|
Mercury_Storm posted:The "working forever until you die" seems like a Boomer thing rather than just a older women thing to be honest. Many I've met are scared to retire because they figure they will never be able to get another job, or don't know what they would do with themselves afterwards. Again, as others have said: Feinstein is not a boomer. eta: And post-senatorial careers have never been scarce, even for demented olds.
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Relevant: There is a 95-year-old appeals court judge who is fighting tooth and nail to stay on the bench despite obvious and severe cognitive decline and a clear procedure to be followed in this situation.quote:In March, Federal Circuit Chief Judge Moore confirmed the investigation into Newman’s health, detailing various issues. Judge Newman heard fewer cases than her colleagues between 2021 and 2023. She issued fewer opinions. She incurred substantial delays in resolving cases. Once these matters were reassigned to other judges, they were handled swiftly. Moore convened a special committee to investigate further, pursuant to the federal judiciary rules for proceedings related to judicial conduct and judicial disability. These rules define a “disability” as “a temporary or permanent impairment, physical or mental, rendering a judge unable to discharge the duties of their judicial office.” Pursuant to Rule 13(a), medical testing can be recommended. A judge’s noncompliance can be considered evidence of misconduct. We really need to revisit the concept of "lifetime appointment" now that modern medicine can keep peoples' bodies alive for much longer than their minds haveblue fucked around with this message at 17:14 on May 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yeah and I am really, really regretting not putting in the clause "with some caveats" like I was considering. I thought it was obvious. Oh well. Except it's not true "with some caveats," it is demonstrably false for all the reasons I pointed out and plenty more. The fact that there is a relationship between votes and power does not mean it's accurate to describe them as directly related.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:And I'm pretty sure it was the first (if not the last) time a state was represented by two women in the Senate. I forgot about Snowe & Collins.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Debt ceiling talks have broken down again. Huh, weird how the Republican is frustrated while the Democrat is just "Yeah, we're going on break. Why do you ask?". I thought Biden had given in to their demands. Why would the Republican be frustrated over a pause in negotiations, after all, I thought they had nothing to lose by shutting down the government.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Except it's not true "with some caveats," it is demonstrably false for all the reasons I pointed out and plenty more. Republicans didn't get to do poo poo from 1932 until 1968, except get a President (Ike) elected who wasn't even a politician and just did whatever (the heavily Democratic) Congress wanted. Because people didn't vote for them. Sure, it's "demonstrably untrue" that 50%+1 will make your party achieve everything it wants. That's not the same as saying that political power is mostly derived from votes. And it's unsurprising, because our parties are coalition-based, so there's no actual reason to expect everyone in the party to agree on everything - which is what you need for 50%+1 to get you where you want to go. Baronash posted:The fact that there is a relationship between votes and power does not mean it's accurate to describe them as directly related. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:No way in hell they are defaulting, and no way that the House GOP would agree to anything that the White House and Senate would accept. They're going to use the 14th amendment. I think the party should act like a party and not let the whims of a few individuals gently caress over the will of tens of millions of voters. At some point you have to blame the folks in charge, and shifting the goal posts to "well you actually have to vote even more" isn't going to work out in the long run.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I think the party should act like a party Your coalition-based party in a two party system is not going to work like a party in a multi-party parliamentary democracy and it's absurd to expect them to do so. There are more than two sets of political opinions, and they are going to be represented whether you like it or not. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 17:26 on May 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:There are more than two sets of political opinions, and they are going to be represented whether you like it or not. Okay, THIS coming from someone adamantly defending establishment Democrats is incredible. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
e: eh whatever
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I forgot about Snowe & Collins. I looks like the list is -California since 1993 -Main 1997-2013 -Washington since 2001 -New Hampshire since 2011 -Minnesota since 2018 -Arizona only in 2019 -Nevada since 2019
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Dang, you're right; I'd forgotten a lot of those!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:It's not "demonstrably false," it's just that it's a gaussian function and not a binary one. If everybody gets half, pretty much nothing happens. For every bit more than half each side gets, they accomplish a bit more of their goals. If you get 33% of the vote, you're not getting any of what you want. If you get 66%, you're getting everything you want. In between those, there's a spectrum. There's no way to avoid votes, and the offices those votes afford you, affecting your ability to make policy. Popular vote totals were 1,350,083 votes for Republicans, and 1,124,962 votes for Democrats. Obviously there were some third party votes but I'm not going to run the county by county totals again at this moment so I'm referencing Wikipedia. In percentage terms, 53.6% for Republicans, and 44.6% for Democrats. Despite this, the makeup of the Wisconsin State Assembly is 64 Republican seats, and 35 Democratic seats. In percentage terms, 64.6% and 34.3% respectively. The WisDems actually lost 3 seats despite performing slightly better than 2020. That's not even the worst example in recent memory. Democratic voters delivered in Wisconsin in 2018, making up 53% of the state assembly votes, yet only receiving 36 seats out of a total of 99. Someone is bound to tell me how it's not a completely fair comparison because of the effects that districting has on voter motivation, and so I'll reiterate my point: power is determined by whose votes you get and how you use the structures of the state to entrench that power. Wisconsin is just a particularly egregious example. More importantly, this isn't even getting into the lasting impact that political appointees can have on government agencies, which, contrary to your claims here, do have a significant impact on policy even with thin majorities or divided governments. Mellow Seas posted:Hmm. We might be having a semantic argument here. The key word there is "directly" as in a direct relationship.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
I never claimed that %VOTES=%POWER. (I can understand the misinterpretation.) But if you don't see how there's a strong correlation there, probably the strongest correlation of any actual quantifiable concept you could conceive of, then I don't know what to tell you. Anyway this isn't "current events" so I'm dropping it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
I doubt the dude who bribes Clarence Thomas wants to see his wealth get wrecked.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Except it's not true "with some caveats," it is demonstrably false for all the reasons I pointed out and plenty more. The fact that there is a relationship between votes and power does not mean it's accurate to describe them as directly related. Power is a function of votes, that does not mean that function is f{x}=y. The fact the United States has a bicameral legislature and electoral college, and 50%+1 popular votes isn't control, is such a basic and obvious fact for anyone politically active enough to be posting in this thread that the idea of you calling someone out for not explicitly caveating the details of that system into a simple statement is ridiculous. The existence of a non-1:1 relationship is well known to everyone posting here and immaterial to the point that was being made and adds nothing to the discussion. It's just a derail over semantics that serves as nothing but a smug gotcha.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Hard disagree. The main rule is "how much power you have is determined by whose votes you get and how effectively you bend state apparatuses to maintain that power." Republicans have no problem understanding this. When Scalia died, they stole a Supreme Court seat. The difficult to swallow pill is, Democrats obviously have no problem understanding it either. They suborned the people’s will by bribing a Republican-siding Senator and stole control of the entire Senate just a few decades ago! But let’s focus on the statement “they stole a Supreme Court seat” and lay out a few ways the Democrats, and their own power-flexing contributed to that outcome - and by extension, losing Roe. Democrats crossed the Rubicon by allowing Senate rules to be changed by a simple majority instead of 2/3rd vote. They then set the stage by effectively disbanding judicial filibuster. Bill Clinton decided a private meeting with the Attorney General deciding his wife’s case was nbd, meaning she had to recuse herself and led to the release of the Comey letter which almost certainly lost Hillary the election. Any one of those things going differently would most likely mean a less conservative SCOTUSs replacement, and they’re all examples of Democrats taking their elected authority and pulling levers of power. They’re good at it! They’re just not owned by the far left in the way Republicans are by their own extremis groups.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Power is a function of votes, that does not mean that function is f{x}=y. I have posted multiple specific examples of power being wielded not just in accordance with "the system," but to actively alter the processes and institutions of government in order to entrench that power. I would say that any understanding of power that doesn't account for those is, at best, oversimplified, and more likely just wrong. If you want to call that obvious, fine, but the person I replied to argued me on each of those points so that probably suggests it isn't. Baronash fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:The Democratic party establishment will never allow her to become the nominee, and even if she somehow made it to the general, the US electorate would never willingly choose a woman for president, I don't want to reopen old discussions, and I might just be missing sarcasm here, but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote¹, and AOC is way more charismatic than Hillary Clinton. ¹autocorrect almost made this "the popular vore". 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I have posted multiple specific examples of power being wielded not just in accordance with "the system," but to actively alter the processes and institutions of government in order to entrench that power. I would say that any understanding of power that doesn't account for those is, at best, oversimplified, and honestly just wrong. If you want to call that obvious, fine, but the person I replied to argued me on each of those points so that probably suggests it isn't. No you didn't. You pointed out examples of people wielding power afforded to them because they got votes, and an example of power being wielded illegitimately that was immediately halted by "the system". This has already been pointed out to you but you've chosen to ignore the rebuttal that was made. People arguing with a dumb semantic derail is not, and has never been, evidence that it isn't a dumb semantic derail. Are you really trying to use the fact someone argued with you in D&D as evidence you're making a worthwhile point? The original point being made is that more votes are necessary to have the power needed to enact things we want. Nothing you have posted has addressed that point, you're just quibbling about the exact wording of it because you somehow think the existence of parliamentary maneuvering or voting systems that aren't a direct popular election is revelatory to anyone in this thread or cogent to the original point being addressed?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I have posted multiple specific examples of power being wielded not just in accordance with "the system," but to actively alter the processes and institutions of government in order to entrench that power. I would say that any understanding of power that doesn't account for those is, at best, oversimplified, and more likely just wrong. If you want to call that obvious, fine, but the person I replied to argued me on each of those points so that probably suggests it isn't. Jarmak posted:Power is a function of votes, that does not mean that function is f{x}=y. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 18:30 on May 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
Even with her cowardice and betrayal of recent years, AOC is too far left to ever be allowed to become the nominee, so her electability is moot.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
Tim Scott has formally filed to run for President. IIRC this isn't a surprise. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tim-scott-lone-black-republican-us-senate-announces-white-house-bid-2023-05-19/ I feel like that rather glowing Reuters article isn't the first time I've seen him referenced as whatever a "compassionate conservative" was supposed to be, so maybe some of the ostensible moderates are trying to bring back that phrase. It also references something I missed in the 2022 cycle; one of his big backers is Larry Ellison.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:I don't want to reopen old discussions, and I might just be missing sarcasm here, but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote¹, and AOC is way more charismatic than Hillary Clinton. AOC has a very good likelihood of becoming president . . . In like 2032 or 2040 or so, after enough boomers are dead and she represents the political median.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The original point being made is that more votes are necessary to have the power needed to enact things we want. No, the original point being made was this: Mellow Seas posted:The main rule is "how much power you have is determined by how many votes you get." Baronash posted:power is determined by whose votes you get and how you use the structures of the state to entrench that power.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
Baronash posted:No, the original point being made was this: It depends. To give an extreme example, if the Dems were getting 90% of the votes and the GOP was only getting 10% of the votes, it would be extremely difficult to structure things to grant the GOP a majority, and doing so would almost certainly provoke a significant blowback that wouldn't necessarily be confined to just electoral politics.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
Baronash posted:No, the original point being made was this: You've selectively edited that quote to only contain a small part of the original statement:. Mellow Seas posted:
The point being made was we can't get what we want without more votes.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:That's not what parties are like, though. That is an imaginary definition. It's not even how Republicans work. Yes, of course there are a plethora of opinions within the party. However, there is (or should be) only one agenda for the party, and right now the party's agenda is being blocked by its own members. Feinstein's desire to stay in power is not a matter of political opinion, ie she is not representing some need of her constituents by doing this. Quite the opposite in fact. You can't tell people to vote for Democrats to get things done, and then when they have the power to get things done, turn around and say "oops, one of the people who we told you to vote for is loving things up for everyone, vote harder next time". Obviously that is how it does work, but it is insanely undemocratic. Yes, the Democratic party is not a monolith, but we get told to vote for them as if they are a monolith anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
Baronash posted:No, the original point being made was this: Do you think the Democratic party can achieve more [lasting] power without getting more votes? Do you think that Republicans will continue maintaining their current level of power if they keep getting less votes?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It depends. To give an extreme example, if the Dems were getting 90% of the votes and the GOP was only getting 10% of the votes, it would be extremely difficult to structure things to grant the GOP a majority, and doing so would almost certainly provoke a significant blowback that wouldn't necessarily be confined to just electoral politics. Correct. As I said previously, there's a relationship between votes and power. I just find it important to actually understand that relationship rather than oversimplifying it into an axiom that has no practical use. Jarmak posted:You've selectively edited that quote to only contain a small part of the original statement:. I didn't selectively edit anything. If someone if going to declare something "the main rule" then that statement should probably stand on its own.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:¹autocorrect almost made this "the popular vore". Your autocorrect is fed by your search inputs.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Your autocorrect is fed by your search inputs.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:I don't want to reopen old discussions, and I might just be missing sarcasm here, but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote¹, and AOC is way more charismatic than Hillary Clinton. Hillary didn't win off of any sort of charisma. She won because she spent decades building up a big pile of favors owed to her and then cashed them all in in 2016 to make abso-loving-lutely sure that another Obama didn't rob her of the coronation she felt so richly entitled to. AOC doesn't even have a decade in office yet. Sure, she may be more charismatic and that will help, but it's not what will be doing the majority of the legwork for any of her hypothetical future primary runs. Byzantine posted:Even with her cowardice and betrayal of recent years, AOC is too far left to ever be allowed to become the nominee, so her electability is moot. Also this. Even if she's just offering lip service, it's still putting ideas out there that the powerbrokers in Washington don't want the proles getting into their heads and start trying to think above their station. It's one thing to let the mascot fire the t-shirt cannon and let the crowd think she's actually helping, but putting her in a run for the white house is a risk they aren't going to take until they're certain that she's ready to go the Obama route and abandon any and all leftist talk once she has her votes.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:
Sec. Clinton's mouth opened, jaw unhinged, inhuman in shape. MORE MORE MORE MORE - the crowed jeered. The souls of aborted, straight men, and gun owners were thrown into the darkening maw.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Do you think that Republicans will continue maintaining their current level of power if they keep getting less votes? Their entire agenda right now is to do just that. They're removing/shifting power away from elected positions/officials and putting more and more in the hands of a lifetime-serving judiciary that they can install and then leave other people to come pick up the pieces. The end of Roe and the (presumable) end of Chevron happened/will happen under Democratic presidents and congresses because of a Republican-appointed SCOTUS. North Carolina, facing a new governor, passed laws in the lame duck session to strip appointment powers away from the new incoming governor. Republicans at large don't really care if they have the votes, because their agenda largely marches on regardless of their number of held offices.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:Their entire agenda right now is to do just that. They're removing/shifting power away from elected positions/officials and putting more and more in the hands of a lifetime-serving judiciary that they can install and then leave other people to come pick up the pieces.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Do you think the Democratic party can achieve more [lasting] power without getting more votes? Do you think that Republicans will continue maintaining their current level of power if they keep getting less votes? For the Republican half of this question; yes. This is how authoritarian regimes around the planet are operating, and the exact path they've gone down each time to get there. They accept the outcome of democracy if they win, and if they start to lose democracy falls out a window while shooting itself in the back of the head three times. This has happened over and over in recent decades and is where Republicans are pretty explicitly headed. So, yes, I do think they can maintain their current level of power if they keep getting less votes. It's exactly what they are working on.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Correct. As I said previously, there's a relationship between votes and power. I just find it important to actually understand that relationship rather than oversimplifying it into an axiom that has no practical use. You literally selectively edited the quote to exclude the context. You hit the quote button, then deleted all but one sentence in one paragraph which reads completely different with the context removed. The paragraph builds to a conclusion, you deleted the conclusion from the quote and tried to pass off something different as the conclusion. If someone says "the main point is there's a hurricane outside and we should wear a rain coat" the point is we should wear a rain coat not that the windspeed is 75mph. Rolling in with some dumb derail about how it's technically a tropical storm is not material to that conclusion. You've gone back and quoted "the main point is there's a hurricane outside" and deleted the second half. The exact specifics of the relationship between votes and power was not material to the point. The existence of caveats or localized exceptions was not material to the point. It's a dumb gotcha completely tangential to what was being argued.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:I don't want to reopen old discussions, and I might just be missing sarcasm here, but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote¹, and AOC is way more charismatic than Hillary Clinton. People underplay Hillary a lot for some reason. She has won Gallup's most admired woman poll 22 times. The next highest is Eleanor Roosevelt with 13. For men the highest is Obama and Eisenhower with 12. She has this weird thing when she's actually doing her job, people like her. They just don't want her to campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:She literally no longer does. I was actively debating whether to put this in the past tense but ultimately figured it didn't matter. Mellow Seas posted:I'm not defending Feinstein('s handling) or RBG's stupid decisions. Then what are you doing? You mostly be saying a bunch of trivial stuff as if it supports your point, but if your point isnt that the criticism of them is unjustified, what exactly is it?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:58
|
|
