|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Everything you wrote is correct, except Biden didn’t simply aim at those people - he tied those people to specific political positions on the other side of the aisle. The Republican party has very much seized on the ability to rule and gather power from minority consent and that by and large uses that power to continue to enshrine their ability to do so while also passing laws that are far outside the opinion of even people who vote for them because they have little accountability to the people. I think it's fair for Biden to poo poo stupid policies that most people don't actually like. You can't separate the erosion of democracy from the laws that pass or will potentially pass because of the erosion of democracy.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
"Not all conservatives" is as idiotic as "not all men" when it comes to recognizing the systemic and institutional causes for why Jan 6th happened and who caused it, it didn't materialize out of thin air because of Termp. It's the same extremist rhetorical drum that's been beating since at least Reagan, preying upon the underlying irrational fears of a changing world, and these dumb fuckers have finally caught the car and are running the asylum, to mix my metaphors a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:there’s a whole lot more pro-choice people who voted republican figuring they didn’t mean it Not true. 24 percent of pro-choice crossed over vs 23 percent pro lifers. Statistical push. Timeless Appeal posted:The Republican party has very much seized on the ability to rule and gather power from minority consent and that by and large uses that power to continue to enshrine their ability to do so while also passing laws that are far outside the opinion of even people who vote for them because they have little accountability to the people. I think it's fair for Biden to poo poo stupid policies that most people don't actually like. You can't separate the erosion of democracy from the laws that pass or will potentially pass because of the erosion of democracy. That’s a weird track to take, especially on abortion, since Roe was by definition an undemocratic decision. Where’s the hand-wringing been for the last 45 years? At any rate, like I said in my initial post, the Democrats have the power to pass their own law and resolve this in the next 5 minutes. They’re positioning themselves as the mainstream vs MAGA party, so that should be a slam dunk, and presumably democracy in action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:"Not all conservatives" is as idiotic as "not all men" when it comes to recognizing the systemic and institutional causes for why Jan 6th happened and who caused it, it didn't materialize out of thin air because of Termp. It's the same extremist rhetorical drum that's been beating since at least Reagan, preying upon the underlying irrational fears of a changing world, and these dumb fuckers have finally caught the car and are running the asylum, to mix my metaphors a bit. I’d argue more since Goldwater. Doesn’t change the substance of your point, other than to say this rot in the GOP is over half a century old.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Not true. 24 percent of pro-choice crossed over vs 23 percent pro lifers. Statistical push. Biden would love to do that, but he's two votes short in the senate. The president can't compel Dem senators to do vote his way. Even Trump got almost nothing passed in his four years because of infighting among GOP senators.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:That’s a weird track to take, especially on abortion, since Roe was by definition an undemocratic decision. -- We're currently faced with a unique court in which a great deal of the court were nominated by Presidents who did not win the popular vote, and one of them was only able to be nominated because the Republican senate abandoned their constitutional duty. -- You're thinking of democracy in terms of just mechanism, and not ideology. While the court is the least democratic branch, that doesn't mean it doesn't have any connection to the will of the people. As much as originalists would like to pretend otherwise, the courts are influenced by public opinion. There is a reason that you can find a court that is essentially endorsing eugenics at one point in history and not later. The court at some level does account for changes in opinion. The court deciding to undo decided law--something many of them implied that they wouldn't do when asked by our elected officials who confirmed them--and then one of them, as an aside, being like, "And yeah, we should take away rights from gay people" is actually bizarre. Thomas genuinely doesn't give a poo poo about the wants or the needs of the people. Roe was a decision that very much did try to find a compromise based on national and regional sentiments. -- The court isn't really relevant to the conversation. As bad as I think the decision to overturn Roe is, all these states could implement 20 week bans, make exceptions for rape, incest, physical health, and children impregnated, and while people like me would disagree, they would be serving a mainstream opinion. The Dobbs decision didn't demand that Ohio--a state where the population has pretty moderate abortion views--try to force a child to give birth to her rapist's baby. The problem is that Republican leaders know that they can gain power without mandate and then just ignore what is a mainstream opinion. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Sep 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Not true. 24 percent of pro-choice crossed over vs 23 percent pro lifers. Statistical push. Because Un-Democratically giving rights and freedom over their bodies to Women is better the Un-Democratically taking them away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:I’d argue more since Goldwater. You're probably right, I'm not as familiar with the Goldwater period. I think some of this reactionary stuff probably dates back to the business plot and the desire to claw the US back from the brink of potential social progress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:You're probably right, I'm not as familiar with the Goldwater period. I think some of this reactionary stuff probably dates back to the business plot and the desire to claw the US back from the brink of potential social progress. just as an aside, "before the storm" by rick perlstein, along with the follow-ups "nixonland" and "the invisible bridge" are a great big picture history of how the modern republican party started to take shape in the wake of the post new deal democratic party dynasty. first book starts with goldwater, the second continues with nixon, and the last caps off with reagan. really entertaining reads filled with constant reminders that what's past is prologue edit: and of course, if you keep tracing the reactionary stuff back even further than 60 years, you end up going pretty directly back to all of the psychic trauma and pathology from creating, enforcing, and maintaining slavery GhostofJohnMuir fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Sep 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:just as an aside, "before the storm" by rick perlstein, along with the follow-ups "nixonland" and "the invisible bridge" are a great big picture history of how the modern republican party started to take shape in the wake of the post new deal democratic party dynasty. first book starts with goldwater, the second continues with nixon, and the last caps off with reagan. really entertaining reads filled with constant reminders that what's past is prologue Nice, thanks for the recs. I've heard of Nixonland before and it's already on my "to read" list. I've been reading Dark Money, and I'm not sure how much overlap there is or how well regarded it is compared to those.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
The Perlstein trilogy has a fourth part now, Reaganland, though I haven't had the time to read it myself yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 06:43
|
|
|
thanks for the heads up, definitely going to get that from the library asap
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Just as a heads-up, he had gone to online citations with Invisible Bridge, but they're back in print in Reaganland so it weighs more than a thousand thousand suns. I mean, I still bought a copy, but it's like a goddamn dictionary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
After The Power Broker no one will take a politics book seriously unless it’s the size, shape, and mass of a cinder block
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Special master granted. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1566820031492677634?s=20&t=6rYZsV3o2rb7jrZLK3m2pg Zotix fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Sep 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Special master granted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:DOJ has already reviewed everything anyway, right? Or does this change something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Yeah, getting the documents reviewed wasn’t the real goal. This is a (successful) play to run down the clock some more
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
Yeah here's the whole order too. Trump has to submit a list of potential special masters by Sept 9. Also, the DOJ can appeal. https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1566820804976955397
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:DOJ has already reviewed everything anyway, right? Or does this change something? I believe their taint team reviewed it for attorney client privileged items that the investigation team should not have access to, but the investigation team has not necessarily reviewed everything and they would need continued access to the documents for their criminal investigation anyway. Also, this Chudge is putting executive privilege back on the table and presumably wants the special master to review with EP in mind (not just attorney client privilege), which is completely loving nuts. It would potentially pull back many documents that the Feds need from being permitted to be used in their criminal investigation. The expectation is that this order is ultimately going to be overturned or set aside by someone, somewhere but that it could delay everything for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:The Perlstein trilogy has a fourth part now, Reaganland, though I haven't had the time to read it myself yet. It's as good as expected. And a good companion piece to it is The Clothes Have No Emperor by Paul Slansky which is a must read for anyone that thinks Trump is some unique evil. It's full of anecdotes that could be easily mistaken for Trump administration anecdotes if the names were changed. One of my favorites is Reagan giving a speech about how a blind man begged him to help save the American people by getting rid of pensions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
Is the intention for Trump to get anything incriminating excluded as privileged? Would he expect that the DOJ appeals process would eventually wind up at the Supreme Court, who obviously would do whatever Trump wants? I'm just wondering if this is a Calvinball situation where the courts will ignore laws and procedures in favor of Trump while the DOJ and experts yell that they can't do what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Srice posted:It's as good as expected. And a good companion piece to it is The Clothes Have No Emperor by Paul Slansky which is a must read for anyone that thinks Trump is some unique evil. It's full of anecdotes that could be easily mistaken for Trump administration anecdotes if the names were changed. This is what I told myself paging through it now and then during the first couple years of the Trump era, though as time went on and the wheels started to come off it got harder and harder to believe. Still, a good light into what a clown show it was then too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
The list of potential special masters they come back with is going to be wild. Who even is there that Trump hasn't burned in some way at this point that would be even approaching appropriate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
kdrudy posted:The list of potential special masters they come back with is going to be wild. Who even is there that Trump hasn't burned in some way at this point that would be even approaching appropriate? If appointed I will serve, albeit reluctantly. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1566829467292557313?s=20 All appears to be going according to plan for Donald Trump. Understandably lawyer Twitter is melting down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Is the intention for Trump to get anything incriminating excluded as privileged? Would he expect that the DOJ appeals process would eventually wind up at the Supreme Court, who obviously would do whatever Trump wants? The intention is to delay until it doesn’t matter
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
I'd certainly hate for the theft of classified nuclear secrets by a President on the way out for unknown purposes to suddenly become political
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
This decision is ludicrous and I expect it will be overturned on appeal
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This decision is ludicrous and I expect it will be overturned on appeal Hopefully yes, and along with that the investigators reviewed and added to their case everything involved before this special master was allowed by the judge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This decision is ludicrous and I expect it will be overturned on appeal Bad news about the courts an appeal goes through
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
kdrudy posted:The list of potential special masters they come back with is going to be wild. Who even is there that Trump hasn't burned in some way at this point that would be even approaching appropriate? When Trump's team first requested a special master, they also included some suggestions. https://twitter.com/ItsMattsLaw/status/1564398971476475915 That said, I think all of them have publicly expressed skepticism of Trump's executive privilege claims, so I'm not sure how serious this list was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
I'm expecting Trump to put forward a wacky list of people who all have various problems that would make it very difficult to get a security clearance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I'm expecting Trump to put forward a wacky list of people who all have various problems that would make it very difficult to get a security clearance. I assume Giuliani is going to be on the list, maybe Ivanka.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Also doesn’t the special master need the extremely high clearance that grants access to the most secure documents?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Also doesn’t the special master need the extremely high clearance that grants access to the most secure documents? Yes, which is a big part of why I was assuming the judge would stick with a hodgepodgey taint team drawn largely from Cia lawyers and such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
If they can gum things up and delay things for as long as it takes to get a clearance then they'll get like a year of delay just on that alone. Clearance reviews are so ridiculously back logged it's obscene. So, hooray, Republican obstructionism and destruction of institutions works for them again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Also doesn’t the special master need the extremely high clearance that grants access to the most secure documents? All part of the game, the next step will be "We have to delay because we cannot agree on a special master"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
kdrudy posted:I assume Giuliani is going to be on the list, maybe Ivanka. Michael Flynn. And/or his brother. Should have (or previously had) the proper security clearances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Srice posted:One of my favorites is Reagan giving a speech about how a blind man begged him to help save the American people by getting rid of pensions. Which is ironic since he himself got a Presidential pension.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 20:49
|
|
