieg-on-freedom-and-farting-cows/

So I'm thinking

  1. Who is advising Petey B of this nonsense?
  2. Did Beto just rip this idea off Buttigieg?
Oh ... and also Beto suggested maybe rotating judges into SCOTUS, after Buttigieg suggested rotating judges up from the appellate court. It all seems very coincidental.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,282
So I read that Beto's court packing scheme he mentioned a couple days ago involves Democrats picking 5 judges, Republicans picking 5 judges, and then those judges picking 5 more judges! Which I thought was naive, unconstitutional, further cements two party rule, and finally, gives too much power to the judiciary.

But then I heard Buttigieg suggested the exact same thing two weeks ago on Pod Save America:

https://crooked.com/podcast/2020-pete-buttigieg-on-freedom-and-farting-cows/

So I'm thinking

  1. Who is advising Petey B of this nonsense?
  2. Did Beto just rip this idea off Buttigieg?
Oh ... and also Beto suggested maybe rotating judges into SCOTUS, after Buttigieg suggested rotating judges up from the appellate court. It all seems very coincidental.
I will say, if the potential make-up of a SCOTUS panel was fluid, I think we'd see less nonsense laws and cases being passed and filed. Too much of what happens is triggered by what the court make-up is.
 

patientzero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,432
Well don't give me the cliff notes for the whole book! I'm going to read it :P
Good point!

Is it obvious that I desperately want to be back in front of a classroom assigning textbooks?

So I read that Beto's court packing scheme he mentioned a couple days ago involves Democrats picking 5 judges, Republicans picking 5 judges, and then those judges picking 5 more judges! Which I thought was naive, unconstitutional, further cements two party rule, and finally, gives too much power to the judiciary.

But then I heard Buttigieg suggested the exact same thing two weeks ago on Pod Save America:

https://crooked.com/podcast/2020-pete-buttigieg-on-freedom-and-farting-cows/

So I'm thinking

  1. Who is advising Petey B of this nonsense?
  2. Did Beto just rip this idea off Buttigieg?
Oh ... and also Beto suggested maybe rotating judges into SCOTUS, after Buttigieg suggested rotating judges up from the appellate court. It all seems very coincidental.
Ya know, I keep having this sinking feeling that although I have a general feeling of positivity for Beto I wonder if he isn't the Democratic version of Scott Walker, a guy who can speak in the general platitudes of the party but doesn't have much else going on upstairs.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,219
So I read that Beto's court packing scheme he mentioned a couple days ago involves Democrats picking 5 judges, Republicans picking 5 judges, and then those judges picking 5 more judges! Which I thought was naive, unconstitutional, further cements two party rule, and finally, gives too much power to the judiciary.

But then I heard Buttigieg suggested the exact same thing two weeks ago on Pod Save America:

https://crooked.com/podcast/2020-pete-buttigieg-on-freedom-and-farting-cows/

So I'm thinking

  1. Who is advising Petey B of this nonsense?
  2. Did Beto just rip this idea off Buttigieg?
Oh ... and also Beto suggested maybe rotating judges into SCOTUS, after Buttigieg suggested rotating judges up from the appellate court. It all seems very coincidental.
I would assume something like that would just be a way of selling it to the public without opening oneself up to accusations of blatant partisanship, while also avoiding setting a shitty precedent.

Like sure, the next Dem president could just add two justices. But then there's nothing stopping the next GOP president from adding two more once they assume power, and then just continually one-upping one another.

I'm of the mind that court reform should be more about divorcing the judiciary from the executive branch. "Gotta vote the party so we win SCOTUS" is a pretty lousy spot to be in.

That being said, you're probably right that a scheme like this would need a Constitutional amendment to work, and I don't know how you'd account for third parties. I certainly wouldn't expect it to just say flat out "Democrats get 5, Republicans get 5" because either party could easily die off.
 

thefro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,515
So I read that Beto's court packing scheme he mentioned a couple days ago involves Democrats picking 5 judges, Republicans picking 5 judges, and then those judges picking 5 more judges! Which I thought was naive, unconstitutional, further cements two party rule, and finally, gives too much power to the judiciary.

But then I heard Buttigieg suggested the exact same thing two weeks ago on Pod Save America:

https://crooked.com/podcast/2020-pete-buttigieg-on-freedom-and-farting-cows/

So I'm thinking

  1. Who is advising Petey B of this nonsense?
  2. Did Beto just rip this idea off Buttigieg?
Oh ... and also Beto suggested maybe rotating judges into SCOTUS, after Buttigieg suggested rotating judges up from the appellate court. It all seems very coincidental.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/9/6/17827786/kavanaugh-vote-supreme-court-packing

The idea's from two professors, Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman. Not sure if Beto first heard it from Pete's interviews (Beto has said he listens to PSA) or if he got that from the original Vox article/study.
 

Soul Skater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,367
Personally I sort of like the idea of just taking the appointing of judges out of the hands of politicians all together

Same thing with gerrymandering. Don’t let politicians draw maps


Who do we get to do it??..idk.. maybe aliens or computers or something.
 

Raster

Member
Feb 28, 2018
1,893
There's already a genetic algorithm that redraws the district maps to not be gerrymandered. There's nothing wrong with using technology for this, unless you're talking about sensitive topics like race where AI is prone to discrimination.
 

nazgul_hunter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,133
Personally I sort of like the idea of just taking the appointing of judges out of the hands of politicians all together

Same thing with gerrymandering. Don’t let politicians draw maps


Who do we get to do it??..idk.. maybe aliens or computers or something.
In my home country, the bar association nominates judges and they get confirmed by the Congress. They also have term limits
 
Status
Not open for further replies.