U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

The Social Security Act of 1935.

 

Of course, that assumes that Joe Biden is a fraction of the man FDR was.

 

 

 

The fact Biden plagiarised Neil effing Kinnock all those years ago doesn't inspire any kind of confidence in that.

[Ulysses]

4 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

 

The fact Biden plagiarised Neil effing Kinnock all those years ago doesn't inspire any kind of confidence in that.

 

Did you post that before or after reading the second line of my post?

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Did you post that before or after reading the second line of my post?

 

It was actually augmenting your point.

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

It was actually augmenting your point.

 

So after, then. 

 

Biden seems to be a bit of a wimp, 'n'all'n'anyways.

 

Of course, because SCOTUS caved, we'll never know if FDR would have followed through on his threat, though the fact that the Democrats had a long-standing supermajority in the House and had just gained a supermajority in the Senate suggests that he probably would have.

[jack D and coke]

Are Britain and America like really ****ed? It feels like it tbh…

Id say America more so but maybe because I don’t live there I feel it’s more ****ed. But both feel really ****ed. 
Why are we allowing these ***** control? What is wrong? 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

28 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

So after, then. 

 

Biden seems to be a bit of a wimp, 'n'all'n'anyways.

 

Of course, because SCOTUS caved, we'll never know if FDR would have followed through on his threat, though the fact that the Democrats had a long-standing supermajority in the House and had just gained a supermajority in the Senate suggests that he probably would have.

Quite. There seems to be an obsession with political calculus these days rather than trying to do the right thing and failing.

[JFK-1]

21 hours ago, Ked said:

I don't know what you are on about but it has nothing to do with a single thing I've posted.

You seem to be on some kind of a mission on this thread so it's pointless discussing  

 

Well now I consider you suspect. First of all I'm confident anyone else following this thread understands exactly what I'm saying. But you don't?

 

In addition this utter pish about being on a mission is utter pish. I have been posting in this thread for years, it has never been a mission.

 

But you're right about one thing, if you don't understand what I'm talking about it is pointless discussing.

 

I can only discuss an issue with people who understand plain English. Then don't veer off on utterly bizarre pish about being on a mission.

Edited June 27, 2022 by JFK-1

[FWJ]

It’s strange that there’s such a big difference between U.K. & U.S. women on this issue.

Let’s hope it encourages the people who are appalled at this out to vote (Democrat) and we might see some changes in the Senate.

Good to read that a number of big US companies / employers will pay for staff under their health insurance schemes to travel out of state if necessary.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

18 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Is it reasonable to assume that women and men each account for about 50% of voters in the United States?

 

If so, does that mean that women - the people whose privacy and bodily integrity is actually affected by the decision - disapprove of the overturning of Roe v Wade by 67-33?  And does it mean that men - the ones without a uterus whose privacy and bodily integrity is, erm, like, not the slightest bit affected - disapprove by only 51-49? 

 

It certainly more in line with what I would suspect. I don't know UK politics well enough to speculate on why the inverse seems to be true in the UK.

 

At the very least, though, the ruling is clearly not a majority opinion.

[Maple Leaf]

On 20/06/2022 at 11:30, Maple Leaf said:

Here we are in 2022 and the Supreme Court of the United States will be issuing new judgements this week, probably in the following areas;

 

Turn the clock back 50 years on the right of American women to a safe abortion.

Strike down a NY state law that restricts the carrying of a concealed weapon.

Make it easier to introduce religion (ie Christianity) into public schools.

Limit the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions.

 

Normally these judgements are released in a public setting, but this year they will be done via the internet as the Justices are in fear of their lives following threats.

 

The conservatives are ruling the roost, and will do so for the foreseeable future. 

 

 

 

I have three out of four correct, so far!  I wish I had been wrong.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I have three out of four correct, so far!  I wish I had been wrong.

Do they do their pledge of allegiance at school? Is that not all god and stuff? I don't pretend to know it but I have in mind it's like the one I had to spout in the cubs.

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

Do they do their pledge of allegiance at school? Is that not all god and stuff? I don't pretend to know it but I have in mind it's like the one I had to spout in the cubs.

 

I don't know about the Pledge of Allegiance, but I believe that mandatory school prayers were banned.  @Led Tasso is in a much better position to comment.

 

The SCOTUS case I was referring to was about a football coach who openly prayed on the field after a game and was fired for it.  SCOTUS has ruled in his favour, which opens the door for more religion in schools, imo.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

7 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I don't know about the Pledge of Allegiance, but I believe that mandatory school prayers were banned.  @Led Tasso is in a much better position to comment.

 

The SCOTUS case I was referring to was about a football coach who openly prayed on the field after a game and was fired for it.  SCOTUS has ruled in his favour, which opens the door for more religion in schools, imo.

 

I had missed that this case was coming, so thought you were speaking about school religion generally. I haven't read the ruling or read much analysis of it, but I'm guessing they did some kind of thing where a school leader (like a teacher, principal, or coach) not being able to lead a prayer was somehow an infringement of their freedom of religion, which is nonsense, but that's this court for you.

 

There were prayers before every (American) football game when I was in high school in marching band, and ironically it was my old high school in Asheville, NC where there was a lawsuit over it to end the practice and where the "We Still Pray" movement emerged. Asheville is a very strange place, but anyway. . . this will very likely open up yet another round of lawsuits as what will happen is that people who have a different faith than a school leader will demand representation and we'll go around the drain again about this. The court has created a complete legal mess but they don't care.

 

As to the pledge, it's a funny one too. The original version of the pledge doesn't mention God at all, and fittingly when they added it in the reactionary 1950s they stuck it awkwardly in the middle of the phrase "one nation indivisible" and made it "one nation, under God, indivisible." The pledge is kind of a creepy thing to do anyway IMO but when we did it in school, I had atheist friends who just didn't say the "under God" part, and now that I've realized how stupidly it was added, if pushed to say the pledge, I skip that part too. (and as most of you probably know I'm a church-going pastor's spouse, so that's not out of personal atheism, it's out of objection to state religion.)

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

It certainly more in line with what I would suspect. I don't know UK politics well enough to speculate on why the inverse seems to be true in the UK.

 

At the very least, though, the ruling is clearly not a majority opinion.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted bit.

 

I don't think that the inverse is true in the UK.  The article referenced is from 2014.  If you look at more recent YouGov polls on the subject, you'll see a mixed picture depending on the question.  Men and women poll almost the same on the right of women to have abortions.  Men and women also poll almost the same on whether the time limit of 24 weeks should be kept or increased.  Where they differ is that more men are likely to say "don't know" and fewer say "reduce the time limit", while women are the other way round. 

 

However, when asked the question "Do you think it is too difficult or too easy for women to obtain abortions in England, Scotland & Wales, or are the present arrangements broadly satisfactory?", women are more likely than men to say that the arrangements are broadly satisfactory, and only a small percentage of both men and women say that it is too easy.  Men are more likely to answer "don't know".

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/issue/Abortion?content=all

 

In Ireland in 2018, women were more likely than men to vote for the removal of the constitutional ban on termination, but the gender gap wasn't that big.  Based on exit polls, it's estimated that around 71% of women voted Yes, and about 63% of men.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted bit.

 

I don't think that the inverse is true in the UK.  The article referenced is from 2014.  If you look at more recent YouGov polls on the subject, you'll see a mixed picture depending on the question.  Men and women poll almost the same on the right of women to have abortions.  Men and women also poll almost the same on whether the time limit of 24 weeks should be kept or increased.  Where they differ is that more men are likely to say "don't know" and fewer say "reduce the time limit", while women are the other way round. 

 

However, when asked the question "Do you think it is too difficult or too easy for women to obtain abortions in England, Scotland & Wales, or are the present arrangements broadly satisfactory?", women are more likely than men to say that the arrangements are broadly satisfactory, and only a small percentage of both men and women say that it is too easy.  Men are more likely to answer "don't know".

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/issue/Abortion?content=all

 

In Ireland in 2018, women were more likely than men to vote for the removal of the constitutional ban on termination, but the gender gap wasn't that big.  Based on exit polls, it's estimated that around 71% of women voted Yes, and about 63% of men.

 

I worded the highlighted bit awkwardly. What I mean to say is that the court's ruling overturning Roe does not reflect the majority opinion of the country or of women in the US.

 

I take your word on UK politics. All I saw was the above poll, which I thought very strange, and wanted to at least point out that the conjecture of the QP about women supporting more abortion restrictions was at the very least untrue in the US.

[Ulysses]

11 hours ago, FWJ said:

It’s strange that there’s such a big difference between U.K. & U.S. women on this issue.

Let’s hope it encourages the people who are appalled at this out to vote (Democrat) and we might see some changes in the Senate.

Good to read that a number of big US companies / employers will pay for staff under their health insurance schemes to travel out of state if necessary.

 

Have a look at the YouGov link I posted above and see what you think.  I reckon there isn't a big difference on the core issue of abortion availability.  But I think that men are more likely to hold back from having a definitive opinion on some questions, while women seem to respond more definitively and negatively to a specific question about the gestational time limit.  The UK does have a longer time limit than most European countries.

[Ulysses]

4 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

I worded the highlighted bit awkwardly. What I mean to say is that the court's ruling overturning Roe does not reflect the majority opinion of the country or of women in the US.

 

I take your word on UK politics. All I saw was the above poll, which I thought very strange, and wanted to at least point out that the conjecture of the QP about women supporting more abortion restrictions was at the very least untrue in the US.

 

I'm not surprised that the court's ruling doesn't reflect majority opinion.  The United States seems to be a nation of decent people who live in a fundamentally corrupt political system that is too easily hijacked by whackjobs and wingnuts with money.

 

I suspect that because abortion has been legal and relatively uncontroversial in GB (not in the entire UK, though), any gender gap in opinions has had time to fade away a bit.

[Unknown user]

47 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

I had missed that this case was coming, so thought you were speaking about school religion generally. I haven't read the ruling or read much analysis of it, but I'm guessing they did some kind of thing where a school leader (like a teacher, principal, or coach) not being able to lead a prayer was somehow an infringement of their freedom of religion, which is nonsense, but that's this court for you.

 

There were prayers before every (American) football game when I was in high school in marching band, and ironically it was my old high school in Asheville, NC where there was a lawsuit over it to end the practice and where the "We Still Pray" movement emerged. Asheville is a very strange place, but anyway. . . this will very likely open up yet another round of lawsuits as what will happen is that people who have a different faith than a school leader will demand representation and we'll go around the drain again about this. The court has created a complete legal mess but they don't care.

 

As to the pledge, it's a funny one too. The original version of the pledge doesn't mention God at all, and fittingly when they added it in the reactionary 1950s they stuck it awkwardly in the middle of the phrase "one nation indivisible" and made it "one nation, under God, indivisible." The pledge is kind of a creepy thing to do anyway IMO but when we did it in school, I had atheist friends who just didn't say the "under God" part, and now that I've realized how stupidly it was added, if pushed to say the pledge, I skip that part too. (and as most of you probably know I'm a church-going pastor's spouse, so that's not out of personal atheism, it's out of objection to state religion.)

 

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

Ok, I see why they're such wild eyed crazies about the flag, especially with it being everywhere, I didn't realise it was meant to be quite as representative as that.

Wee menchy for Metallica's last decent album btw.

How often would a schoolkid have to do this?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'm not surprised that the court's ruling doesn't reflect majority opinion.  The United States seems to be a nation of decent people who live in a fundamentally corrupt political system that is too easily hijacked by whackjobs and wingnuts with money.

 

I suspect that because abortion has been legal and relatively uncontroversial in GB (not in the entire UK, though), any gender gap in opinions has had time to fade away a bit.

 

Only wrong bit is in bold. We're all arseholes over here, I swear. 😉

 

Or at least that's how it seems when 70M+ voted for the violent rapist con man game show host a second time. I'm not overstating the case when I say it's given us serious thought to leaving. All of our families are here, of course, which is the main reason we haven't investigated it further.

 

39 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

Ok, I see why they're such wild eyed crazies about the flag, especially with it being everywhere, I didn't realise it was meant to be quite as representative as that.

Wee menchy for Metallica's last decent album btw.

How often would a schoolkid have to do this?

 

We did the pledge daily in elementary school when I was coming through, which I think has declined but is still done in places. After that they'd occasionally bust it out for assemblies in middle or high school but there'd generally be too much cutting up anyway.

 

It's a favorite thing to be upset about now for the right wing, which is funny because Francis Bellamy, who wrote the first edition, was a socialist.

[Unknown user]

13 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

We did the pledge daily in elementary school when I was coming through, which I think has declined but is still done in places. After that they'd occasionally bust it out for assemblies in middle or high school but there'd generally be too much cutting up anyway.

 

It's a favorite thing to be upset about now for the right wing, which is funny because Francis Bellamy, who wrote the first edition, was a socialist.

 

I realised I posted the version without god btw.

Some country, I'd be getting TF out of Dodge myself, it's just a matter of time before the republicans throw up a slightly more competent god figure and really **** the place up. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I realised I posted the version without god btw.

Some country, I'd be getting TF out of Dodge myself, it's just a matter of time before the republicans throw up a slightly more competent god figure and really **** the place up. 

 

It's silly, but that would feel too much like running away just yet. Sure, we could get out (Church of Scotland is in dire need of ministers and Scotland's universities haven't gone down the adjunctification road as far as US ones have yet), but there's a lot of folks who can't.

 

The other underlying fact is that the GOP was willing to sell their soul to Trump because they've been facing a demographic time bomb otherwise. The Democrats could still massively screw this up (and often seem utterly determined to do so) but these numbers have been bad for years and continue to get worse. (Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/172439/party-identification-varies-widely-across-age-spectrum.aspx)

 

 

 

This is why they're digging in on various ways of maintaining minority control. If we could just get out of our own damn way, and do things like make DC into a real state (with two Senators), add some justices to overcome McConnell's seat thefts, pass voting rights and anti-gerrymandering legislation, and put some better protections for unionization efforts in at the federal level, the current GOP would be totally cooked at a national level. It's shitwits like Manchin and Sinema and abysmal candidates like Cal Cunningham and Sara Gideon who shat the bed in 2020 that are keeping them relevant. We're that damn close to cutting off a lot of this insanity.

[Unknown user]

9 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

It's silly, but that would feel too much like running away just yet. Sure, we could get out (Church of Scotland is in dire need of ministers and Scotland's universities haven't gone down the adjunctification road as far as US ones have yet), but there's a lot of folks who can't.

 

The other underlying fact is that the GOP was willing to sell their soul to Trump because they've been facing a demographic time bomb otherwise. The Democrats could still massively screw this up (and often seem utterly determined to do so) but these numbers have been bad for years and continue to get worse. (Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/172439/party-identification-varies-widely-across-age-spectrum.aspx)

 

 

 

This is why they're digging in on various ways of maintaining minority control. If we could just get out of our own damn way, and do things like make DC into a real state (with two Senators), add some justices to overcome McConnell's seat thefts, pass voting rights and anti-gerrymandering legislation, and put some better protections for unionization efforts in at the federal level, the current GOP would be totally cooked at a national level. It's shitwits like Manchin and Sinema and abysmal candidates like Cal Cunningham and Sara Gideon who shat the bed in 2020 that are keeping them relevant. We're that damn close to cutting off a lot of this insanity.

I hope you're right. And of course, it's no small deal to move country, never mind continent.

 

I'm not so convinced from the outside though, I see many millions of easily manipulated voters and a hysterical right wing media determined to make the most of them 

[FWJ]

15 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

It's silly, but that would feel too much like running away just yet. Sure, we could get out (Church of Scotland is in dire need of ministers and Scotland's universities haven't gone down the adjunctification road as far as US ones have yet), but there's a lot of folks who can't.

 

The other underlying fact is that the GOP was willing to sell their soul to Trump because they've been facing a demographic time bomb otherwise. The Democrats could still massively screw this up (and often seem utterly determined to do so) but these numbers have been bad for years and continue to get worse. (Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/172439/party-identification-varies-widely-across-age-spectrum.aspx)

 

 

 

This is why they're digging in on various ways of maintaining minority control. If we could just get out of our own damn way, and do things like make DC into a real state (with two Senators), add some justices to overcome McConnell's seat thefts, pass voting rights and anti-gerrymandering legislation, and put some better protections for unionization efforts in at the federal level, the current GOP would be totally cooked at a national level. It's shitwits like Manchin and Sinema and abysmal candidates like Cal Cunningham and Sara Gideon who shat the bed in 2020 that are keeping them relevant. We're that damn close to cutting off a lot of this insanity.

Will they stay Democrat voters as they age though.

As I get older the more I have to fight to suppress my inner Daily Mail.

[dobmisterdobster]

Latinos are the future of the GOP. Especially in Texas and Florida.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

7 hours ago, Smithee said:

I hope you're right. And of course, it's no small deal to move country, never mind continent.

 

I'm not so convinced from the outside though, I see many millions of easily manipulated voters and a hysterical right wing media determined to make the most of them 

 

Not to be cheeky, but this is an awful lot like what Brexit looks like from here.

 

1 hour ago, FWJ said:

Will they stay Democrat voters as they age though.

As I get older the more I have to fight to suppress my inner Daily Mail.

 

The old saw is that people become more conservative as they age, but I happen to know a lot of folks my age or thereabouts (46) who were center-left in our 20s (I thought Clinton was fantastic in 1992) and are becoming various types of socialists in our 40s. Neoliberalism and "Third Way" politics have failed us utterly.

 

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Latinos are the future of the GOP. Especially in Texas and Florida.

 

Latinos have been the future of the GOP for about 40 years now. It's gonna happen, any day now. Just hold your breath!

 

Seriously, Latinos already are the GOP in Florida because in Florida the Latinos are Cuban exiles and their children and grandchildren and they go absolutely ballistic at any hint of socialism. Meanwhile in the rest of the country, you have to search high and low to find a prominent Latino GOP politician, while the Democrats are loaded with them.

[FWJ]

It’s not an awful lot what Brexit looks like.

 

 

It’s exactly what Brexit looks like …

[Unknown user]

49 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Not to be cheeky, but this is an awful lot like what Brexit looks like from here.

 

Couldn't agree more, but we're not the most powerful nation on earth and we don't have more guns than people.

[RobboM]

Details from inside the White House on the day of the coup. It was worse than we thought!

Some jaw dropping detail covered by

https://twitter.com/HC_Richardson

 

[Sawdust Caesar]

21 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

I worded the highlighted bit awkwardly. What I mean to say is that the court's ruling overturning Roe does not reflect the majority opinion of the country or of women in the US.

 

 

In your opinion Is there a chance that the ruling could turn a few of the purple states blue? And if so, would it give the Dems enough power to to more of what they want? 

[Sawdust Caesar]

21 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

I worded the highlighted bit awkwardly. What I mean to say is that the court's ruling overturning Roe does not reflect the majority opinion of the country or of women in the US.

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Sawdust Caesar
Double post

[Cade]

Some today

 

Trump demanding to be taken up to the Capitol to join/lead the coup.

Trying to grab the wheel of the Beast limo.

Attacking secret service agents.

Throwing plates of food at the walls.

 

POPCORN-TASTIC.

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Sawdust Caesar said:

In your opinion Is there a chance that the ruling could turn a few of the purple states blue? And if so, would it give the Dems enough power to to more of what they want? 

 

There's absolutely a chance, but will it happen? IMO a big problem with the Democrats and the left and progressives and such is we've had 5 million armchair political analysts and not enough political footmen doing the ground work. (I'm as guilty of that as anyone. Now I'm too old and busy being a dad to be out canvassing these days but I'm trying to put the donations where they'll hit.) So with the caveat that I really have no ****ing idea, here's how I see it:

 

The Democrats have really good candidates in key races this time around. In Pennsylvania, John Fetterman looks like a retired pro wrestler and is making the shocking decision to actually bother to campaign in rural areas. Raphael Warnock's by-election win in Georgia in 2020 was a surprise and he's up against a famous retired NFL running back but he makes really good ads and it helps that he's running alongside Stacy Abrams. Beto O'Rourke is a long shot for Texas Governor but he's less of a long shot than the dems have had in a generation.

 

The key is that despite all our bluster about being the beacon of democracy, our election turnout numbers are mediocre at their very best and often abysmal. The conventional wisdom is that the President's party does bad in midterm elections because their party is complacent and the opposition are angrier. That was already looking a bit lessened this year and Dobbs may flip it completely.

 

The problem with that is that the Democrats' margin for error is almost nothing. If they lose any seats at all in either house, Congress flips. They have to hold the House, and pick up enough votes in the Senate that 50 Senators will vote to either reform or abolish the filibuster (an old Senate provision that allowed the minority party to block bills unless they get 60 votes, which used to be rarely used but Mitch McConnell uses daily). Two Democrats, the lifelong centrist coal facility owning Joe Manchin from West Virginia, and two-faced shit-eating former Green Party candidate turned pharmaceutical industry shill Krysten Sinema, have refused to cotton any filibuster reform. So they need to pick up two more seats, and have the two new votes vote for filibuster reform and for major legislation.

 

*IF* all that actually happens, yes, an enormous amount could change fairly quickly. The House has already passed a raft of legislation that would add permanent child tax credits, add protections for unionization, outlaw gerrymandering and various forms of voter suppression, make DC a state (which adds two solid Democratic seats), and actually tackle US climate emissions for real.

 

The opposite of course could easily happen. The GOP could get both houses, stop approving judicial appointees, shut down the government over petty threats, and start passing a national abortion ban (Biden would veto of course but it would set the stage for 2024).

 

But the polls are starting to show a swing back to Democrats after lagging for months. So who knows.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

Some today

 

Trump demanding to be taken up to the Capitol to join/lead the coup.

Trying to grab the wheel of the Beast limo.

Attacking secret service agents.

Throwing plates of food at the walls.

 

POPCORN-TASTIC.

 

 

 

Even though it's far and away the least explosive of the revelations, the image of Hutchinson wiping ketchup off the wall of the Oval Office and picking up the shattered ceramic plate feels like the most indelible image.

 

He's such a ****ing baby.

[Cade]

9 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Even though it's far and away the least explosive of the revelations, the image of Hutchinson wiping ketchup off the wall of the Oval Office and picking up the shattered ceramic plate feels like the most indelible image.

 

He's such a ****ing baby.

 

Nobody has ever said "NO" to him his entire life.

This is the first time it's ever happened.

He cannae deal with it.

[Norm]

I think, demographically, the US will turn a bit more left. There's just far, far too many of the younger generations who are seeing the bullshit for what it is. It seems every workplace is unionising now, and the youth have twigged that the game is utterly, utterly rigged in the States. 

 

I dunno, I could be wrong but to me, the white kids are beginning to realise that the deck of cards is stacked against people based on class, not race. Previously, lower, working class people were generally racial minorities. Now, the white kids are realising that even a college degree isn't going to help you make big bucks. It's barely enough to have a living wage. Thousands and thousands spent on a college education that is still going to see you live in poverty. 

 

 I'm repeating myself but the US is a broken state in all but name. It's an oligarchy. It's just that the media control so much shit over there that a sizeable chunk still see oligarchs as "entrepreneurs", as opposed to ***** who are exploiting folk and control the government. 

[Tazio]

3 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

Nobody has ever said "NO" to him his entire life.

This is the first time it's ever happened.

He cannae deal with it.

That first sentence is something I posted what seems like a lifetime ago on Facebook. An entire life where nobody challenged anything he said, no matter how nonsensical. 

[dobmisterdobster]

6 hours ago, Norm said:

It seems every workplace is unionising now, and the youth have twigged that the game is utterly, utterly rigged in the States. 

 

Unions have been part of American life for over a century. Ever listened to a Bruce Springsteen song?

[Norm]

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Unions have been part of American life for over a century. Ever listened to a Bruce Springsteen song?

Yes, but generally not in places like Starbucks or retail or hospitality. Even these places are unionising now. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

6 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Unions have been part of American life for over a century. Ever listened to a Bruce Springsteen song?

Unionization rates have been falling for generations, particularly since Reagan’s virulent anti-unionism, sacrificing the country’s airline safety for it. The most recent strike wave is the first real reversal of that in my lifetime.

 

Bruce Springsteen’s songs are often about the unionized mill closing down, so keep his name out of your Tory mouth.

[dobmisterdobster]

37 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

Unionization rates have been falling for generations, particularly since Reagan’s virulent anti-unionism, sacrificing the country’s airline safety for it. The most recent strike wave is the first real reversal of that in my lifetime.

 

Bruce Springsteen’s songs are often about the unionized mill closing down, so keep his name out of your Tory mouth.

 

Are you Will Smith?

[Sawdust Caesar]

15 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

There's absolutely a chance, but will it happen? IMO a big problem with the Democrats and the left and progressives and such is we've had 5 million armchair political analysts and not enough political footmen doing the ground work. (I'm as guilty of that as anyone. Now I'm too old and busy being a dad to be out canvassing these days but I'm trying to put the donations where they'll hit.) So with the caveat that I really have no ****ing idea, here's how I see it:

 

The Democrats have really good candidates in key races this time around. In Pennsylvania, John Fetterman looks like a retired pro wrestler and is making the shocking decision to actually bother to campaign in rural areas. Raphael Warnock's by-election win in Georgia in 2020 was a surprise and he's up against a famous retired NFL running back but he makes really good ads and it helps that he's running alongside Stacy Abrams. Beto O'Rourke is a long shot for Texas Governor but he's less of a long shot than the dems have had in a generation.

 

The key is that despite all our bluster about being the beacon of democracy, our election turnout numbers are mediocre at their very best and often abysmal. The conventional wisdom is that the President's party does bad in midterm elections because their party is complacent and the opposition are angrier. That was already looking a bit lessened this year and Dobbs may flip it completely.

 

The problem with that is that the Democrats' margin for error is almost nothing. If they lose any seats at all in either house, Congress flips. They have to hold the House, and pick up enough votes in the Senate that 50 Senators will vote to either reform or abolish the filibuster (an old Senate provision that allowed the minority party to block bills unless they get 60 votes, which used to be rarely used but Mitch McConnell uses daily). Two Democrats, the lifelong centrist coal facility owning Joe Manchin from West Virginia, and two-faced shit-eating former Green Party candidate turned pharmaceutical industry shill Krysten Sinema, have refused to cotton any filibuster reform. So they need to pick up two more seats, and have the two new votes vote for filibuster reform and for major legislation.

 

*IF* all that actually happens, yes, an enormous amount could change fairly quickly. The House has already passed a raft of legislation that would add permanent child tax credits, add protections for unionization, outlaw gerrymandering and various forms of voter suppression, make DC a state (which adds two solid Democratic seats), and actually tackle US climate emissions for real.

 

The opposite of course could easily happen. The GOP could get both houses, stop approving judicial appointees, shut down the government over petty threats, and start passing a national abortion ban (Biden would veto of course but it would set the stage for 2024).

 

But the polls are starting to show a swing back to Democrats after lagging for months. So who knows.

Thanks for the response, much appreciated. Fingers crossed it pans out the way you want it to.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Are you Will Smith?

 

Are you unaware of an extremely common phrase addressed to people stepping where they shouldn't?

[Seymour M Hersh]

17 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

There's absolutely a chance, but will it happen? IMO a big problem with the Democrats and the left and progressives and such is we've had 5 million armchair political analysts and not enough political footmen doing the ground work. (I'm as guilty of that as anyone. Now I'm too old and busy being a dad to be out canvassing these days but I'm trying to put the donations where they'll hit.) So with the caveat that I really have no ****ing idea, here's how I see it:

 

The Democrats have really good candidates in key races this time around. In Pennsylvania, John Fetterman looks like a retired pro wrestler and is making the shocking decision to actually bother to campaign in rural areas. Raphael Warnock's by-election win in Georgia in 2020 was a surprise and he's up against a famous retired NFL running back but he makes really good ads and it helps that he's running alongside Stacy Abrams. Beto O'Rourke is a long shot for Texas Governor but he's less of a long shot than the dems have had in a generation.

 

The key is that despite all our bluster about being the beacon of democracy, our election turnout numbers are mediocre at their very best and often abysmal. The conventional wisdom is that the President's party does bad in midterm elections because their party is complacent and the opposition are angrier. That was already looking a bit lessened this year and Dobbs may flip it completely.

 

The problem with that is that the Democrats' margin for error is almost nothing. If they lose any seats at all in either house, Congress flips. They have to hold the House, and pick up enough votes in the Senate that 50 Senators will vote to either reform or abolish the filibuster (an old Senate provision that allowed the minority party to block bills unless they get 60 votes, which used to be rarely used but Mitch McConnell uses daily). Two Democrats, the lifelong centrist coal facility owning Joe Manchin from West Virginia, and two-faced shit-eating former Green Party candidate turned pharmaceutical industry shill Krysten Sinema, have refused to cotton any filibuster reform. So they need to pick up two more seats, and have the two new votes vote for filibuster reform and for major legislation.

 

*IF* all that actually happens, yes, an enormous amount could change fairly quickly. The House has already passed a raft of legislation that would add permanent child tax credits, add protections for unionization, outlaw gerrymandering and various forms of voter suppression, make DC a state (which adds two solid Democratic seats), and actually tackle US climate emissions for real.

 

The opposite of course could easily happen. The GOP could get both houses, stop approving judicial appointees, shut down the government over petty threats, and start passing a national abortion ban (Biden would veto of course but it would set the stage for 2024).

 

But the polls are starting to show a swing back to Democrats after lagging for months. So who knows.

 

The Senate GOP had to end debate on judicial nominees and break filibusters 314 times in President Donald Trump’s single term. To put that in perspective, every other president in the history of the United States has faced, combined, 244 of those roll-call votes over a filibuster.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

54 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

The Senate GOP had to end debate on judicial nominees and break filibusters 314 times in President Donald Trump’s single term. To put that in perspective, every other president in the history of the United States has faced, combined, 244 of those roll-call votes over a filibuster.

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about, as McConnell abolished the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 over Gorsuch's nomination.

[Seymour M Hersh]

16 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about, as McConnell abolished the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 over Gorsuch's nomination.

 

You said the Republicans were using filibusters on a daily basis. They're not but the Democrats used filibusters 314 times during the Trump administration but now they want rid of them. My point is they all want rid of the filibuster when they are in power but when they are not they love them. Biden used to talk in support of them, Obama wanted rid of them in 08, Trump wanted rid of them during his presidency. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

3 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You said the Republicans were using filibusters on a daily basis. They're not but the Democrats used filibusters 314 times during the Trump administration but now they want rid of them. My point is they all want rid of the filibuster when they are in power but when they are not they love them. Biden used to talk in support of them, Obama wanted rid of them in 08, Trump wanted rid of them during his presidency. 

 

Yes, but what you said was patently untrue. Democrats couldn't have used filibusters on judicial nominees because they were abolished at the beginning of Trump's term with the nomination of Gorsuch to fill the seat that McConnell kept vacant by refusing to hold hearings for Merrick Garland. Where did you even come up with that?

 

Also, I do not recall any movement by Obama to request getting rid of the filibuster, despite the passage of his signature piece of legislation, the ACA, taking nearly 18 months because of Republican opposition, despite holding 59 seats. Trump is certainly not the chief filibuster villain—that would be McConnell, who has taken Senate obstructionism to previously unheard of heights (see the Garland nomination in particular).

 

Support for the filibuster used to be relatively bipartisan. McConnell's abuse of it has done away with that. This graph is pre-Trump, but the three big jumps in frequency happen in at the end of Nixon's term, for reasons I don't know; in 1993 and 1994 in opposition to Clinton's agenda; and in 2006 when the Democrats took control of both houses and tried to pass real climate legislation for the first time. As you can see, use of it has gone up in the past, but the doubling that happened when McConnell became minority leader is unprecedented.

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

8 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Yes, but what you said was patently untrue. Democrats couldn't have used filibusters on judicial nominees because they were abolished at the beginning of Trump's term with the nomination of Gorsuch to fill the seat that McConnell kept vacant by refusing to hold hearings for Merrick Garland. Where did you even come up with that?

 

Also, I do not recall any movement by Obama to request getting rid of the filibuster, despite the passage of his signature piece of legislation, the ACA, taking nearly 18 months because of Republican opposition, despite holding 59 seats. Trump is certainly not the chief filibuster villain—that would be McConnell, who has taken Senate obstructionism to previously unheard of heights (see the Garland nomination in particular).

 

Support for the filibuster used to be relatively bipartisan. McConnell's abuse of it has done away with that. This graph is pre-Trump, but the three big jumps in frequency happen in at the end of Nixon's term, for reasons I don't know; in 1993 and 1994 in opposition to Clinton's agenda; and in 2006 when the Democrats took control of both houses and tried to pass real climate legislation for the first time. As you can see, use of it has gone up in the past, but the doubling that happened when McConnell became minority leader is unprecedented.

 

 

I wasn't narrowing down their use to only judicial nominees. The fact is when either side can use them to their own advantage filibusters are great. When they are being used against them they should be gotten rid of. I would suggest like a referee who upsets both sets of fans and the media almost always say he must have been doing something right. 

 

As an aside to you live in the US? Are you an American citizen? 

[RobboM]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

As an aside to you live in the US? Are you an American citizen? 

[Seymour M Hersh]

4 hours ago, RobboM said:

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

In another backwards move by the US Supreme Court, they have limited the powers of the US Environmental Protection Agency, meaning that Biden's plan to cut US CO2 emissions by 2030 are basically fecked. 

https://news.sky.com/story/major-blow-to-bidens-domestic-climate-agenda-as-us-supreme-court-limits-federal-power-to-curb-emissions-12642464

 

This is a win for the Republican climate change deniers & the coal industry.