All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Boy the GOP waking up pretty shocked right now. After that big speech By Mitch on the floor of the Senate on how America over whelmingly wanted Roe V Wade over turned a red state votes to protect it and keep womans rights. They have to be thinking What the Hell and maybe are a little more worried about the midterms now.

I didnt see how all the Trump backed nuts did last night so I have to loom and see if it is still Trumps party.

I did hear that Eric Greitens, he of the infamous “RINO Hunting” video lost his Senate election in Missouri.

[babyblob]

I did hear that Eric Greitens, he of the infamous “RINO Hunting” video lost his Senate election in Missouri.

Thats okay. From what I hear Trump backed the other guy. Eric.

Did that nut job in Arizona win hers? I know a poster said she pulled ahead. And if she did win is she still going to go gung ho on that election fraud investigation she was talking about?

[kidfresh512]

Sinema leaves Democrats in suspense

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) has Democrats and Republicans on the edge of their seats.

With the clock ticking down to the August recess, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) desperately wants to pass a bill that would tackle climate change and make significant changes to the tax code. But Schumer doesn’t have the votes — at least not yet.

Schumer says he’s working on Sinema and hopes she’ll be a “yes” on the motion to proceed to the measure, but the Arizona centrist hasn’t said whether she backs it.

“We’re in touch with Sen. Sinema, we’re in touch with all of the members, and we’re hopeful — I’m very hopeful — we’re all going to stay united and pass this bill,” he said Tuesday afternoon.

Mitch and the GOP all over her offering anything to tank the agenda.

__________________________________________________ ___________________________


Ted Cruz folds, votes in favor of PACT Act following pressure from Jon Stewart

Mounting pressure from comedian and former "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart on Sen. Ted Cruz and other Senate Republicans turned last week's 55-42 defeat of the PACT Act, a bill that will expand healthcare and benefits for millions of veterans, into a 86-11 Tuesday night victory in the Senate. The bill allowing veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits during their service to be covered by the Veterans Affairs health care system for related illnesses is now headed to President Joe Biden's desk to be signed.

Last week, 25 Senate Republicans, including Cruz, blocked the PACT Act despite many of them previously voting in June to advance it, with each justifying the flip by claiming that Democrats recently inserted a provision reclassifying $400 billion in spending from discretionary to mandatory. Republicans argued this could create spending on unrelated matters.

The move spurred veterans and activists to show up outside the U.S. Capitol in protest. Stewart, a long-time veterans advocate, joined them, tearing into the Republican senators during a press conference. "If this is America First, then America is f--ked," Stewart said.

Ted Cruz getting called out. Not a good look to get caught fist bumping on camera blocking this bill.

[CSTowle]

There's a long history of Antisemitism in the democracies of Europe. France had the Dreyfus Affair, and is the origin of Great Replacement Theory (originally antisemitic rather than anti melanin like it is now). Further East, you have The Protocols of Zion.

Yes, as I stated there's a long history of it. There's also a long history of Israel doing some pretty s##tty things, including their relationship with Apartheid South Africa (peas in a pod), which we also don't get a free pass for (any more than we should for shielding Israel from the consequences of their actions). One doesn't negate the other, we can be critical of both.

On the first, how can someone "challenge" someone posting a photo calling someone a "troll"?

On the second, I know that not all people that criticize Israel and their politics is an anti-semite. But many are. Anti-zionism and anti-semitism often go hand in hand. Let me give you a couple of examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ed-cars-london
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/chanuk...ogans-1.523135

This is Jews in London being attacked and abused by folks who dislike Israel and Israel's policies. These are examples (and I could send you many, many more) where anti-zionism and anti-semitism become one and the same thing.

So figure out where it's going hand-in-hand and call that out, and where it's not take it on its merits rather than labeling so as to dismiss the argument. Easy enough for logical adults to do, whatever tribalism or emotions we may have.

[hyped78]

Yes, as I stated there's a long history of it. There's also a long history of Israel doing some pretty s##tty things, including their relationship with Apartheid South Africa (peas in a pod), which we also don't get a free pass for (any more than we should for shielding Israel from the consequences of their actions). One doesn't negate the other, we can be critical of both.

Would point out that the Palestinians and the Arab nations around Israel (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) have also done some pretty 's##tty' things, as well as some Arab citizens living in Israel

[AnakinFlair]

Meanwhile, Alex Jones' lawyers accidentally sent a digital copy of his entire phone to the defense lawyers in his defamation trial 12 days ago, which proved he perjured himself. And today on the stand was the first time Alex Jones heard anything about it.

Whoops.

[CaptainEurope]

Thats okay. From what I hear Trump backed the other guy. Eric.

Did that nut job in Arizona win hers? I know a poster said she pulled ahead. And if she did win is she still going to go gung ho on that election fraud investigation she was talking about?

Has not been called yet. 80% of votes counted.

[Mister Mets]

One of the reasons I'm a Republican is that the conservative modes of understanding the role of the courts (originalism or textualism) generally seems more rational to me than whatever the progressive understanding is. I've asked about your understanding of how the left views the courts, with the caveat that there are likely multiple approaches.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...sm#post5056915

The Vox conversations podcast had a discussion between host Sean Illing and Harvard Law professor Nikolas Bowie about left-wing objections to the current court, and they got into a discussion about the principles of legal liberalism.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR...EegQIAhAF&ep=6

Bowie had discussed it in a twitter thread.

https://twitter.com/nikobowie/status...10195661807616

This past week has seen a repudiation of the court-based theory of change that has defined legal liberalism for several decades in the US: a theory that elite lawyers will always be able to use elite reasoning to persuade elite judges not to let things get out of hand.

Our government is dominated by graduates of law schools—where they learn how liberal victories since 1954 have been won not by organizing, movement building, or legislating, but by arguing so persuasively that no judge can resist bending the arc of history toward justice.

This week reveals one obvious downside of legal liberalism: judges can ignore it. It’s terrific when the people in charge agree with you that everyone should have contraception, healthcare, or a livable environment. But what are you supposed to do when they don’t?

More importantly, legal liberalism has also displaced the US left’s infrastructure & vocabulary of popular power. For decades, liberals have confidently responded to injustice with “see you in court.” But the same voices are famished for alternatives when courts are the problem.

Rather than look for leadership from dissents or Capitol poetry, we need to learn from people who have spent these same decades building power in *spite* of a hostile legal system. The recent victories of the labor movement, modest as they are, should be studied and replicated.

To reverse this week’s court decisions we need national laws. To enact national laws we need political power. To build political power we need to collectively commit not just to the biannual ritual of voting, but also to the day-to-day grit of organizing the people around us.

In contrast with legal liberalism, organizing is a theory of change that doesn’t trust people atop hierarchies to share our values. Rather, we must build our relationships with one another into the disruptive leverage necessary to compel skeptics to follow our lead.

The labor movement is currently perfecting the art of organizing, whether structure-based or momentum-driven. Its tactics aren’t new but modeled after histories of working women, people of color & abolitionists who built political power with strikes & boycotts, not just lawsuits.

Libraries document specific strategies ordinary people have used to change legal structures worse than today’s: books like @rsgexp’s No Shortcuts, Marshall Ganz’s Why David Sometimes Wins, Frances Fox Piven’s Challenging Authority, and Barbara Ransby’s biography of Ella Baker.

This is the “history and tradition” we should cultivate. The major question for the left is not how to persuade Justice Kavanaugh or Senator Manchin to listen, but how to persuade our neighbors and coworkers to commit to collective action.

It's interesting to me that a major understanding of law and the branches of government is so rarely discussed. Is it taken for granted? Is it primarily called something else (IE- the living constitution, pragmatism, non-originalism)?

My objection to legal liberalism is that there's no limiting principle. There isn't an understanding of when judges are supposed to go with policies they disagree with because that's what the law calls for.

But I am interested in learning more about it.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

To quote the immortal Keith Jackson….Whoa, Nellie!

Alex Jones’ Damning Texts ACCIDENTALLY Sent to Sandy Hook Lawyer

A day after far-right conspiracy-monger Alex Jones was scolded by a judge for chewing gum in the courtroom, opposing lawyers dropped a bombshell revelation they said proved the embattled InfoWars host has been lying on the stand.

Jones testified on Wednesday for the second time in attempting to fend off one of many defamation lawsuits brought by families affected by the Sandy Hook massacre. They are seeking at least $150 million from Jones and his bankrupt media company, Free Speech Systems. Numerous parents of children killed in the 2012 school shooting blame Jones for spreading falsehoods and disinformation about the tragedy that brought on ceaseless abuse, harassment, and death threats.

[Kirby101]

Originalism and textualism are pure bullshit dreamed up by the Federalist Society to push their anti-democratic, right wing, pro-corporate agenda.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politic...supreme-court/

https://rickladd.com/2020/10/14/orig...m-is-bullshit/

[CaptainEurope]

Meanwhile, Alex Jones' lawyers accidentally sent a digital copy of his entire phone to the defense lawyers in his defamation trial 12 days ago, which proved he perjured himself. And today on the stand was the first time Alex Jones heard anything about it.

Whoops.

The great thing about Alex Jones is that when he is actually told in court that he can take the 5th at this point, he cannot stop himself from talking.

[Mister Mets]

Would point out that the Palestinians and the Arab nations around Israel (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) have also done some pretty 's##tty' things, as well as some Arab citizens living in Israel

Yeah, is there any country in the region that is obviously superior? And if not, that suggests a major bias in the focus on Israel.

That's a long post, I won't quote it all to save space!

"I would instinctively define far-left as preferring policy outcomes to the left of 80+% of the population" - but isn't this, in a way, highly theoretical? It doesn't exactly say much in practical terms.

"or a willingness to use great force/ terrorism to achieve left-wing aims" - I don't agree with this. There are many Communist Party leaders in Europe (e.g. KKE in Greece) and elsewhere that do not defend the use of force/ terror to implement their agenda. The far left have completely updated/ reinvented themselves.

"But someone downplaying communism is not far left" - I meant downplaying the negative effects of Communism, while focusing only on the 'good' aspects

"Someone saying they haven't seen math books talk about race..." - the problem isn't seeing/ not seeing it, the problem is rather completely dismissing that it exists (far left) or making a huge deal out of it (far right)

"Far-left would be someone's opinion that Mao and Stalin were justified" - I don't agree with that. In 2022, only fringe radicals would have that opinion. Again, my definition of Far Left is Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Pablo Iglesias, Jean-Luc Melenchon. None of these people call for the use of force/ terror (that I'm aware of) and none of these people defend Mao, Stalin, etc. (that I'm aware of).

Economically, I consider "far left" as people who call for larger state presence and intervention (weight of the public sector on a country's GDP, for example), state subsidies, universal income/ guaranteed income, nationalization of certain sectors, more public sector jobs, higher budget deficits and overall public debt levels, etc.
Also, I have nothing against Bernie/ Corbyn/ Melenchon/ Iglesias, they're all important political figures in their countries and democracies. That doesn't mean I would vote for them.

There is a third understanding of far-left which Yglesias mentioned that it's a refusal to compromise or prioritize (and one can easily have a similar understanding of the far-right.) You could see that in some all or nothing defenses of the green new deal.

I think it's important to clarify what exactly we mean by these terms. It shouldn't just be that someone to our left we disagree with is automatically far-left.

You have a fair point about practical versus theoretical methods, although it is hard for people who hold unpopular positions to get elected into political office, so the discussion can't be limited to voting records. We do have some fringe statements by elected officeholders who have refused to compromise on left-wing views (and these people have right-wing equivalents as well.)

Being far-left is different from being partisan. Moderates can be ignorant of a big issue so dismissal of center-right concerns is not enough to make someone as far-left.

Extreme reactions to the other party are also not enough to mark someone as far-left. While I was looking for an earlier post on judicial policy, I found an exchange where multiple people thought that when Lindsey Graham asked Amy Coney Barrett in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing "You're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body, is that correct?" he was expressing a preference for segregation, rather than sarcastically referencing left-wing criticism. That was foolish, but that kind of stuff seems more of a partisan blind spot than a marker that someone is far-left.

[hyped78]

Originalism and textualism are pure bullshit dreamed up by the Federalist Society to push their anti-democratic, right wing, pro-corporate agenda.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politic...supreme-court/

https://rickladd.com/2020/10/14/orig...m-is-bullshit/

A blog and a fashion magazine as “sources”? The level is going down (yes, I know who Filipovic is)

[scourge]

Originalism and textualism are pure bullshit dreamed up by the Federalist Society to push their anti-democratic, right wing, pro-corporate agenda.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politic...supreme-court/

https://rickladd.com/2020/10/14/orig...m-is-bullshit/

Conservativism in general is anti-democratic BS.

[hyped78]

Yeah, is there any country in the region that is obviously superior? And if not, that suggests a major bias in the focus on Israel.

There is a third understanding of far-left which Yglesias mentioned that it's a refusal to compromise or prioritize (and one can easily have a similar understanding of the far-right.) You could see that in some all or nothing defenses of the green new deal.

I think it's important to clarify what exactly we mean by these terms. It shouldn't just be that someone to our left we disagree with is automatically far-left.

You have a fair point about practical versus theoretical methods, although it is hard for people who hold unpopular positions to get elected into political office, so the discussion can't be limited to voting records. We do have some fringe statements by elected officeholders who have refused to compromise on left-wing views (and these people have right-wing equivalents as well.)

Being far-left is different from being partisan. Moderates can be ignorant of a big issue so dismissal of center-right concerns is not enough to make someone as far-left.

Extreme reactions to the other party are also not enough to mark someone as far-left. While I was looking for an earlier post on judicial policy, I found an exchange where multiple people thought that when Lindsey Graham asked Amy Coney Barrett in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing "You're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body, is that correct?" he was expressing a preference for segregation, rather than sarcastically referencing left-wing criticism. That was foolish, but that kind of stuff seems more of a partisan blind spot than a marker that someone is far-left.

There isn’t - and Israel has, by far, the top HDI (Human Development Index) in that region.

On left vs. far left, I wonder how many folks here - I assume some are Dem registered voters - voted for Bernie over Biden in the Primaries. I have nothing against a vote for Sanders but call that my unofficial measurement of far left vs. left.