American Politics

[Sanity Check]

Anakin: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy."

Obiwan: "Only a sith deals in absolutes."


MTG going full dark side.

 

[M3J]

Cause idiots think he's friggin' Tony Stark.

How's that underground highway coming along btw, lmfao?

It's embarrassing, he's nothing but a shitposter. EVen I thought he founded Tesla until I saw a tweet that says he bought out Tesla in a hostile takeover or something. Dude's just an embarrassing, overhyped dickhead who's managed to make people think he's actually a genius.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 6, 2022, Original Post Date: Apr 6, 2022 ---

Tennessee GOP Proposes Bill Eliminating Age Requirements for Marriage

Currently, child marriage is legal in 44 states in the U.S., and nearly 300,000 children were married between 2000 and 2018 across the country.

www.newsweek.com

The irony here is that it's Republicans that are often caught doing or saying creepy things to kids and grooming them, but they usually go on to win elections because the right will shoot themselves in the dick just to stick it to the "damn libtards!!"
Anyone who has a brain cell or isn't brainwashed knows republicans don't care about kids at all, they're just using them for their own agenda.

 

[xi0]

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 6, 2022, Original Post Date: Apr 6, 2022 ---

Tennessee GOP Proposes Bill Eliminating Age Requirements for Marriage

Currently, child marriage is legal in 44 states in the U.S., and nearly 300,000 children were married between 2000 and 2018 across the country.

www.newsweek.com

Not to scoff at the juxtaposition or anything, but I just want to remind everyone here that child marriage is legal in the vast majority of states and there's no federal law against it. But of course it's very important that no child should ever hear "gay" in schools.

MGT is also buddy-buddy with Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert, despite the latter's husband having a criminal record for exposing himself to teenage girls (in Lauren Boebert's presence no less). Maybe people like this shouldn't be including "pedophile" in their personal vocabulary since they're so woefully inconsistent about their callouts regarding it. Not that there was any doubt regarding the politicization of this issue and that being the ONLY reason why it's being brought up by them, but it's hard to see them as giving one iota of a fuck about the victims of pedophilia given who they don't mind associating with. Zero scruples. Zero conviction of character. They're humanoid worms that should be sent to the corner with a dunce cap on, not given a microphone.

 

[kkck]

And... the ukraine shitshow continues. It's not looking like russia can even win the war at all at this point, contrary to the initial assumption that russia given time would win and I don't see how putin's bs concerns can be addressed anyways. Let alone after russia has taken such a massive economic hit, it's financial institutions are on the brink of catastrophic economic collapse and it's army has been exposed as ineffective and weak by superpower standards and has been weakened by the war. Hopefully I am missing something here but it doesn't look like there's a way out of this at this point.

 

[Sanity Check]

Russian ruble chart.

Its doing better than the lira in turkey or bolivar in venezuela.

 

[kkck]

Russia's central bank has managed to stabilize the ruble.. for now. Part of it has been russia severely limiting purchases of foreign currencies by locals and restricting access to USD for people who have them. I would guess that if in russia right now you have a 100 dollar bill you'd be able to get quite a lot more than the official currency exchange rate. If reports about the russian financial system right now are accurate... the worst is easily ahead of russia.

 

[Sanity Check]

For a cold war KGB relic.

Putin seems to be a big fan of memes.

 

[shionoro]

You said there's freedom of speech, yet you keep saying "more" and can't give me any evidence or a place that does have freedom of speech.

While there's "more" and "less" freedom of speech, there's no complete freedom of speech. You're being illogical if you think otherwise, especially when you're unable to provide any sort of evidence whatsoever.

Okay, what is your definition of it then? My definition is no backlash, punishment, or actions affecting the person who said something. If a woman says she wants to kill a man, she wouldn't get in trouble or face consequences that would affect her life. If a Hindu says something horrible about Christians, the Hindu wouldn't get in trouble with Christians, other than criticism.

USA seems to be about freedom of speech, but no such thing exists.

My definition of Freedom of speech would be very long because it would entail many things and go indepth about them. It is clear that a naive definition of freedom of speech does not cut it ("everyone can say what they want"), because that leads to less freedom of speech because it is easier to take away freedom of speech from others (for example, a powerful person with access to media can slander someone to obscurity).

Freedom of Speech has to be connected to equality of speech, as in, there needs to be an equal playing field in who can say what and when that is not just dependent on their power.
That directly entails the need for minority protection and a proection from harassment.

The ideal of freedom of speech in a country for me, putting it more poignant, would be somewhat along the lines of "

1. a) Every inhabitant of the country has free access to reputable (there are journalists putting their good name on articles) media that report about any important issues both regional and national with a paywall.
   b) These media can at any time be questioned and scrutinized by independent journalists and they are protected by the state from any threatening backlash.
   c) There are state owned media with wide reach and national funding (but without state control) that have the explicit mission to enhance democracy, inform society and give reach to voices and worldviews that would not be heard elseways, coupled with balanced reporting without any private meddling.
   d) Most inhabitants have a basic level of trust for the media landscape, especially the state funded ones.
   
   
2. a) There are sturdy civil rights, for example minority protection, a strong social policy and an equal access to governmental services such as education, healthcare and aid in the justice system.
   b) There are laws preventing organized harassment (including insults) on social media or other mass media like TV. These laws do not protect from any criticism, but both threatening/insulting behavior on social media and false but repeated accusations on TV can and will result in a penalty.
3. c) There are some regulations of banned speech, for example inciting speech, hate speech, severe insults, fraudulent speech or lies in certain conditions (under oath, as a journalist)
   
   
4. a) Every citizen has access to the democratic process in his country, i.e., he can vote and let himself be voted and every permanent inhabitant can acquire the right to be a citizen by some reasonable regulations.
   b) A political movement of a certain size gets public funding and a certain amount of representation in the state owned media to get their ideas out there. However, these rights can be taken away if they, as a movement, satisfy the conditions to be seen as undermining certain articles of the constitution (for example if their stated or provable goal is to make america into a dictatorship)
   
   
5. As long as these points are assured, anyone can say what they want.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 7, 2022, Original Post Date: Apr 7, 2022 ---

And... the ukraine shitshow continues. It's not looking like russia can even win the war at all at this point, contrary to the initial assumption that russia given time would win and I don't see how putin's bs concerns can be addressed anyways. Let alone after russia has taken such a massive economic hit, it's financial institutions are on the brink of catastrophic economic collapse and it's army has been exposed as ineffective and weak by superpower standards and has been weakened by the war. Hopefully I am missing something here but it doesn't look like there's a way out of this at this point.

THe big question is whether he can take donbass now. Looking at it this way, Putin wants to achieve that by May 9th, the russian day of victory. That seems laughable, but it matters in Russia. If Putin cannot present a liberated Donbass until then, even in Russia, questions will be asked and his failure will be apparent.
If he gets Donbass and some more in Mariupol, he can say "look, i did more than i came for, we liberated lots of russians and they will be part of us, that's great, isn't it? Western sanctions will hurt us all, but we will stand tall".

After that, he can always just threaten nukes if the west helps Ukraine to take it back and play the waiting game. Sure, he cannot win right now. BUt what if Le Pen wins the french election? By May 9th, right extremist Le Pen might lead france and she explicitly (even now) wants to lead france out of Nato and stop any russian sanctions. That would look like a much brighter world for Putin.
Orban and Vucic just won, too. If France starts trading with Russia again and stops supporting Ukraine (likely limited due to opposition in france, but still),Putin might be able to sway CHina for some more aid and play the wawiting game until a possible Republican president is elected again.

It is not absurd to think that le pen and a republican winning means putin winning. He just needs to hold out until then with something to present to the russians so they won't shun him when things turn dire in the meantime.

SO let's all hope Le Pen won't win.

 

[Sanity Check]

Republican registrations surge in Pennsylvania in warning sign for Democrats


PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Republicans are registering formerly Democratic voters at four times the rate that Democrats are making the reverse conversion in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, a warning sign for Democrats as they try to keep control of the U.S. Congress.

The Republican gains in Pennsylvania, home to a critical U.S. Senate race, follow a pattern seen in other states that could have competitive contests in November's elections, as high levels of disapproval with President Joe Biden's handling of his job are helping narrow the long-held advantage held by Democrats in numbers of registered voters.

"I just got fed up and just felt like there has to be a better way," said Beth Jones, 48, a retired Philadelphia police officer who last month registered as a Republican, ending her three-decade affiliation with the Democratic Party.

Similar to other recent converts interviewed by Reuters, Jones cited concerns about inflation and violent crime in making the switch.

Reuters examined registration data in six states that could see tight U.S. Senate races in November and which generally require voters to be members of a party to participate in nominating contests. While each state tracks voter registration differently, the review pointed to Republican gains in four of those states, and no substantial difference in two of them.

If Republicans retake control of either of both chambers of Congress in the Nov. 8 midterm elections, that will give them the power to bring Biden's legislative agenda to a halt.

'BAD NEWS FOR DEMOCRATS'

Nowhere is the Republican advance in voter registration more evident than in Pennsylvania, where so far this year Republicans have converted four Democrats for every Republican who has switched to the Democratic Party, according to data published by Pennsylvania's Department of State. That's on track to be the highest conversion rate in at least a decade and well above 2016, when Republicans took the White House, House of Representatives and Senate.

"This is bad news for the Democrats," said Kevan Yenerall, a political scientist at Clarion University in Clarion, Pennsylvania.

While registered Democrats still outnumber registered Republicans by more than half a million in Pennsylvania - 4 million Democrats to 3.4 million Republicans as of March 28 - the long-held Democratic advantage continues to narrow and is on pace to be the smallest in a general election since 2005.

The smaller gap could have significant implications for the race to succeed retiring Republican U.S. Senator Pat Toomey. Pennsylvanians will also vote for governor in November to follow Democrat Tom Wolf.

In North Carolina, where a tight Senate race is expected due to the retirement of Republican Senator Richard Burr, Republicans so far this year have picked up three Democratic converts for every voter that Democrats have poached, according to state election board data. Throughout 2021, the Republican advantage was about half that.

In Florida and Nevada, the numbers of registered Republicans rose in the first few months of the year while the ranks of Democrats declined modestly. In New Hampshire and Arizona, the removal of inactive voters from registration rolls has led both parties to lose similar numbers of voters in recent months.

PHILADELPHIA PUSH

Jeff Sheridan, a senior adviser for the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, said the party isn't sitting on its hands. Efforts include hiring field staff earlier than usual for an election year, including additions of staff in January on college campuses around Philadelphia who are working to register younger voters, a demographic that leans Democratic.

But even in Philadelphia, a traditional Democratic stronghold, Republicans are gaining ground. Voter data shows that 1,315 Democrats in the city have filed forms this year to change their party registration to Republican, more than four times the number of Republicans making the opposite switch.

Not all the Republican conversions that show up in the registration data represent net losses for Democrats.

Angered by the city's violent crime wave, Alexandra Field said she registered as a Democrat last year in an unsuccessful attempt to help oust Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner in the Democratic primary before re-registering as a Republican in March.

Ed Rumick, 72, a retired union electrician, told Reuters that his switch to Republican merely formalized a years-old decision to no longer support a Democratic Party that he sees as weak on border control and bent on socialism.

But Calvin Tucker, deputy chair for the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said the gains point towards a strong showing for the party.

Speaking from the party's recently opened office in northwest Philadelphia, Tucker estimated that petition drives and other efforts to engage with Black and other traditionally "underserved communities" in the city had yielded more than 100 converts or newly registered Republicans so far this year.

"It is a citywide outreach," Tucker said. "We will do canvassing, knocking on doors, standing on corners, and talking to citizens and neighbors about who we are and what we are trying to achieve."

In addition to inflation and other economic issues, a growing number of Pennsylvania voters have become disillusioned with the Democratic Party over its perceived shift leftward on cultural matters, said Terry Madonna, a senior fellow in residence at Millersville University, a longtime political analyst in the state.

Madonna pointed to Republican Glenn Youngkin, who won the governorship of Virginia last year after campaigning on a promise to ban the teaching of critical race theory in schools, as an indicator of what will resonate with Pennsylvania voters.

"It's not just inflation," Madonna said, noting that Republicans scored a series of victories in municipal elections in the Philadelphia suburbs last year. "I think it's a combination of things."

(Reporting by Nathan Layne in Philadelphia and Jason Lange in Washington; Editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell)

Republican registrations surge in Pennsylvania in warning sign for Democrats

Joe Biden and democrats succeed in driving more americans to the republican side of the fence.

Than Trump, Alex Jones or any single person, ever could.

 

[kkck]

THe big question is whether he can take donbass now. Looking at it this way, Putin wants to achieve that by May 9th, the russian day of victory. That seems laughable, but it matters in Russia. If Putin cannot present a liberated Donbass until then, even in Russia, questions will be asked and his failure will be apparent.
If he gets Donbass and some more in Mariupol, he can say "look, i did more than i came for, we liberated lots of russians and they will be part of us, that's great, isn't it? Western sanctions will hurt us all, but we will stand tall".

After that, he can always just threaten nukes if the west helps Ukraine to take it back and play the waiting game. Sure, he cannot win right now. BUt what if Le Pen wins the french election? By May 9th, right extremist Le Pen might lead france and she explicitly (even now) wants to lead france out of Nato and stop any russian sanctions. That would look like a much brighter world for Putin.
Orban and Vucic just won, too. If France starts trading with Russia again and stops supporting Ukraine (likely limited due to opposition in france, but still),Putin might be able to sway CHina for some more aid and play the wawiting game until a possible Republican president is elected again.

It is not absurd to think that le pen and a republican winning means putin winning. He just needs to hold out until then with something to present to the russians so they won't shun him when things turn dire in the meantime.

SO let's all hope Le Pen won't win.

I suppose the date could have political implications in russia but it being that much of a deadline is a hard sell for me. Has putin even promised victory by then? As long as putin holds as much political power as he does in russia then he can pivot as much as he wants... The more relevant deadline is russia's financial system crashing.

Can't say I am familiar with french politics. Wouldn't that amount to pretty much openly supporting putin? Given current events its surprising that such a move isn't political suicide, specially considering how united the EU has been in this so far.

 

[shionoro]

I suppose the date could have political implications in russia but it being that much of a deadline is a hard sell for me. Has putin even promised victory by then? As long as putin holds as much political power as he does in russia then he can pivot as much as he wants... The more relevant deadline is russia's financial system crashing.

Can't say I am familiar with french politics. Wouldn't that amount to pretty much openly supporting putin? Given current events its surprising that such a move isn't political suicide, specially considering how united the EU has been in this so far.

It is what pretty much every russia expert thinks tho. That date is insanely relevant because it is used to celebrate the win over fascist germany and that is the best selling story in russia since forever. Since russia claims they are fighting fascists in ukraine, too, they need that win.
Putin is reliant on the trust of his people, and since he promised a special operation that will secure russians in ukraine and kill their fascist leadership, he cannot be in a costly war with many dead russians and no results a month later when they celebrate winning over fascism. It would not instantly oust him, but it would lead to people asking questions and understanding that they might not win this. And that is a huge danger.
9th may is not just a "lets get drunK" date. It is a date with military parades, including tanks, and with a traditional victory speech of the russian president to his people. If Putin has to go up the stage and say that they are not going to get even Donbass any time soon and many soldiers are dead, that is serious trouble for him.

About France: You'd think so, but her poll numbers soared since she did that. A lot of the french left and right (much like in germany) are putinists and her right extremist rival had his campaign fall apart, so she got those votes too for the first round with the added benefit of not looking as extreme as him.
Le Pen has a very real shot to win this. It is not super likely, i'd think like 20% or so, but it is also not farfetched. And that is scary, because that makes Putin able to win this conflict.

 

[ninjabot]

Joe Biden and democrats succeed in driving more americans to the republican side of the fence.

Than Trump, Alex Jones or any single person, ever could.

Losing Pennsylvania and gaining Texas ain't so bad. Especially considering Texas has more electoral votes.

 

[shionoro]

Losing Pennsylvania and gaining Texas ain't so bad. Especially considering Texas has more electoral votes.

A lot of what is red and blue is going to be reordered in the coming decade in my opinion. It remains to be seen whether democrats can at least hold the senate in midterms and win the white house in 2 years, but on the long term, there are some promising younger democrats that will probably be able to seize new voter groups in red states some years down the line.

I think a good strategy for democrats would be to go for maximum honesty. Their biggest problem is that they come off as the party of double standards to many independent voters (whether that is fair or not), so going for telling tough truths over smiles and symbols would probably work out.

 

[ninjabot]

I think a good strategy for democrats would be to go for maximum honesty. Their biggest problem is that they come off as the party of double standards to many independent voters (whether that is fair or not), so going for telling tough truths over smiles and symbols would probably work out.

Compared to what party lol? This is absolutely not what's causing Democrats to vote Republican. There are a few reasons, like for one: not every Democrat is a staunch progressive, while some aren't willing to vote progressively when it will affect their personal lives negatively, so they're frightened by the fact that people like AOC are the political darlings on the Left. That's not to say that progressivism is bad... just that the messaging is ostracizing some people.

Another reason being complaints about Biden's job as president thus far.

 

[kkck]

A lot of what is red and blue is going to be reordered in the coming decade in my opinion. It remains to be seen whether democrats can at least hold the senate in midterms and win the white house in 2 years, but on the long term, there are some promising younger democrats that will probably be able to seize new voter groups in red states some years down the line.

I think a good strategy for democrats would be to go for maximum honesty. Their biggest problem is that they come off as the party of double standards to many independent voters (whether that is fair or not), so going for telling tough truths over smiles and symbols would probably work out.

More honesty from democrats would get us more "Nothing will fundamentally change" moments. Of course, the issue isn't honesty but rather the actual problem democrats have: They don't stand for anything. And what little they stand for they don't fight for. The vast majority of democratic party agenda, the stuff they were specifically elected to do, got tanked by pretty much by manchin and sinema. Two crooks who almost overtly vote for stuff that boosts their portfolios. And the entire democratic party took that up the ass with smile and then said thank you. Biden most pathetically of all. If democrats weren't spineless fools the minimum consequences of tanking the entire democratic platform would have been to have both of them called out, their primary opponents would already be at least unofficially endorsed by most of the party and the party would just in general make a point of make them unelectable. democrats nowadays don't even get the incrementalism they allege they stand for.

 

[shionoro]

More honesty from democrats would get us more "Nothing will fundamentally change" moments. Of course, the issue isn't honesty but rather the actual problem democrats have: They don't stand for anything. And what little they stand for they don't fight for. The vast majority of democratic party agenda, the stuff they were specifically elected to do, got tanked by pretty much by manchin and sinema. Two crooks who almost overtly vote for stuff that boosts their portfolios. And the entire democratic party took that up the ass with smile and then said thank you. Biden most pathetically of all. If democrats weren't spineless fools the minimum consequences of tanking the entire democratic platform would have been to have both of them called out, their primary opponents would already be at least unofficially endorsed by most of the party and the party would just in general make a point of make them unelectable. democrats nowadays don't even get the incrementalism they allege they stand for.

Exactly. But I think we would be in much better shape if democrats constantly pressured manchin and sinema. Even if it would not have worked (and it might have), aggressively primary'ing such people and making clear that this is not tolerated might give the party a better image.

The problems really arise when you have to stand for something you dont stand for, because people tend to notice.
That is also why clinton should not have run as a feminist, because she was not one and people knew.

My point is that we future of democratic campaigns should be stacey abrams, finding out what new electorates want and taking it up in a trustworthy and believable way without bullshitting the voters too much.

This does not pay off instantly, but it pays off long term. YOu do not have to run as a radical left that wants to eat the rich to be trustworthy, but you need to tell the truth even on things you dont like.

 

[xi0]

Exactly. But I think we would be in much better shape if democrats constantly pressured manchin and sinema. Even if it would not have worked (and it might have), aggressively primary'ing such people and making clear that this is not tolerated might give the party a better image.

It would have done the opposite. Manchin's approval rating is basically double what Biden's is in West Virginia. He is an unabashed crook and should be in jail, But a move to aggressively primary him from within the DNC would just be another example of the establishment shitting on the little guy. It wouldn't really be that in reality, but what matters is how it would play in WV. Any opponent they put against him would have zero chance of unseating him.

Sinema I'm less sure about because she has less of a record and is far less popular in Arizona with Democrats than she is with Republicans. Worst case scenario is they just end up flipping parties and at least the charade can end.

 

[kkck]

It would have done the opposite. Manchin's approval rating is basically double what Biden's is in West Virginia. He is an unabashed crook and should be in jail, But a move to aggressively primary him from within the DNC would just be another example of the establishment shitting on the little guy. It wouldn't really be that in reality, but what matters is how it would play in WV. Any opponent they put against him would have zero chance of unseating him.

Sinema I'm less sure about because she has less of a record and is far less popular in Arizona with Democrats than she is with Republicans. Worst case scenario is they just end up flipping parties and at least the charade can end.

What am I missing here? why would this be an example of the establishment shitting on the little guy? Manchin is the little guy here?

 

[shionoro]

It would have done the opposite. Manchin's approval rating is basically double what Biden's is in West Virginia. He is an unabashed crook and should be in jail, But a move to aggressively primary him from within the DNC would just be another example of the establishment shitting on the little guy. It wouldn't really be that in reality, but what matters is how it would play in WV. Any opponent they put against him would have zero chance of unseating him.

Sinema I'm less sure about because she has less of a record and is far less popular in Arizona with Democrats than she is with Republicans. Worst case scenario is they just end up flipping parties and at least the charade can end.

Manchin's national approval ratings are not amazing. too) • Favorability of Congressman Joe Manchin 2022 | Statista
His approval ratings in WV are fine and far better than biden's, but that hardly matters at all. What is going to happen if you aggressively primary him? Maybe he ends up winning out, but that gives you more reputation with national voter groups that matter and are not convinced yet.

If you defend Manchin because you want his seat, you end up having a majority that you cannot use and getting blame for manchin's actions.
In my opinion, it is better to not have the majority but a coherent party line than having a majority and having the notion of democratic majority being irrelevant.

 

[xi0]

What am I missing here? why would this be an example of the establishment shitting on the little guy? Manchin is the little guy here?

Yeah of course. West Virginia is a rather inconsequential state in the grand scheme of things. Manchin wields the power he does because the Senate demographics have nothing to do with the census - every state has 2 seats. He is/was valued because he's a Democrat in a purple state, so he caucuses with them and used to be able to be counted on for most things. The thing is, he doesn't even consider himself a Liberal at all.

Manchin and the GOP would easily paint this as Democrats abusing their power because he isn't in lockstep with them. And it would definitely play well over there, because they're massive hypocrites. Just look at how anyone that wasn't/isn't in lockstep with Trump is treated.