wemptronics
2mo ago
Obstinate Gun Owners is a thing, but I don't think they're analogous to environmentalists. Gun owners and its advocacy are working with much different incentives. Gun owners online can be annoying like environmentalists, but gun owners are mostly fine to stay out of the news. Most change is bad, most coverage is bad. Status quo is the best thing. They rarely receive friendly reporting when they organize, so they haven't learned to leverage media the same way as environmentalists. Generally, 2A advocacy groups fight in in the courts, or in some places on online forums (lol), but not in big displays of protest.
When gun owners do mass it's usually not so much a shock-and-awe lever, but a more traditional "we exist, there's lots of us, we will walk to the state capitol, clean up, and leave."
I accept my AAQC award with the full backing of my Motte-poster syndrome. Not quite involved or insightful enough to stand on its own AAQC merits. Yet it provides a decent enough platform for someone like @Throwaway05 to show up and share some actually interesting perspective. That's the good stuff.
Happy birthday to the Motte! May the terrible twos lead to a less terrible threes.
A drink to the contributors of today. Many of you have entertained me, educated me, and challenged my thinking as a bystander. I hope you continue to contribute to this strange, intentional game of epistemic gut punching-- and to continue to try to punch with humility, understanding, and as politely as required.
Another drink for the fallen heroes of yesterday. Flamed out, rage quit, opened a substack, or quietly got on in life. For on their shoulders the pillars were chiseled, crafted, and raised. Without them this would be a redundant space. May their final contributions not be their last.
Lastly, a drink to the jannies. Whose sweat and toil allows us to call this place something special. Whose actions so often offend some while greatly offending others. Controversial mod actions could inspire a theatrical comedy. I hope you all keep good humor when dealing with janny work. Without your effort handling Code Red online forum crises all would be lost. They do it for free!
No matter if it has gone down hill, up hill, right hill, or around the hill I consider this project a success. However frequently you believe this place lives up to its ideals, or fails to, I believe it has earned the right to be called special. I could be on the toilet or hiding from in-laws. You all so often give this lurker context and voice I would not otherwise find. Kudos, and carry on
I know post-Covid we have more traffic fatalities. Looks like phone adoption could have caused a minor spike, then a larger spike that went down before 2019-2020. The pre-2020 increases aren't found in other nations looks like, so the phone factor may not be real.
People get comfortable, then they stop driving and start doing whatever else. Most people are not going to be F1 capable drivers. There the act of working a vehicle is an active, exhaustive set of skills that require constant attention and decision-making. The average person puts however many thousands of hours behind the wheel and they stop thinking about it unless their lizard brain gets triggered.
Average people are going to have lapses in attention while driving. Average people will make a mistake and get mad at someone else for it. Most of the time they won't hurt themselves or others. That's how I assume the majority of accidents occur. Not cases of poor judgment ("I can make this light"), but cases of without much judgment, absent mindedness, and habit.
Cases of misjudgment and bad drivers obviously cause accidents. The courts don't try very hard to identify these people out of the sea of tickets and educate them. Even people that get DUI's don't have to take more training. They get sent to some state-sponsored money mill that they pay money to be told drinking and driving is bad. Forget DUI school. Make them take driving classes taught by professional drivers. People that receive DUI convictions could be the most elite class of driver on the road.
wemptronics
2mo ago
Interesting. It surprises me Seattle doesn't In This House anymore. Speaking in generalities, my city is much blacker, but far less woke than Seattle. Although the neighborhoods the signs go up in probably have comparable demographics to ones in Seattle. A declining trend regardless.
Seattle suburbs I would have guessed were blue as blue gets. Some push for change I reckon? As much change as state legislators can provide hah.
I still see these with regular frequency in my [major US city] in white, middle/upper middle class neighborhoods. Which are the only neighborhoods they had presence in to begin with. I see comparatively less of them than 4 years ago-- perhaps by half or more. You will see one per every couple of streets. Two or more in each neighborhood would be my guess.
I continue to see no Trump signals with certain exceptions. Plenty of Trump signs out in Ruralville by normal enough people. It's only when the "in my house" sign is accompanied by other sloganeering, yard art, and tacky decorations does the sign indicate a potential loon.
A willingness to put up a Trump sign in my neighborhood might indicate an intent to be excessively confrontational, and that's a trait lots of loons have, but that's also the point of political signs, no? It's why many people with taste don't smear their cars and homes in sloganeering. No offense to anyone that cares to.
I have not noticed any Harris signage yet. Maybe they haven't had time to pump those out yet? I do see the odd, old Biden/Harris bumper sticker, but it does feel like it is with less frequency than the last couple cycles.
Mostly depends if R's have any tricks up their sleeves. I don't think she will be in a position to fuck up bad enough with regards to governance or policy while campaigning. Biden can take heat for any Whitehouse failures on his way out. Even if he doesn't want to. She can pick and choose what to take credit for. She can do her one debate, be described as passing, and the worst will be over for her.
If she gets into office, then she likely gets a free ride for a year. Beyond that, there's always a possibility of a mishandled crisis, interests collide, or something significant enough occurs that cause the media to begin to Ask Questions. How that goes down depends on the topic and interests involved. We might get the We Always Knew, But Had to Defeat Trump retrospectives. Either way, her favorability will trend downwards, as they all do, then a renewed, reinvigorated fight for Democracy miraculously emerges just in time for the 2028 election.
If she is as incompetent and inept as detractors suggest, then the scale of this trajectory can compressed or derailed. She could be at risk of a primary in '28 or, ironically, pressured to step down quietly as her predecessor was. Despite what the media looks like now, Kamala doesn't have the history, connections, or gravitas that Joe The Tenured Statesman has. Those roots grease wheels and papers over a lot of cracks; enough grease and paper to cover burgeoning senility. Alternatively, with this information you could make the argument that the media is just that complicit or effective.
Obama mimicry -- Joy instead of Hope/Change -- is heavily reliant on media complicity and voter willingness to believe. I don't think Kamala is capturing Full Obama-type energy. People are mostly relieved to be given a reason to vote for her and vote against Trump. Obama was capable of contributing to his own narrative in material ways. He could give a speech, he could play the voice of the moderate, he could pander to and rally his base against their ideological enemies. He knew enough to know when and where to choose to do these things.
For the varnish to wear off before the election-- that would require a hell of a fuck up, or a black swan event like Trump dying where media has lesser (if still plenty) reasons to remain complicit in narrative construction.
wemptronics
2mo ago
wemptronics
2mo ago
doing something like that would make us just as bad as them!"
Everyone says this all the time. Both party supporters believe they have the moral high ground in whatever area they are incapable.
If Republicans could muster up a non-profit network that would do their bidding, they would do so without a second thought about the high ground. But they don't have this capability and dont have people willing or interested in building it. I think that lack of interest goes beyond "it is dirty and wrong."
Partly why I don't understand why @TracingWoodgrains gets so much push-back (on Twitter at least) on his Republicans Are Doomed piece. Maybe the conclusion is wrong, but the observations regarding disparity in human capital and reach are correct.
People with depression should be encouraged to do normal person things. How far up the list would you put voting? High enough to start a major non-profit? There's plenty of functional, healthy people that don't find voting necessary or worth worrying about. At least when it comes to the psych patients it screams predatory to me.
What would a more candid presentation look like to you?
This is what it might look like to me: "yes we are a D political advocacy group that aims to register more Ds. We offer registration resources to other non-D voting demographics. As this allows us to call ourselves non-partisan and more effectively recruit potential doctors to help our political cause. We will not try nearly as hard to reach non-D voting demographics, either through resource allocation or messaging, but that is not our mission."
My candid description might be uncharitable. If it is I encourage you explain why it might be. I don't believe a truly non-partisan voter registration non-profit for hospitals goes national. It definitely doesn't creep into inpatient mental health treatment centers. Not enough juice to squeeze there. "You can register to vote here" sign in a waiting room doesn't have the same pizazz as massive non-profits with a mission and culture aligned with the interests of one party. The goal is to leverage trust in doctors on one end and hope the correct type of votes come out the other end. It's not even trying to obfuscate, really.
Addressing ethical questions should be more than half the battle in doing anything non-medicinal in medicine. That's a good standard to have in a high stakes profession.
wemptronics
2mo ago
Unless I read it wrong, the 50,000 number references the number of doctors they signed up to register voters. According to Google this is between 4-5% of all doctors in the United States. This number sounds unbelievable as I write it, but I'm no longer in a position to double check stuff at a screen. Did I quote that correctly?
Perhaps it is just the number of voter registrations and Aaron was sloppy with his writing? I can look tomorrow.
Did y'all talk about this story by Aaron Sibarium earlier this month?
Meet the Little-Known Activist Group That Has Tens of Thousands of Doctors Registering Patients To Vote
The article starts by describing a psychiatric institute in Pennsylvania that started an initiative to register voters.
Located in a swing state that could decide the 2024 election, the hospital asks psychiatric inpatients, regardless of diagnosis, if they would be interested in "voter registration tools" that let them check their nearest polling station and register to vote online. Patients can also request a mail-in ballot with "assistance" from hospital staff, according to a pair of papers about the project, which began in 2020.
...as the institute puts it, [voting] is a "therapeutic tool" that "helps empower patients and makes them feel good."
"Voting is an important part of the recovery process," Julie Graziane, a geriatric psychiatrist
Since the initiative is in a medical institution it must be justified, because you can't just waltz into medicine and decide voting is important. No, these institutes are bound to a sacred oath that commits their staff to the health of patients. By necessity, voting must become good for patients.
After the starting the voter registration initiative, the Pennsylvania hospital "has turned to the nonprofit Vot-ER, which develops "nonpartisan civic engagement tools" for "every corner of the healthcare system." This is where my lack of strong objection turns into a fully committed objection.
Founded by an emergency room physician at Harvard Medical School, Alister Martin, who served as an adviser to Vice President Kamala Harris, Vot-ER has helped more than 50,000 doctors register their patients to vote. Vot-ER claims to be nonpartisan, it is staffed by progressive operatives, funded by progressive foundations, and run by an umbrella nonprofit, A Healthier Democracy, that has referred to DEI as "the bedrock of fair healthcare." And ahead of the 2024 election, it is leading a movement—backed by top medical groups and an executive order from the Biden-Harris administration
The basic gist is that medical staff wear a QR code around their neck and point patients to it in order to register. A 2021 executive order encouraged this behavior, but Vot-ER's site only cites the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 in its FAQ page as its legal reason to exist. Medical professionals have the greenlight to seek out patients and proactively attempt to register them to vote.
I did not vet every link in the article, but I did look at a few, and as far as I can tell most of the quotes are presented in a fair enough, if biased, context. There are professionals willing to say stuff like these bits:
Debra Koss, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Rutgers... described a patient who, depressed by the poor conditions in her Section 8 apartment building, gained an "internal locus of control" by registering to vote. "Ultimately, she became less anxious and depressed," the doctors wrote in an op-ed last year, "and for the first time in 15 years, her intrusive suicidal thoughts ceased to exist."
I think if voting cures depression that's great, but I suspect voting does not cure depression and Debra Koss is not offering a medical opinion.
At the Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, Graziane, the geriatric psychiatrist, has argued that voting can "increase life satisfaction, decrease risky behaviors and increase mental wellbeing."
Their argument echoed what [the founder of Vote-ER] told the New York Times in a 2020 interview... The time for doctors "being impartial and apolitical," he said, "is over."
I watched most of a 20 minute talk from the founder of Vot-ER from 2023. It was very heavy on the voting aspect, the benefits of voting, and the benefit of voter registration. Not so much attention given to the medical aspect, ethical questions, or potential impacts. I briefly trolled through Vot-ER's site and, as far as I could tell, they don't provide any studies supporting the idea their program has significant positive medical benefits to patients. Which I would have figured would be necessary. If a doctor is doing something to me as a doctor it should improving my health.
If a person comes in with a broken arm and you offer to register them to vote on their way out I think this carries ethical questions but, fine, whatever. When the program extends to mental health institutions and picks up a motto of Voting Is Great For You Actually Because Anecdote this seems like it should be made an issue.
I'm no expert, but I am not under the impression that dedicating more attention to politics is the best path to a healthy mental state. I am under the impression that politics, particularly of the national sort, in this day and age appears to degrade many people's mental well being. Encouraging people to vote is not necessarily damaging to their psyche, but a focus on voting might be a gateway drug. An organization, staffed by party operatives or affiliates, pushing a political non-profits goals onto medical staff in hospitals is wrong.
Like ballot harvesting I think it's sleazy. I can accept sleaziness in politics. People accept that politics is not holy and sacred, but dirty. Importing it into medicine, which I know is not new, seems particularly bad though. Initiatives like this drives resentment when, on the other hand, I am inundated by messaging that claims one party is holy, good, and joyous democracy lovers-- while this party engages in what appears to be deeply cynical, irreverent electioneering. I guess I'll accept sleazy politics in medicine as well.
Wow, thanks for sharing I'm glad I didn't miss that post. In case people don't know the OP of the reddit thread's username is an homage to the very pilot that was involved in the crash. The pilot was an active redditor that, as his username suggests, sought to dispel the misconceptions surrounding the the V-22.
Mostly he spent a lot of time explaining it was statistically average when it came to flight hours per crash when compared to other rotary aircraft. The kind of viral stuff that doesn't matter to Marines engaging in morbid bants or casual History Channel guys explaining how the M1 Garand ping was a problem that alerted Nazis a soldier ran out of ammo.
It's ironic that what were known, solvable parts failures in the V-22 likely had a major hand in killing the one guy who was so publicly committed to explaining how perfectly fine the aircraft is. For him to be blamed the same as a parts failure is borderline ridiculous if that post is accurate.
Does anyone know why that account was suspended? I had to google the username to remember, found another Osprey AMA on reddit (may be the same person) and they also have a suspended account. I know the wife of /u/UR_WRONG_ABOUT_V22/ took over the account shortly after the November '23 incident. Unless it was some LARP, stolen valor incident, or "suspended" is the same as deleted, then that seems very strange. As far as I know GUNDAM-22 (a pilot in the Nov 23 crash) was /u/UR_WRONG_ABOUT_V22/.
As for your larger point, while I agree we'll see material damages from a competency crisis I'm not sure this is the best example. For an aircraft that already has a controversial reputation it wouldn't surprise me that "pilot error" would find its way pushed up the who-to-blame ladder. If the V-22 is useful, good enough, and safe enough, but carries an unwarranted reputation, then review boards have good reason to fear the whole truth. It can fly faster and further than other rotary craft. It doesn't take many senators that have use for a Save Our Troops crusade to jeopardize this capability.
That said, bureaucrats placing blame to protect Boeing contracts and their credibility alone is disgusting and, I agree, emblematic of wider corruption. Do I expect this issue to be addressed? Yeah. Would I expect better risk management, manufacturing/quality control? Not really. That would be also be a good crusade for a senator, but you can't replace Boeing in a day.
This might be uncharitable of me
I think so. I would not say "I wish I could just use force to get women to have sex with me" is a common theme on 4chan. "Show tits or gtfo" or "women are stupid and/or weak and/or gay" are common themes. I have not visited /r9k/ enough, but extreme incel-ery was mocked on the more normie hobbyist boards.
But it is much easier for me to imagine men flouting those laws in mass than it is to imagine men literally going to war against the woman-coded side.
You would think striking would be a logical step before more serious conflict. Yet, we see plenty of civil wars and domestic strife go hot without general strikes. It's not a necessary precursor to violence or coups.
I'm of two minds. I agree with you that violent conflict seems unlikely. If men have enough collective grievance and mass to try to strip power from the Women's Party, they probably can do so without violence. If they develop collective grievances and identity, but not enough mass, then that's just your average rebellion. Men kill other men over power and all is right with the world.
On the flipside, we're in uncharted waters. If universal suffrage in two-party systems universally approaches a 50/50 gender divide I'm not sure how that's supposed to work or remain stable. There is a limit to what policies people can vote for at the detriment to their spouses, such as reparations tax on men, and those without children/spouses don't create long-lasting dynasties. But of the culture war stuff where the divide is becoming most prevalent?
On the topic of war, what about a foreign war? If the Women's Party decides war is in the nation's interest they are sending the Men's Party to fight it. If the Men's Party doesn't want to fight it, then I don't see how that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the state. If the Women's Party identifies this problem, and thus never responds to conflict without the Men's Party approval, that similarly seems to call into question their legitimacy to rule.
And I am lucky enough that at least the women I am close with are either politically moderate like me or are hard-core Democrats but are capable of having a conversation with me about politics without yelling.
Same.
It's an interesting trend. A gender divided party system seems unstable and people should probably worry about it. I guess one possibility is powerful women rule over men backed by T-3000 terminators and a matriarchy that provides women with government sponsored AI husbandos.
Oh, that's potentially good discipline. Is the expectation that you have to give up the act and engage more candidly in replies? Otherwise you invite dedicated trolls and jannies try to prevent that.
It is not so reasonable to declare lower class immigrants elects (the chutzpah!) to the dirty, lazy, good for nothing natives. I imagine this was for effect, which means it is effortful if intentionally provocative.
I did ask for a steelman for what I see as* the UK establishment position. This is far more culture warry than steelman-y. The most steelmanistic part is describing a need for migration, the rest of it is one half elitist scrutiny, one half deferential multiculturalism that I'm not sure anyone really holds as a true blue belief. Which could be read as satire if we did not believe the writer is attempting to rustle "our" jimmies. That's good writing even if unintentional.
This post is borderline too uncharitable/provocative. It is not exceptionally thoughtful, although I did report it as a based post. Which in my mind exists beyond an AAQC in another dimension. It's a different kind of post. Is it a shitpost? Yeah, kinda, but a tolerable and interesting one. One you get away with maybe a couple times a year if you're a prolific poster? I always appreciated lefty affirmative action in this space. I vote minor janny spanking, but I also do not deal with you weirdos all the time.
Yeah, my gut says we're failing the Turing test. That reads too closely to online doomer well-of-course-the-whites-won't-revolt rage thinking. A person that thinks that nativist uprisings in this context are completely unjustified isn't going to defend their position with a through-and-through justification of the lopsided enforcement. Maybe they do, but if they're a dedicated pragmatist, then surely they can see the inherently impractical nature in failing to sufficiently placate the majority native population? All you have to do is demonstrate that the majority is sufficiently cared for and protected from [bad people]. It doesn't take much to Set Examples for said population. If there were enough examples to support a policy choice they'd be easy to point to?
It may be the case that the authorities deliberately decided it was safer to align against the majority to some extent, but I'm struggling to think of alternatives explanations that aren't ideological. If it's been a misjudgment of pragmatic policy (less strife and chance of ethnic misgivings if we stack the deck this way) that'd be one thing, but it's ended up so predictably wrong I don't know how you can really say it was a practical policy choice at all. UK decided to do this in 2005 when all was nice enough and inertia carried it through 20 years I guess?
The posts Andrew Torba shared don't seem particularly charged. I have no idea if that's a selection of his posts or all of them, but those aren't the comments of deranged 20 year old leftist shouting online. Without further context those read pretty close to the median internet argument. We can go read far less reasoned comments on reddit all day. For all we know those comments are evidence he liked to pass time as a devil's advocate. This forum has seen a few.
If Torba provided that selection to demonstrate Crooks as frothing leftist I don't buy the framing. Which makes his actions more puzzling. He probably wasn't a committed online ideologue, so why do what he did? More evidence towards CIA LSD mind control device from beyond the Ice Wall.
This has earned him the moniker of "Two-Tier Kier", with many calling out that a two tier justice system exists in the country; when minorities riot over facing justice, the state bends over backwards to appease them, but when native whites riot over the stabbing of children, the full force of the state comes out to crush them.
I'm not familiar enough with the state of it all to opine, but if someone were to steelman the opposite position -- that there is no two-tier policing and the UK authorities and police treat everyone fairly -- what would it be?
Does it require a context wherein a certain response to BLM type or Indo-Paki protests are justified to receive tacit support, but things like anti-vax/anti-lockdown/anti-mask protests do not? Rotherham grooming gangs is sufficiently dated to where a steelman may not necessarily need to address it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more recent examples that a Brits would point to. What is the evidence that UK authorities do not treat the benefactors and subjects of the migrant friendly, multiculturalist policies more kindly than they do their own native citizens? Or would the argument be that they are justified in doing so to avoid, well, I would have thought they'd say they do so to avoid conflict like this.
Looking it up 3/4 of migrants that they detain file some legal dispute and the UK deports around 5,000 foreign criminals a year.
Say what you will about the Bri'ish Isles, but UK government reports seem so much higher quality than stuff America puts out. That second link is nicely packed with information. Especially the part where they explain EU human rights commissions fudge up "deport first, appeal later" policy where they kicked people out before hearing out their disputes. Just what exactly did Brexit do for the UK in this regard? Anything? As an aside, opening up your nice Western legal system to the world continues to appear untenable. Where can I invest in human rights law firms?
In 2023, just under 4,000 foreign offenders were removed from the UK. This was the highest number in four years, but removals remain lower than pre- pandemic levels. From 2010 to 2019, removals averaged 5,500 per year. [39]
There were 10,400 foreign national offenders in prisons in England and Wales as of 31 March 2024, accounting for 12% of all prisoners.
Whether those numbers are a lot or a little does little to quell concerns about importing tragedy. Anyone knowledgeable enough and feeling steel manny enough to explain why this is just a common nativist rage, the UK government deals with these issues handedly, or alternative angles? From this side of the ocean it does seem like this is a long time coming.
EDIT: Thinking about it, if they're deporting about half the number of "foreign offenders" that they keep in jail, that seems like a significant amount. Although this doesn't engage with the fact that foreign criminals become classified as native ones in a quick 15 years, stuff like the criminality of 2nd generation immigrant citizens, and so on.
Israel can't defend its own citizens on its own soil
That's true. I would call a new neighboring government in Gaza that only required minimal military action to maintain on a path to a formal state recognition would be a victory, but many Israelis would not. Politics has them in a perpetually compromised position. They punch above their weight imo.
As soon as the IDF gets sick of being ambushed and pull out of any one part of Gaza, Hamas moves right back in.
Yeah they've done the 'mowing the grass' strategy for a long time. It's management, not solution, which is probably the best they can ask for with the parameters set. It's one of a few options they can do when there's no desire to officially rule a territory or go all the way via violence.
Israel is not impervious to rockets landing in the country. I'm not too interested in talking about how important or effective Iron Dome is. All I said was that if Iran's great show of force doesn't deter actions such as this strike on a target supposedly nearby Iranian officials, then what great success is that show of force? Just because Israel has targeted Hamas and Hezbollah leaders before, and will again, does not make the strike insignificant.
I also don't see many people calling the current state this conflict a victory for Israel. Shills are very optimistic as ever. Resistance types still insist it is a fake and gay country filled with Jews. The current state of the conflict seems about right. Maybe better than they could hope for considering what they were prepared for when it came to entering Gaza. Having an actionable plan for governing the territory, or transitioning power there, seems like it would've been a pretty good idea to get going 9 months ago. Perhaps that's impossible too, but I suspect that's mostly political as well.
There's a lot of brain worms when it comes to Israel. Oh well that's cyber for ya.
"We can hypothetically launch more drones at you and actually do harm" after launching a few is not a victory in itself. It looks like they won very public assassinations of their allies and vassal leaders on their home turf. What else did they win?
The problem with launching 3000 drones is that is usually called a war and they don't want that kind of war. Whereas Israel appears to be asking for one or certain they won't get one. Israel did say they'd kill all Hamas leadership, so maybe there's an understanding. That's what proxies are for. Dying so you don't have to.
are you suggesting that a Rubicon crossing is less likely if we allow the President more leeway?
Yes, of course. Caesar's enemies don't need to placate all of his ambition. They need a bit less obstructionism, unyielding perspective, bitter zero sum politics, and a few clicks down on the compulsion to destroy their political rivals. Employ a bit more savvy, a bit more compromise, and outcomes other than the destruction of the Republic become more likely. Hopefully those outcomes even become appealing or preferable. I would not go back in time to tell Cato that if he imposes a few more limitations -- just one more extra long filibuster -- on his bitter enemy that everything would work out. The obstructionism, the politics, the factionalism is how you find out, woops, I guess power can be different than what it appears to be.
I didn't argue that the executive shouldn't have any limitations to immunity. Just that the Trump v. US ruling landed in about the correct area. The President is not practically any more or less "immune" to murdering his political enemies than he was 10 years ago. I have only read excerpts of the opinions and dissents, by the way.
It sounds like you have a lot more trust in the entities that enforce "rules and boundaries" than I do. I believe if the President had no legal immunities today they would be mired in nothing but lawsuits. I'd wager we agree there, then at some point from no limitations on prosecution to has chip in his brain that puts him to sleep when he thinks about a crime we diverge. Allowing the President to do stuff without having obstructionism and factionalism destroy the Republic is good. The qualm about the bribes hypothetical that ACB (I think) brought up as and the related evidentiary issue is a sticking point. I don't mind the President being immune to extra presidential bribes if it means another 100 years of of peace. This ruling gives the nation more time to iron out the details in the future.
We have cases of "no immunity" to full immunity, we have a mechanism to impeach, and we have a mechanism to remove a president every 4 years. It's fine, it's enough. Asking for much more from the same people, those that can get lost in the of their own perception of power, carries a risk. SCOTUS majority probably saw that people imposing rules and boundaries couldn't stop themselves or, if they didn't think so now, they saw a future where they couldn't.
A reliable, peaceful transfer of power is worth a hundred consecutive Trump presidencies.
wemptronics
3mo ago
Hah, thanks for posting. That's an interesting way to go about it. What would be the best way to start with term limits if you're prevented from removing the current lifetime appointees? I think the new appointees should probably be subservient to the OG justices, or even irrelevant, until they the OG's are dead.
Start building an alternative court that handles... something until OG court is down to 5 or so then combine them?
Biden isn't actually trying to build a legacy as a lame duck, is he? This has to be campaigning. Energize, synergize, winner-gize!
Generally, if Congress wants to pass a new amendment reducing executive immunity, I say go for it. That's what they're for. Do I trust they are capable of writing an amendment better than the SCOTUS ruling even if they had support? No.
How vulnerable a president should be to prosecution is a difficult question. It's a question I suspect SCOTUS didn't want to answer. I think most would have preferred to keep the presidential pardon norm, avoid the question, or avoid the candidate and cases that spurred it. Personally, I don't like the ruling, but I do think SCOTUS landed on the correct side of the trade off. I prefer an executive getting a lot of legal protection, because I'd really like to push the Rubicon crossing as far away as possible. Voting, impeachment, and the three different "layers" of presidential immunity seems fine. It'll cause some problems, but any policy will cause some problems.
Term limits seem fine, so long as we can agree to start with term limits in fifteen or twenty years. Some medium-far date that demonstrates we're changing the rules on principle, rather than political convenience of today.
Conduct and ethics rules I am only fine with if they expand to include Federal elected legislators, judges, and executive appointees. If Congress can pass a law that will hold themselves to the same standards they want to apply elsewhere, then sure let's do it.
Maybe it's a manufactured event, but there's already ongoing conflict in the North of Israel. An official second front opening has been a possibility since day one of the conflict. Israeli and Hezbollah have been in a state of active, firing weapons at each other, not-war this entire year. If Bibi felt he needed additional pretext to open another front all he had to do was wait for one that looked nice and use it. How much does the Israeli government care about dead Druze children in Golan on an average day?
Perhaps we have diverging understandings over the state of relations. Do you believe Hezbollah has been attempting to deescalate and avoid conflict? That could be evidence Israeli would have a need to manufacture a crisis in whole. Have you seen them posture in a war avoidant way after October 7th? Appear ready and waiting to me. The Israeli drums for more picked up in Spring. Reports, articles, and think pieces describing a proper campaign against Hezbollah got going proper in June. It may be a false flag since everything is a gay psyop, but a chosen narrative more likely.
Unless there was some back channel diplomacy and understandings we don't know, it seems like Hezbollah committed to the solidarity for our brothers bit. Doing enough pain in the ass things to satisfy their patrons, without committing to the cost of major offensive actions. Victory they can attain is won in a defensive war, anyway. They have maintained tensions, as Israel has, have initiated aggression, and answered it. They did a strategic job of being a distraction for when it mattered. The distraction to stretch the IDF isn't important anymore, but the decision was already made. So here we are. Based on Israeli actions after October 7th, a Hezbollah strategist would have to be a great dullard to think they are doing something like deterring Israeli action rather than justifying it.
Might also true that Israel, or Hezbollah, or both considered/decided a '06 repeat was inevitable by the late date of October 8th. The early question for Israeli was to what degree Hezbollah would complicate things. If I'm an Israeli war hawk then I see a Hezbollah that has politely waited their turn whilst providing plenty of reasons to engage.
My understanding is not that Germany was some sort of backwards pre-industrial nation. Germany was a technological innovator in many fields. It was a steel producing giant with a highly industrialized economy. German economy had some unique, and other not so unique, financial issues following WW1 but I don't know quite as much about that.
The German military more heavily relied on horse power due to oil shortages and supply allocation compared to its peers. All nations were limited by fuel to some extent. Germany to such an extent that it structured major parts of its strategy around the acquisition of oil sources and did lots of science to help alleviate fuel concerns. This author has written a dissertation on oil, Germany, and WW2. If Nazi Germany was built on Texas, or modern Saudi Arabia, it would have had lots of more motorized elements and supply. It could have fed its offensive operations for much longer, committed to more of them, and the big picture strategy may have be different.
It would have built a lot more trucks and had less horses. Whether more fuel and trucks wins the war for them is up to whatever fanciful counter-factual you'd like to imagine.
More options
Context Copy link