|
Byzantine posted:That's also the period where the Democrats swung right economically, were just as poo poo on gay marriage or antiwar messaging, openly called themselves Reagan Republicans, and the single most powerful pro-democrat messaging was The West Wing. You mean ]Reagan Democrats? Because "Reagan Republicans" were just Republicans. The Dems who backed Reagan were called Reagan Democrats. Of course, the problem here is that the Democrats who swung right and backed Reagan weren't Dem leaders, they were Dem voters. While the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon is surprisingly poorly-studied, the general historical consensus is that they were northern blue-collar whites who were generally dissatisfied with Carter's performance as president and thought the Dems were too far left on the economy, racial issues, and war/national security. Unlike Democrats For Nixon, the Reagan Democrats were (as far as anyone knows) largely a spontaneous grassroots movement rather than an organized effort. Granted, there was an official "Democrats For Reagan" organization founded in late 1980 as an October Surprise, but it was extremely halfassed and as far as I can tell basically no one cared about it or took it seriously. In any case, we can't forget the reason for that rightward swing by the Dems: because left-leaning candidates were getting absolutely loving thrashed by the Republicans over and over, while conservative Dems found themselves doing well - particularly Bill Clinton, who was able to unseat an incumbent Republican who had won in a massive landslide just four years prior. From 1968 to 1988, the GOP won every presidential election except for the one following Nixon's resignation. What really reestablished conservatism in the Democrats was Bill Clinton showing that his conservative policies could win where liberals like McGovern and Dukakis had failed.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In any case, we can't forget the reason for that rightward swing by the Dems: because left-leaning candidates were getting absolutely loving thrashed by the Republicans over and over, while conservative Dems found themselves doing well - particularly Bill Clinton, who was able to unseat an incumbent Republican who had won in a massive landslide just four years prior. From 1968 to 1988, the GOP won every presidential election except for the one following Nixon's resignation. What really reestablished conservatism in the Democrats was Bill Clinton showing that his conservative policies could win where liberals like McGovern and Dukakis had failed. You're not wrong, but let's not pretend that left-leaning Dems weren't getting trashed by other Dems too. That was the reason why the 1968 convention was such a spectacular poo poo-show, and these morons kept it going even while candidates were being literally murdered. e: "it" being furious in-fighting Rappaport fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Aug 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Alan Alda was a Republican on the West Wing, though. The two judge SCOTUS swap with Glenn Close and William Fichtner...I cannot describe how not possible that would be. Good TV though.   Call me a cynic if you must but I don't think that congressional republicans are addressing this issue in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:You're not wrong, but let's not pretend that left-leaning Dems weren't getting trashed by other Dems too. That was the reason why the 1968 convention was such a spectacular poo poo-show, and these morons kept it going even while candidates were being literally murdered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Not trashed, thrashed - as in, they were losing elections by very large margins. But yes, there have always been anti-leftist elements in the Democratic party, of course. It was, after all, the official pro-racism party until shortly before said disastrous 1968 convention, and that was only 55 years ago, and that wing of the party didn't lose the last pockets of its representation until early this century. Clinton may have brought hippie-punching into the "mainstream" of the Democratic party, but like MPF says, it really, really, really seemed to be what the voters wanted. Right, but then we get to the other end of the argument, are political parties there to gather voters or to propagate views? I will cop to being from a country with a not-FPTP-voting system, so it's a different kettle of fish, but it's not like triangulating to be the best, most wonkiest wonk to have ever wonked at the voters worked out that great either, see 2016. And going back to the presidential Clinton, he ushered in the era of Newt, which certainly was a trajectory that was laid out beforehand, but arguably that's when the truly unhinged "drown the government in the tub" ideas really got traction. Right now the conversation is around dismantling abortion rights, which is not going very well for the Republicans to say the least. And I'm not saying "economical anxiety!!!!" will bring back chuds from their weird internet hell-holes. It just seems a little cart before the horse reasoning that the Dems should avoid testy subjects because they got "trashed" by a professional actor 40 years ago. I realize your media landscape is... Testy, but president Joe seems to be doing sort of OK despite being more left than most folks, myself included, assumed when he took office.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Right, but then we get to the other end of the argument, are political parties there to gather voters or to propagate views? I will cop to being from a country with a not-FPTP-voting system, so it's a different kettle of fish, but it's not like triangulating to be the best, most wonkiest wonk to have ever wonked at the voters worked out that great either, see 2016. And going back to the presidential Clinton, he ushered in the era of Newt, which certainly was a trajectory that was laid out beforehand, but arguably that's when the truly unhinged "drown the government in the tub" ideas really got traction. Newt didn't rise to power because Clinton was a right-appeasing business centrist, he rose to power because of right-wing backlash against the guy who tried to do things like nationalize health care, let gays serve in the military, and openly treat his wife as an equal in their relationship. With a massive number of voters behind them, even if oddly enough many liked Clinton personally enough to keep voting for him while their Congressional votes turned hard right.. After that, Clinton spent six years negotiating down bills passed by a veto-proof majority of Republicans and the right of his own party. Clinton was a centrist, but he was in a party still loaded with a lot of actual conservatives, (some of which, admittedly, had a union card to go with their Klan hood.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
That's fair, "ushered in" was a poor choice of words.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Right now the conversation is around dismantling abortion rights, which is not going very well for the Republicans to say the least. And I'm not saying "economical anxiety!!!!" will bring back chuds from their weird internet hell-holes. It just seems a little cart before the horse reasoning that the Dems should avoid testy subjects because they got "trashed" by a professional actor 40 years ago. I realize your media landscape is... Testy, but president Joe seems to be doing sort of OK despite being more left than most folks, myself included, assumed when he took office. I might be misreading this, but Democrats aren't avoiding economic issues either. There isn't as much of it because it's 15 months to the next major election, but if you look at Biden's social media or speeches like half of it is the economy. The media (not just Fox News) makes it harder to communicate though. There's a lot of reporting on how Republicans think we're in a recession and they might have a point, very little on how recovered faster from 2020 than 2008 in part because the government spent more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Right, but then we get to the other end of the argument, are political parties there to gather voters or to propagate views? I will cop to being from a country with a not-FPTP-voting system, so it's a different kettle of fish, but it's not like triangulating to be the best, most wonkiest wonk to have ever wonked at the voters worked out that great either, see 2016. And going back to the presidential Clinton, he ushered in the era of Newt, which certainly was a trajectory that was laid out beforehand, but arguably that's when the truly unhinged "drown the government in the tub" ideas really got traction. Neither, really. They're groupings of different factions with differing ideological views, who've come together under a single umbrella because they can't win by themselves. In a parliamentary system, the US parties would be more like coalitions, except more stable because these individual factions don't necessarily have independent political machinery of their own. The party platform is something negotiated between these different factions, with each faction's negotiating power based largely on how much political success their candidates have been able to achieve and how much support they can draw. Not too different from how a parliamentary coalition's policies can change because some of the parties in that coalition lost seats while others gained them. Clinton's win and reelection in an era with few Democratic presidents gave the conservative Dems a massive shot in the arm, because the sitting president is effectively the party leader, and many Clinton loyalists moved up in the party and into places where they could have long-lasting impact on policy. Not necessarily unreasonably, either. When Barack Obama was looking for staffers and advisors, he tapped a lot of people who'd been in Clinton's administration, because they were the only Democrats around who had experience doing staffing and advising for a president.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1690088527634034689?s=46&t=A_iY-gupVf13dcIJPetZhQ For violating the gag order by sharing personal writings of his gf with a NYT reporter
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
But surely a reporter wouldn't tell anyone! - a cryptogenius
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Eason the Fifth posted:But surely a reporter wouldn't tell anyone! - a cryptogenius Funnily, controlling secrets is what cryptography is originally for in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
I hate how butt coins have ruined the word root crypto. like how many legit crypto-computer science(and other?) stuff things get spam mail for coin poo poo. or worse, crypto biology/zoology get coin poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 22:28
|
|
|
Cryptozoologists deserve to be hounded by bitcoin freaks. And vice versa, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
But now when you hear cryptofascist, you have to think "wait, like a fascist who pretends they aren't, or like a fascist into cryptocurrency?" I mean, you don't have to think that because there's a lot of overlap there, but there might be some confusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Cryptozoologists deserve to be hounded by bitcoin freaks. And vice versa, honestly. They're the fun and quirky end of the kook spectrum and should be playfully encouraged as diversion from toxic conspiracy thinking, imo. Reminds me of a simpler time when outsiders would call Coast-to-Coast to share stories about angel abductions, chupacabras in the garage, or gnomes stealing pies while they cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
I'm reminded of Disco Elysium placing a character named (by the UI) Gary the Cryptofacisct right beside a character named Morell, the Cryptozoologist - I talked to the latter first (I think the game kind of leads you to) and had to double take when I talked to that first one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Yeah for as decent as the politics of the West Wing are overall, the show definitely continues the American tradition of writing politicians with completely unrealistic politics in order to avoid alienating half their audience. The politics of the West Wing are dog poo poo. It just has a bunch of great actors who could make a phone book sound interesting, and played opposite of the Bush II Administration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Showing childrens of different races holding hands is "an agenda" and (somehow) traumatizing Got it. Why don't these parents of that traumatized kid tell him to suck it up, snowflake?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
The real victim is the harmless and helpful Cryptkeeper
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
zoux posted:The real victim is the harmless and helpful Cryptkeeper And your friendly neighborhood superdog
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Showing childrens of different races holding hands is "an agenda" and (somehow) traumatizing It's the same bullshit as teaching that America isn't/wasn't the perfect country traumatizes the children and makes them feel bad for being White. It's definitely the woke schools, and not the racist parents, who are making little Timmy identify deeply with the values of his great-great-great-great-grandpa and feel attacked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's the same bullshit as teaching that America isn't/wasn't the perfect country traumatizes the children and makes them feel bad for being White. It's definitely the woke schools, and not the racist parents, who are making little Timmy identify deeply with the values of his great-great-great-great-grandpa and feel attacked. So me and all the black kids I went to school with, where we only ever learned about two black people in all of US History, MLK and George Washington Carver (he invented the peanut!)...that was the good version of history and we need to go back to that? Probably we should get rid of those images of Chinese and Black people building the loving rail system while we're at it. That Rosa Parks lady was a little uppity if you ask me. Could be traumatizing to the white kids on that bus. *SIGH* I swear, man, these tough rear end MAGA people are the most easily triggered people I've ever been around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's the same bullshit as teaching that America isn't/wasn't the perfect country traumatizes the children and makes them feel bad for being White. It's definitely the woke schools, and not the racist parents, who are making little Timmy identify deeply with the values of his great-great-great-great-grandpa and feel attacked. It's tantamount to saying "we can't put a stop to prejudiced policies against homosexuals because there's prejudice against homosexuals," except those making the argument 99% of the time shared said prejudices, so it just ends up as the most transparently hypocritical "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" argument ever. Enver Zogha fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Aug 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 01:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You mean ]Reagan Democrats? Because "Reagan Republicans" were just Republicans. The Dems who backed Reagan were called Reagan Democrats. No, I meant things like Obama saying his policies would make him a Republican in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 01:52
|
|
|
Enver Zogha posted:I'm reminded how there were plenty of people back in the 2000s seriously arguing that marriage and adoption on the part of same-sex couples is bad because think of all the bullying their kids will experience in schools when other kids hear that kid has two fathers or two mothers. That itself was just a retread against the exact same argument made by totally-not-racist people about interracial marriage. "Of course it's not objectively wrong, but it's irresponsible because of how the children will be treated!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 01:53
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:No, I meant things like Obama saying his policies would make him a Republican in the 80s. That was Obama trying to appeal to voters by contrasting past Republicans with contemporary Republicans (it didn't work). If you put in the effort to read the policy summaries on Obama's and Reagan's Wikipedia articles it should be easy to tell that a candidate with Obama's policy positions wouldn't have been a Republican in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Showing childrens of different races holding hands is "an agenda" and (somehow) traumatizing right? does anyone ask them to identify the form that trauma took and how the child described it? "timmy you've been crying and shaking for ten minutes, what's wrong?" "th-th-those children are different skin colors!!!" also the "agenda" part. it's part of an agenda to normalize having different skin color and reduce racism. has ANY loving "reporter" EVER loving asked that guy what HE thinks "the agenda" is? it's a basic follow up question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:That was Obama trying to appeal to voters by contrasting past Republicans with contemporary Republicans (it didn't work). If you put in the effort to read the policy summaries on Obama's and Reagan's Wikipedia articles it should be easy to tell that a candidate with Obama's policy positions wouldn't have been a Republican in the 80s. Yeah, it was very specifically done to point out that his policies that were being called "communist" were the sorts of things that used to draw bipartisan support before the crazification of the Republican party. And that much was true, even if Obama would have at best been on the by then fading liberal fringe of the Republican party by the time Reagan took it over. You don't have to go back super far for both parties to have actually been really big tents with a lot of ideological overlap, even when the dominant factions of each were distinct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:You don't have to go back super far for both parties to have actually been really big tents with a lot of ideological overlap, even when the dominant factions of each were distinct. These two were definitely outliers in their parties, but in 1935 a bunch of GOP congressmen held a private ceremony with Marcantonio where he was jokingly awarded a pink elephant pin and a scroll recognizing him as an "off-color Republican." The notion someone with such left-wing views could be in the GOP wasn't denied, just seen as quirky. I don't know how Democrats viewed McDonald, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were many who were like "we gotta work with him" à la Democrats today who urge conciliatory attitudes toward Manchin, even though McDonald makes Manchin look liberal by comparison. Enver Zogha fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Aug 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
So I guess this is a good place to ask this question: There's been news about lately on the subject of Congress passing laws concerning codes of ethics and behavior of the justices of the Supreme Court (cf Clarence Thomas). But I was wondering, were such a law to pass Congress and the President, couldn't the Supreme Court strike that law down as unconstitutional?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 03:47
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:So I guess this is a good place to ask this question: There's been news about lately on the subject of Congress passing laws concerning codes of ethics and behavior of the justices of the Supreme Court (cf Clarence Thomas). But I was wondering, were such a law to pass Congress and the President, couldn't the Supreme Court strike that law down as unconstitutional? Theoretically yes, but there actually doesn’t seem to be much evidence to suggest that they would. I mean, Alito and Thomas would, but I have no reason to think that Roberts, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh agree with them on this particular issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
Enver Zogha posted:Yeah, Congressman Larry McDonald was about as right-wing as a politician could possibly be circa 1980 yet was a Democrat. Vito Marcantonio was arguably the most radical member of Congress in the 20th century yet repeatedly won the Republican nomination in his district due to a combination of ethnic politics (many Italian-Americans and Puerto Ricans saw him as defending their interests even if they didn't entirely share his political positions) and promises of patronage. You had much of the same with the NPL in North Dakota. NPL/Republican Lynn Frazier declared martial law during the 1919 national coal strike and handed control of North Dakota's coal mines over to the miners union.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:So I guess this is a good place to ask this question: There's been news about lately on the subject of Congress passing laws concerning codes of ethics and behavior of the justices of the Supreme Court (cf Clarence Thomas). But I was wondering, were such a law to pass Congress and the President, couldn't the Supreme Court strike that law down as unconstitutional? Congress does have the Constitutional authority to restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts, including putting a law outside of SCOTUS jurisdiction, provided it isn't one of the cases where SCOTUS constitutionally has original jurisdiction. While that power often gets brought up in the context of One Weird Trick to outlaw Republicans forever or something that's never really going to be invoked, I'd think any it would be a relatively easy sell to any Congress that was passing a SCOTUS ethics regulation bill in the first place, since it's directly addressing a conflict of interest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
Gyges posted:At least we can take comfort that the GOP agrees that the Supreme Court ruling on bribes was total bullshit. Unless we've got footage of Hunter accepting a bag with a giant dollar sign drawn on it, while saying, "Thank you for this bribe, on behalf of my father, Joe Biden. A man who really wished he could be here to accept your bribe, but instead delegated it to me, Hunter Biden. His son." In retrospect, it is a little funny that just as in all other things, that bribery ruling also was projection in light of the Clarence Thomas poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 04:56
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:You don't have to go back super far for both parties to have actually been really big tents with a lot of ideological overlap, even when the dominant factions of each were distinct. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Aug 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:So I guess this is a good place to ask this question: There's been news about lately on the subject of Congress passing laws concerning codes of ethics and behavior of the justices of the Supreme Court (cf Clarence Thomas). But I was wondering, were such a law to pass Congress and the President, couldn't the Supreme Court strike that law down as unconstitutional? No reason they couldn't. There aren't very many rules-based hard limits on their power. If that seems like an unusual way of putting it, it's because there's substantial soft limits on their power. The Supreme Court is limited by tradition and convention, which is a euphemism for the fact that the other two branches of government can smack them down if they step too far out of what's seen as their role. That said, such a law is unlikely to pass. Aside from the political aspects, the enforcement of such a law would involve considerable practical difficulties, such as the fact that it would not be able to remove judges from the court as punishment for violating the rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No reason they couldn't. There aren't very many rules-based hard limits on their power. So far as I know Congress has no less ability to regulate the behavior of Supreme Court justices than they do of any other federal judges. All of which already have binding ethics guidelines imposed by Congress. Even things like required financial disclosures (Thomas exploited loopholes in these but did not break them directly to my knowledge) have already been imposed on SCOTUS by Congress. Even if such laws can't directly remove them via impeachment, they can fine the hell out of them or force them to presumably do their work from prison, just like what would happen if a judge was convicted for breaking any other law without resigning or being impeached. In short, it's purely a question of political will to pass it. Which is an uphill climb thanks to the partisan nature of need for such a law. Killer robot fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Aug 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 06:03
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:They're the fun and quirky end of the kook spectrum and should be playfully encouraged as diversion from toxic conspiracy thinking, imo. Reminds me of a simpler time when outsiders would call Coast-to-Coast to share stories about angel abductions, chupacabras in the garage, or gnomes stealing pies while they cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Froghammer posted:I hate to break it to you, but cryptozoologists have never been playful or harmless. It's always been a fig leaf for antisemitism and hardcore rightwing nonsense. Scratch the surface and there's a lot of naked bigotry in those communities. Is it bigotry essential to the belief, or is it crank magnetism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2023 14:26
|
|
