|
Ardeem posted:Don’t they need to pass a budget at some point? The existing budget goes until October. There's probably some debt ceiling shenanigans, some other crisis, or just quiet legislation that we don't hear about that will force action before then. Oh, also staffers won't get paid until it resolves.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Christianity in Russia has nothing to do with the Papacy, they're all Eastern Orthodox. The Bolsheviks didn't like religious institutions because those religious institutions were intrinsically conservative and couldn't avoid getting in the way of mass social planning (can't get the Jews to work Saturdays, can't get the Muslims to eat pork, can't get the Christians to collaborate with the Jews or Muslims) In due time, the remains of the church managed to work out a system for supporting the divine right of whoever is currently in power, but that took a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:"Intrinsically conservative" is missing the point. Divine right to rule was an actual thing both the Tzars themselves and the system strongly believed, and doing away with the empire and not the church wasn't really feasible. It is hard to overstate just how insanely behind the times the Tsarist system was, to its very end. Over and over again, Nicholas II (and to a much lesser extent Alexander III) would be thrown a lifeline by rational ministers in their government who'd figured out a way to paper over this or that gaping hole in the creaking Autocracy and right the ship in whatever the most recent crisis happened to be, only to have the Tsar refuse because it would threaten the divine right to rule of the Romanov dynasty into the future. Lenin, who was able to see a bigger picture and understand how to effectively wield power (most of the time), understood that a subordinated Church would be useful in stabilizing the early Bolshevik regime and win it grudging toleration from the wider population, and thus allowed the Church to survive in the USSR, despite it having done more than enough during the Civil War to earn it one hell of a purging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
I guess the other part of this is the... Very suspect idea that fascists will not destroy entire religions as it suits them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It is hard to overstate just how insanely behind the times the Tsarist system was, to its very end. Over and over again, Nicholas II (and to a much lesser extent Alexander III) would be thrown a lifeline by rational ministers in their government who'd figured out a way to paper over this or that gaping hole in the creaking Autocracy and right the ship in whatever the most recent crisis happened to be, only to have the Tsar refuse because it would threaten the divine right to rule of the Romanov dynasty into the future. Lenin was a true believe who only begrudgingly adjusted his policies when things like War Communism backfired during the Civil War. His workings with the Orthodox Church weren't a long-term strategy but a reaction to the fact that some of his ideas actually didn't prove as popular as he thought they might. Also, I find it very wrong to say that any organization earned themselves a "purging" from the Bolsheviks when they were the ones who started the Civil War by trying to overthrow the Provisional Russian govt. The amount of atrocities committed against religious organizations and individuals by the Soviets and their puppet states is vast, and while the Soviet relationship with religion wasn't as black and white as "religion completely banned and super persecuted", it was still pretty horrific and rightly earned Bolshevism the reputation it has a persecutor of religion. Crazy Joe Wilson fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jan 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
The clergy and state religions aren't apolitical structures, even modern liberal democracies depend upon religious leaders and structures to propagate it and carry its water, and its leaders are richly rewarded for doing so in the same manner as the nobility and aristocracy and similar are. The smart thing of course would be to break the back of the religious structures that benefit your enemy and elevate ones that on on your side, but I can't speak to the religious conditions in revolutionary Russia. I can't imagine the Orthodox church and Tsarist regimes were any more lenient to faiths that ran in opposition to them so maybe there just wasn't anything to work with. Of course fascists will destroy any faith that they believe they can gain in doing so, it's the ideological equivalent of Judge Holden from Blood Meridian and in fact every schoolkid learns about how they do exactly that in all but the most skewed classroom. I'm not sure how the midterms thread has gotten to this point, but it's a timed TVIV thread so will likely be closing whenever we actually get a House in place so if anybody thinks there's meat in here for a dedicated thread on the intersection of empire and state religion feel free to boot one up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 23:23
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Lenin was a true believe who only begrudgingly adjusted his policies when things like War Communism backfired during the Civil War. His workings with the Orthodox Church weren't a long-term strategy but a reaction to the fact that some of his ideas actually didn't prove as popular as he thought they might. Also, I find it very wrong to say that any organization earned themselves a "purging" from the Bolsheviks when they were the ones who started the Civil War by trying to overthrow the Provisional Russian govt. I say "earned" in the sense that from a Bolshevik perspective, the Church had gone all-in in resisting the apparent irresistible current of historical progress and tried every trick in its book to halt the people's revolution, thus giving the Party every right, and indeed perhaps the responsibility, to get rid of that reactionary menace to the glorious communist future that was no doubt just around the corner, not that in any objective sense they deserved to be exterminated. I do however have a hard time seeing the Orthodox Church in Russia, as opposed to individual parishioners and believers, as somehow an undeserving victim of the Bolsheviks, given the centuries-long history of it invariable siding with the strong against the weak, the Autocracy against even the very slightest murmuring of democracy or progress, and once they finally started appearing on the scene, the capitalist order against the working class. It's no accident that when the Black Hundreds went on their curbstomping rampages and pogroms they usually did so carrying icon blessed by the clergy, and when popular religious leaders bucked the trends and sided with the people as a whole they either were condemned from on high by the Church, or turned out to actually be police spies in the first place. Epic High Five posted:The clergy and state religions aren't apolitical structures, even modern liberal democracies depend upon religious leaders and structures to propagate it and carry its water, and its leaders are richly rewarded for doing so in the same manner as the nobility and aristocracy and similar are. The smart thing of course would be to break the back of the religious structures that benefit your enemy and elevate ones that on on your side, but I can't speak to the religious conditions in revolutionary Russia. I can't imagine the Orthodox church and Tsarist regimes were any more lenient to faiths that ran in opposition to them so maybe there just wasn't anything to work with. Orthodoxy was the state religion of Imperial Russia and to the very end even toleration of other flavors of Christianity were at best grudgingly tolerated. Not for nothing was official state doctrine established by arch-reactionary Tsar Nicholas I "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality." Judaism was of course the whipping boy of both state and Church throughout the Imperial period, albeit to varying degrees depending on specific circumstances and attitudes of those in power, and Islam was tolerated in those places it existed so long as the locals submitted more or less or Russian overlordship and the occasional bout of Russification. So yeah, not many other options for the Bolsheviks or other revolutionaries to turn to even if they'd had a mind so to do. quote:I'm not sure how the midterms thread has gotten to this point, To derail is the sovereign right of all posters. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Jan 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Grape posted:I'm not sure you know what the papacy is, or alternatively what brand of Christianity is the thing in Russia. They also seem to have a ridiculous notion that USSR was opposed to colonialism and imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
KillHour posted:This seems like putting a lot of faith that the democrats won't just abuse this to force a vote to replace the speaker literally every day. Nono. It's so the 'burn it to the ground' caucus can force a vote every day that goes without Biden being impeached for having a failson or some sitting democrat senator being convicted for jaywalking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
AlexDeGruven posted:Not until they have a speaker. It is required that a speaker is elected before ANY other house business can move forward. I'm sure the Senate can provide some relief on budgets if they get hamstrung for too long, but I really don't know. Why can't they just vote to change the rules and not require a speaker for some things, is there a constitutional requirement or is it just convention?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 06:14
|
|
|
because you need to have a chicken to hatch the egg that makes the chicken that says eggs aren't needed anymore. The house of the first congress of 1789 couldn't do anything for a month because it took that long for everyone to horse and buggy their way to elect a speaker. Nobody gets paid, no business happens, the office doesn't exist. There is a senior clerk keeping the lights on in the building and that's all that's going to happen until there's a speaker. The House isn't supposed to work like this. This is the first time in 100 years that the speaker of the house wasn't determined after the first day. killer_robot fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Jan 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 06:24
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:Why can't they just vote to change the rules and not require a speaker for some things, is there a constitutional requirement or is it just convention? Until there's a Speaker nobody can be sworn in as a Representative. So right now there is not only not a House of Representatives in session, there are no Representatives to vote on anything. All we have are Representative-elects who are only able to vote on who is Speaker or to adjourn. There are no rules and no way to vote to create or change rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 06:27
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Until there's a Speaker nobody can be sworn in as a Representative. So right now there is not only not a House of Representatives in session, there are no Representatives to vote on anything. All we have are Representative-elects who are only able to vote on who is Speaker or to adjourn. We've activated the Outback Steakhouse Protocol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 06:31
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:Why can't they just vote to change the rules and not require a speaker for some things, is there a constitutional requirement or is it just convention? While normally each house can change their own rules as they desire, there is a law that determines how the House gets sworn in, which requires a Speaker, and changing laws requires two functioning houses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 06:39
|
|
|
Jethro posted:While normally each house can change their own rules as they desire, there is a law that determines how the House gets sworn in, which requires a Speaker, and changing laws requires two functioning houses. SCOTUS can also change laws
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 06:52
|
|
|
The Supreme Court cannot, in fact, amend the constitution
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 08:31
|
|
|
If anything this Speakership(poo poo?) is the cherry on top of Democrats no doubt going to persist in their "We're bad? Look at these fuckwits!" -strategy for the next election. Can't really blame them, seems to get results for maintaining the status quo and doing very little when the other side is setting themselves on fire whenever they get even a little bit of power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 12:08
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The Supreme Court cannot, in fact, amend the constitution In a 6-3 decision...
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 13:31
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The Supreme Court cannot, in fact, amend the constitution They don't need to amend anything when they can just change the definition of words and suddenly the 9th amendment doesn't mean what it clearly means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:If anything this Speakership(poo poo?) is the cherry on top of Democrats no doubt going to persist in their "We're bad? Look at these fuckwits!" -strategy for the next election. Can't really blame them, seems to get results for maintaining the status quo and doing very little when the other side is setting themselves on fire whenever they get even a little bit of power. I am only a Canadian so I am not aware of most things happening in the US, but didn't Dems passed a lot of new spending though which seemed to help millions of people?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:39
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The Supreme Court cannot, in fact, amend the constitution They absolutely can by just reinterpreting it - it's the fastest and effectively the only way to change anything constitutionally with current conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I am only a Canadian so I am not aware of most things happening in the US, but didn't Dems passed a lot of new spending though which seemed to help millions of people? Yes but every time they do that (every 10-15 years) they let the Republicans control the narrative to the point where they get scared to take credit for their successes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
JosefStalinator posted:They absolutely can by just reinterpreting it - it's the fastest and effectively the only way to change anything constitutionally with current conditions. Honestly it's not that heavy a lift. The Constitution only says that the chamber shall pick a Speaker. It doesn't say when. Article 1 is explicit that each chamber gets to set its own rules. Now, how in the world they "move on" without a Speaker, I have no clue, considering all the chamber rules are premised on a Speaker being in charge and assigning committee slots, setting schedule, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:Why can't they just vote to change the rules and not require a speaker for some things, is there a constitutional requirement or is it just convention? As mentioned, they can't vote because technically none of them are representatives at the moment. They have to be sworn in every cycle, and that can't be done until there is a speaker. The only power representative-elect legislators have is to elect the speaker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I am only a Canadian so I am not aware of most things happening in the US, but didn't Dems passed a lot of new spending though which seemed to help millions of people? Yes, but any action by the Democrats, regardless of circumstance, effect or scale, is insignificant crumbs intended to block true change. True change can be identified as anything the Democrats don't or can't accomplish. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the Democrats are at the same time too strong and too weak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The Supreme Court cannot, in fact, amend the constitution So about those well regulated militias.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
As whacked out as the SCOTUS is, I don't think "loving around with Legislative/Judicial separation of powers and causing a constitutional crisis" is on the Federalist Society agenda
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I am only a Canadian so I am not aware of most things happening in the US, but didn't Dems passed a lot of new spending though which seemed to help millions of people? Yes on things that people want too, broadly popular things. But every midterm, with the exception of 2002, in the modern era swings back to the party out of power. Part of this is because: 1) The party out of power reorganizes and gets energized. 2) The party IN power has more seats to defend. 3) The American public and the need to "balance" the government for ~ Reasons ~. It doesn't matter if the opposition promises to kick a puppy, we need opposition. 4) The American media's need to keep up narratives on spending, balance, and status quo issues. After all, nothing shows balance like stenography from the Republican Party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Yes on things that people want too, broadly popular things. But every midterm, with the exception of 2002, in the modern era swings back to the party out of power. Part of this is because: And 1998. The rule just doesn't seem to be as strict as some people like to imply. I think of your list #2 is the biggest. The modern era has a lot of presidential victories that were very lopsided, and they tended to have a strong coattail effect. It only makes sense that midterms following those elections would see regression toward the mean. Close elections usually don't have such coattail effects, so they're naturally going to lack a similar springback in the midterm even if the other factors are still there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
1998 and 2002 were notable because the President had very high approval ratings in those elections (backlash to the Lewinsky investigations, and 9/11 rally-round-the-flag effects respectively). One reason the GOP underperformance this year was so surprising was that it happened despite Biden's approval being in the toilet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:1998 and 2002 were notable because the President had very high approval ratings in those elections (backlash to the Lewinsky investigations, and 9/11 rally-round-the-flag effects respectively). One reason the GOP underperformance this year was so surprising was that it happened despite Biden's approval being in the toilet. As low as his approval ratings were in November, I think the overall sentiment was more of a "yeah, we know he sucks, but he's not too terrible and he beat Trump", which led to better than expected midterm performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
AlexDeGruven posted:As low as his approval ratings were in November, I think the overall sentiment was more of a "yeah, we know he sucks, but he's not too terrible and he beat Trump", which led to better than expected midterm performance. i think people just weren't voting based on their feelings on Joe Biden. the Democrats actually narrowly won self-described independents in exit polling which was a big surprise. that, combined with a) less of a "natural" swing because of the democrats underperforming in 2020, b) Democrats running well in some states based on the threat of state abortion bans/election deniers in office, and c) the GOP nominating some absolutely horrible candidates in competitive seats is probably why you saw them barely take the House
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
AlexDeGruven posted:As low as his approval ratings were in November, I think the overall sentiment was more of a "yeah, we know he sucks, but he's not too terrible and he beat Trump", which led to better than expected midterm performance. There was also a substantial number of Democrats who thought he was too conciliatory and corporate and aren't happy with the job he's doing but sure as poo poo aren't voting for a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
by the way one of the concessions the HFC wants (and is apparently getting) from McCarthy is effectively to give party leadership less power to interfere in primaries, which is really funny given that them nominating a bunch of terrible far-right candidates almost certainly cost them the Senate, and multiple House seats
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:There was also a substantial number of Democrats who thought he was too conciliatory and corporate and aren't happy with the job he's doing but sure as poo poo aren't voting for a Republican. Those people don't vote Republican if they're sufficiently demotivated, they just stay home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:by the way one of the concessions the HFC wants (and is apparently getting) from McCarthy is effectively to give party leadership less power to interfere in primaries, which is really funny given that them nominating a bunch of terrible far-right candidates almost certainly cost them the Senate, and multiple House seats Would this make more extreme Republican candidates more likely or less likely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Would this make more extreme Republican candidates more likely or less likely? Probably more likely as you won't have some WASHINGTON INSIDER with a national perspective helping out centrists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Probably more likely as you won't have some WASHINGTON INSIDER with a national perspective helping out centrists. That's what the Washington Football Team should have been named, the Washington Insiders!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:That's what the Washington Football Team should have been named, the Washington Insiders! My personal top 2 was keeping the same name because frankly Washington Football Team is perfect, or the Washington Clowns because of all the clowns in Congress
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
Epic High Five posted:My personal top 2 was keeping the same name because frankly Washington Football Team is perfect, or the Washington Clowns because of all the clowns in Congress Yeah, Washington Football Team was a great name. It was very businesslike and felt old school NFL (despite the real old school NFL teams having goofy-rear end names like the Dayton Triangles or the Columbus Panhandles).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 19:38
|
|
