|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 23, 2023 19:29:51 GMT
I think the real disparagement to be made about Super PACs is ... the existence of Super PACs!! The campaign finance system is fu--OK, I'll keep it clean and say "screwed up"!
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Aug 23, 2023 20:09:51 GMT
I think the real disparagement to be made about Super PACs is ... the existence of Super PACs!! The campaign finance system is fu--OK, I'll keep it clean and say "screwed up"! I think your first choice of word's is more apropos.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Aug 23, 2023 23:51:18 GMT
B.E., you said you were watching the news out of Russia all day yesterday. What do you make of it all? Personally, I've got a feeling that his future in Belarus isn't going to be long or prosperout: I think he's going to "fall" out of a window or keel over suddenly of some health emergency in public. Putin's opponents, even internationally, have a way of experiencing bad luck. And Prigozhin isn't just some dissident politician, he literally began an armed revolt! Charges are dropped, OK ... we'll see. Reportedly died in a plane crash near Moscow. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 24, 2023 0:15:50 GMT
B.E. , you said you were watching the news out of Russia all day yesterday. What do you make of it all? Personally, I've got a feeling that his future in Belarus isn't going to be long or prosperout: I think he's going to "fall" out of a window or keel over suddenly of some health emergency in public. Putin's opponents, even internationally, have a way of experiencing bad luck. And Prigozhin isn't just some dissident politician, he literally began an armed revolt! Charges are dropped, OK ... we'll see. Reportedly died in a plane crash near Moscow. Wow. Yeah, I mentioned this in the interesting things thread. (I didn't know whether it was politics or what.) But in short: I figured he'd get sick or fall out of a window. I guess a plane crash is a little more dramatic.
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Aug 24, 2023 10:51:14 GMT
Well Kapitan called it - the Republican debate was a hot mess. I just wanted to throw stuff at my TV. Unfortunately, Ramaswamy did not do well at the start. Then everyone piled on him. I sort of hated all of them, though Mike Pence, who I have never been fond of, seem to come across as the most mature and experienced candidate. I just can’t get on board with his or most Republicans stance on Abortion, though. Most of the country does not agree with total or six week bans.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 24, 2023 12:33:50 GMT
Reading up on it and watching clips this morning, I can't say I'm surprised by anything I saw--except maybe that Tim Scott didn't seem to take advantage of the opportunity more to stand out.
What I find very, very disappointing is all those hands that went up to affirm those candidates would still support former Pres. Trump as their party's leader even if he were convicted of felonies. I understand a person can argue Trump is treated unfairly by the military. I can even understand a person thinking Democratic administrations would be harsher than Republican ones on a Republican (and vice versa). But if you truly think this country is so far gone that four separate jurisdictions, with judges named by both Democrats and Republicans, have charged the former president with 90+ felony charges, but somehow NONE of those charges are real (despite some of the evidence of some of those charges being in the open), or worse, that even if real, they don't matter "because Biden," "because Hilary," etc., I just don't know what to say.
I didn't like Trump being elected president. But he was. So he was president. I didn't like the way the GOP handled SCOTUS appointments going all the way back to refusing to vote on Merrick Garland because it was too late in Obama's term (yet hypocritically doing the opposite when they had a Republican president just four years later). But those justices are on the Supreme Court, so that's how it is.
My point is, these are our institutions. Law. The courts. Elections. Legislative system. Etc. We can begrudge them this and that decision, but if we are willing to say that a person (in this hypothetical case) convicted of trying to cheat in a federal election, AND of trying to keep classified documents after they've been found, etc., somehow shouldn't be held responsible or somehow still deserves some of the highest honors in the country, then I'm afraid we've lost it entirely. We're batshit crazy and should blow the whole damn thing up. Because if we get to that point, there is no law. There is no order. It is quite literally survival of the fittest, pure tribalism, aligning with the toughest gang that can force its way through.
In other words, it's third-world shit.
We have to grow up and act like our parents and grandparents did. Having respect or admiration for someone is one thing; cults of personality are quite another, and this one looks like a real cult worthy of the name. That level of boot-licking is simply beneath us as a society. No person deserves it.
And just imagine how those same people--both Republican viewers and the candidates--would react to a field of Democrats doing the exact same thing. Raising their hands saying, "we don't care if Joe Biden ends up convicted of felonies [perhaps related to Hunter and Chinese or Ukraine grift], we would still support him as president even if he had to run his administration from prison." Imagine that! These people would rightly have a fit.
It is beneath us as a people to show so little faith in our institutions, which are staffed by hundreds of thousands of diverse people across this country, and instead put it in a single person even if the evidence were to go against him to the point that he were convicted of felonies. To say, oh well, thanks for all the effort, but we still believe what we believed beforehand because we like when he says rude things to own the libs.
(It's a wildly unconservative thing, by the way, dismissing institutions, justice, the rule of law, for one man's ego cult.)
For people who want to be president and might be in a position to become president to say they would flaut law, tradition, and institutions to that degree for a man who would gladly shit on each and every one if he thought it would suit him--and in some cases, he has--is beyond self-degradation.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Aug 24, 2023 13:17:07 GMT
I was also disappointed in Tim Scott. He rolled out the same old tropes as everyone else and just seemed generally weaker than everyone else. I'm sure everyone now knows that he grew up poor, though. I can't say I'm surprised at Ramaswamy. It could've gone either way because he is very smart, but his inexperience did show very much. Just a lot of ideas that might sound ok in theory, but real-world issues make them irrelevant to dangerous. Christie had an ok debate. Pence was stronger than I had anticipated. DeSantis probably performed a little above expectations. I think Nikki Haley was a big winner. I had always kind of liked her until she started getting into the anti-woke bs. Doug Burgum had a good night, will probably stay in the race longer than people expect. Asa Hutchinson never really moved the needle.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Aug 25, 2023 1:56:33 GMT
For the record, I missed some of the debate, but I probably heard 75-80% of the responses:
To echo both carllove and TCK, I thought Pence had a stronger performance than expected. Also, Nikki Haley had a pretty strong debate as well. Christie was good, but he wasn't at his best. Hutchinson didn't make himself standout, but I liked that he brought up the 14th amendment. For the most part, those candidates I mentioned came off as (fairly) experienced and knowledgeable and were relatively well-behaved. Then there's Vivek Ramaswamy! Wow, sorry carllove, but I hate that guy! He was so disrespectful. He really did not look like he belonged. A guy with no experience and little apparent relevant knowledge. I thought he was especially distasteful in how he treated Pence. I loved seeing Nikki Haley destroy him on foreign policy. His policies are stupid and extreme. I liked that some of the more experienced candidates were pointing out that we can "do both" - meaning we can support Ukraine and address other issues. All that isolationist (and authoritarian) shit is just that. Supporting Ukraine is one of my biggest issues. It is not possible to be strong on Russia or China without supporting Ukraine. I was also somewhat pleased that it wasn't just Christie criticizing/opposing Trump (Pence and Hutchinson did as well at times) and that it wasn't all boos from the audience either in that regard. Maybe the best thing that can come out of that debate is Republicans (momentarily) experiencing politics after Trump and realizing that it wouldn't be the end of the world. As for the rest of the candidates, I both didn't like them and thought their performances were pretty weak.
To be clear, with the exception of Christie - who I pretty strongly support - my expectations were about as low as can be for the rest of them.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 30, 2023 17:34:13 GMT
A bit wonky, but extremely interesting column by NYT's Thomas Edsall in which assorted scholars argue that the rise of small individual donations (defined as $200 or less) is actually a major contributor to the increase in political polarization, as those donors tend to be more ideological (both conservative and progressive) than bigger donors or the parties themselves. The column also includes opinions as to how this shows up in campaign messaging and eventual policy. Taken from the column: And then: One of the political scientists (Cal's David Broockman) argues that this polarization is increasing everywhere, at every level, with a survey of more than 1,000 county-level party leaders “given the choice between a more centrist and more extreme candidate, they strongly prefer extremists, with Democrats doing so by about 2 to 1 and Republicans by 10 to 1.” The columnist Edsall closes the piece with: "If what Broockman and his co-authors found about local party leaders is a signal that polarized thinking is gaining strength at all levels of the Democratic and Republican parties, the prospects for those seeking to restore sanity to American politics — or at least reduce extremism — look increasingly dismal." Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Aug 30, 2023 19:55:27 GMT
That brings up a lot of thoughts, first and foremost, is a civil war on the horizon? That may seem like a big reach at this point, but just thinking out loud, as divisiveness continues to get worse, where does it end? It probably wouldn't look anything like the 1860s version. The one commonality is the slowly rising tensions through the years/decades. Or maybe people will move to states with ideals they think are correct. It's said that politics are local. Those policies generally affect us the most and what happens when it's not some guy in Washington making extreme (in your view) decisions, but the guy you know who lives down the road. Whether it be the school board, township trustee, etc. I'm sure we've all seen the videos of the very heated school board meetings with parents concerned about "woke" teaching. Or maybe the fact that these people do know each might keep things from getting worse. January 6th still lingers nationally. Could it be a precursor to something worse down the road? I still have hope that once Trump is truly out of the political picture, tensions will cool slightly and go back to "only" pretty bad (as if that's really something to strive for) as they were before Trump announced his campaign in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 30, 2023 21:05:19 GMT
Maybe I'm an optimist (though I'm not often called one), or maybe I'm naive. But I don't think we'll devolve into a civil war. Contrary to many alarmist media narratives, we've actually been more divided, and much more politically violent.
If something so terrible were to happen, though, it would be fascinating (if one weren't actually here at the time). Unlike the 1860s, there is no obvious geographical divide. Forget no easy North v South, there isn't even a (much messier) Red v Blue, because keep in mind that even in the "blue" states, once one leaves the urban areas, they tend to be pretty red; and in the "red" states, the cities are still pretty blue. But even there, "red" or "blue" often mean maybe something like 60-75%. We're not talking 90%.
So does it mean cities war against rural areas and vice versa? Cities obviously have the vast majority of the wealth, so that's not much of a fight. (Conversely, rural areas are VERY heavily armed. But even if you've got a armaments vault--and to be clear, I literally know people from my original hometown who do, and my dad knows many, many more--you're vastly outmanned and outfinanced.)
Is it a generational war? Because the red side would be disproportionately senior citizens. That's not a great look for anyone involved, either.
The idea of people self-sorting more than they already do, it's conceivable ... but it's a lot to ask of a lot of people. How many 20- or 30-somethings moved from the country, small towns, or suburbs to live in a city and would count themselves as on Team Blue while their parents and grandparents are Team Red? Do we really think people would abandon their loved ones to move into their new country of choice? Grandma decides she doesn't care about seeing her grandkids, so long as she's living in Team Red country and vice versa?
But I think while a lot of people might daydream about splitting the country into reds and blues, I don't think many people actually want that fight. I think it's very, very few, and I think they either haven't thought through what it would mean, or they're literally delusional.
And I'd also toss out there, it means admitting we've lost. It means we admit we can't figure out how to manage a country of diverse citizens through our democratic and republican principles. How pathetic is that?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 31, 2023 13:13:04 GMT
Sheriff John Stone , something politics-adjacent has come to my attention a couple times in the past few days, and I wonder if you have an opinion on it. I ask you specifically because you've mentioned being a Catholic, and this deals with the Catholic church. A NYT story published yesterday says: Later in that article, more conservative American Catholic clergy are quoted in opposition to the pope, as is Cardinal Raymond Burke's recent book, warning that Francis may be leading the church toward a schism. It's that--schism--that I wanted to ask you about. I've heard other talk recently about similar fears, and wondered if it is a conversation within the Catholic community as far as you know. Is it something you hear about or fear? In Protestant churches, schisms are a dime a dozen. But formal breaks within Catholicism feel so much more significant, because it's a singular tradition going back so far with so much (relatively speaking) unity. So I'm curious. Edit - of course, I'm interested in anyone else's opinions, too. I just thought of SJS first because of the Catholicism aspect. But anyone, Catholic or not, religious or not, is more than welcome to weigh in.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 31, 2023 19:45:46 GMT
There have been schisms - formal and informal - in the Catholic church for years now. But, yes, I would say that some of Pope Francis's philosophies have led and will lead to more. Maybe more than usual. How serious or how vast they may become? I guess I'm old-fashioned. And skeptical. I can't see it (schisms springing up) taking over or even making a substantial...difference. I think apathy will play a key role, meaning I just don't think enough Catholics will care enough to promote and implement major change(s). I think the schisms will basically be ignored, whether it be out of fear, or again, just keeping the status quo.
I'm really worried about "the numbers" in the Catholic church. I think the number of people active in Catholicism, simply attending daily/weekly mass, and, of course, supporting it financially, is dwindling significantly. I suppose that's true of a lot of faiths. But, at least where I live, I see Catholic schools closing, half-filled (not even that) churches on Sundays, some churches closing, church festivals being cancelled due to lack of volunteers, various church committees folding due to a lack of interest/participation, and just an overall lack of parishioners living the Catholic faith. A lot of the older generations, the generations who valued and supported (in many ways) the Catholic church, have passed on, and they are not being replaced by younger generations.
One last thing. The Catholic church took a tremendous beating over the last decade with the sexual abuse by priests scandals. The Catholic church lost a lot of followers, a lot of money (due to settling out-of-court with the victims), and a lot of goodwill. It's going to take some change, some new philosophies, some new teachings, and some new leaders - like Pope Francis? - to turn things around. The Catholic church dug themselves a hole, and they have a lot of work ahead to dig themselves out...and ultimately grow again.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 31, 2023 20:00:31 GMT
I'm really worried about "the numbers" in the Catholic church. I think the number of people active in Catholicism, simply attending daily/weekly mass, and, of course, supporting it financially, is dwindling significantly. I suppose that's true of a lot of faiths. But, at least where I live, I see Catholic schools closing, half-filled (not even that) churches on Sundays, some churches closing, church festivals being cancelled due to lack of volunteers, various church committees folding due to a lack of interest/participation, and just an overall lack of parishioners living the Catholic faith. A lot of the older generations, the generations who valued and supported (in many ways) the Catholic church, have passed on, and they are not being replaced by younger generations.
I think this is very true. I can tell you that when I was a kid--yes, a few decades ago, but not an eternity ago!--the question in my small town would have been "what church do you go to?" not "do you go to a church?" But even there, church membership and attendance are both way, way down (to say nothing of in cities, where I believe it is lower still). My late brother was a Lutheran pastor, and they faced the same kinds of struggles. It didn't help that his/our brand of Lutheranism was not the primary ones, which are quite liberal, but actually more conservative than Catholicism on most theological points. But for a few decades, I think a lot of people left traditional denominations for nondenominational, conservative megachurches or very liberal churches. Now, I think there are moves away from both of those options, too, just toward no church at all. As an atheist, I can only say so much about that. But I will say that regardless of my (lack of) beliefs or criticisms a person could make about them, I think a lot of good comes from traditional religions, be it their moral teachings or their ability to strengthen communities. Anyway, I just got to wondering about it. Will we see in my lifetime an American conservative splinter church that considers itself the true Catholic church, while the existing Catholic church continues along? (This is precisely what happens--A LOT--in Lutheranism and other Protestant denominations.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 4, 2023 12:46:27 GMT
NYT has a good story on a subject that is part of my overall queasiness with strongly supporting the war in Ukraine: corruption in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Zelensky replaced his Minister of Defense at a key moment in the war because of graft and corruption. Whatever one's American politics-- and partisan politics are not at all a part of this post--we knew before the war that Ukraine was wildly corrupt. The establishment and Obama administration joined European countries before the war to press Ukraine on this issue over their energy sector, meaning they knew it. And Republicans, of course, point to that same issue and era as corrupt, with the difference being Biden family involvement in it. Either way: corrupt. Since the war began, some supporters have almost insisted we should give more or less anything we're asked for, and do so freely, no strings attached. Don't ask questions, don't demand audits, whose side are you on?!?But to oversimplify, just because the Russian government is bad, that doesn't mean the Ukrainian government is good. And flooding the world with arms to be traded, sold, or misused, is even worse than flooding it with cash to be skimmed or misdirected. We've done this repeatedly, arming Central and South American anticommunist regimes that were bloody fascist gangs; we helped arm Saddam's Iraq against Iran; we heavily armed the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan; and even going back to Vietnam, we doled out weapons and supplies that quickly crossed into enemy hands. Unfortunately America isn't innocent of this kind of thing, either. It was in recent history that we learned of the Fat Leonard scandal with our navy in Singapore. Thankfully, at least according to this story, the corruption discovered so far hasn't seemed to involve American arms or money. But: It's good news that they are taking anticorruption steps. Hopefully they can clean things up.
|
|