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

[CaptainEurope]

That will do nothing. The Supreme Court will continue to water down any voter right protections created by the Dems to give Republicans the edge. Much like how they weaponized free speech with Citizens United to allow plutocrats to take seize control of the political system.

It reads to me like it will do something, why do you think it will do nothing?

[Bruce Wayne]

Because the Courts are controlled by Republicans. And they have shown nothing but contempt for campaign finance reform and federal oversight of voting rights protections such as the Voting Rights Act. The Roberts court have ruled time and time again against attempts to stop Republican voter suppression. The courts will block any federal attempt made by the Democrats to stop the Republican suppression by Republicans at the state level.

[TheDarman]

Democrats have two years to figure out how to make it stick. If there is a way, they will find it.

Manchin, for his part, has expressed he would be willing to amend the filibuster to make it so you actually have to filibuster the legislative session.

This might be the best way to get Democratic reforms through. Especially since Schumer has found ways to play with procedural motions like this to shorten debate and get cloture for nominee votes.

[TheDarman]

Because the Courts are controlled by Republicans. And they have shown nothing but contempt for campaign finance reform and federal oversight of voting rights protections such as the Voting Rights Act. The Roberts court have ruled time and time again against attempts to stop Republican voter suppression

Increasing information on voting and the like are pretty small steps that are broadly under the executive discretion. Given the unitary executive’s legal rulings by Roberts and Scalia, I doubt they will be able to find a legal basis to override Biden on this. These are clear administrative steps. The question is whether or not HR1, should it be passed, will be gutted.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Most people in the US aren't aware of the problematic aspects of the Royal Family and aren't directly effected by their actions. If the Royal Family were for example secretly exercising Royal Consent over the political process in America, that'd be a different story. But since most of their questionable actions effect people in the UK, people have far less of a problem with them.

American here. What are the problematic aspects of the Royal family?

[Bruce Wayne]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...queens-consent

The royal family essentially has a backdoor in effecting legislation that effects their interests. I doubt most Americans would be okay with a President or any elected official doing something like this.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

American here. What are the problematic aspects of the Royal family?

The Royal Family are unelected aristocratic parasites leeching off hardworking citizens and maintain their authority by centuries of repeated violence on the peasantry sanctified by tradition, custom, and decorum.



The UK Royal Family for instance are subsidized by taxes from the government. These laws create restrictions for them to some extent and so you do have aristocratic PR-rebels like Diana, Meghan, and Harry. But at the end of the day the royal family and their pageantry and lifestyle is paid by UK tax-dollars.

As constitutional monarchs, the Royal Family are supposed to be figureheads and not be involved in politics. However in practise that means you have no transparency and accountability and no real survey of the actual influence the Queen has on politics on the national level. Of course, the Queen and the Royal Family are only interested in political survival and would be on their best behavior to avoid calls for the Referendum to remove the monarchy, so they wouldn't outright put their thumb on the scales and so they suffered Attlee to Wilson.

There was a news article that came out which highlighted how the Queen covertly influences Bills introduced in parliament:
https://***************.com/the-quee...slation-154818

So you have an unelected parasite acting in the interests of her own unelected brood putting their concerns and interests over the commonweal and exercising say on legislation brought by elected officials granted mandate by the electorate.

[godisawesome]

As of now, Biden still seems to have much higher approval ratings than Trump had in his wildest syphilitic fever dreams.

Which means each part of the Democratic Party knows they have the potential to get some horse trading and philosophical fights done now without immediately risking the destruction of their majority, while all want to try using any success that accompanies this to get their objectives pushed further to the top of the list.

In four years, we’ll know who has control fo the narrative in the Democratic Party and how much havoc Trump will have wreaked. Ideally... there’ll be enough success that Trumpism will be fatally injured and be a clear liability by that point... but everyone is aware of the possible opposite outcome, and wants to prevent that from being the case.

[PaulBullion]

The Royal Family are unelected aristocratic parasites leeching off hardworking citizens and maintain their authority by centuries of repeated violence on the peasantry sanctified by tradition, custom, and decorum.

So kind of like Kelly Loeffler, but harder to get rid of?

[Malvolio]

Manchin, for his part, has expressed he would be willing to amend the filibuster to make it so you actually have to filibuster the legislative session.

This might be the best way to get Democratic reforms through. Especially since Schumer has found ways to play with procedural motions like this to shorten debate and get cloture for nominee votes.

I like the idea of bringing back the talking filibuster in principle, but I fear it may lead to more stunts like Kevin McCarthy reading Green Eggs and Ham. I, for one, would not want to see Rand Paul reading one of Ayn Rand's novels on the floor of the Senate.

[MajorHoy]

I like the idea of bringing back the talking filibuster in principle, but I fear it may lead to more stunts like Kevin McCarthy reading Green Eggs and Ham. I, for one, would not want to see Rand Paul reading one of Ayn Rand's novels on the floor of the Senate.

Maybe Republicans might to go with The Bible instead?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So kind of like Kelly Loeffler, but harder to get rid of?

Pretty much.

The difference is that people in the UK, and I mean actual people, not just Tories and conservatives, actually really do love Queen Elizabeth, her grandson Prince William and Kate Middleton. Queen Elizabeth represents a living connection to World War II and the "finest hour", the only major political figure to do so. So there's a lot of nostalgia real estate tied to her. That makes it career suicide for anyone trying to make the UK a republic. If Scotland leaves (which will be hard but is within range of possibility) that might be the domino that brings it down. Recently Bahamas voted to remove the Queen as Constitutional Head and become a proper republic.

In America, people don't love Kelly Loeffler, not even her voters. They might like her money, or appreciate her work for white nationalism and oligarchy, but her personally, nada.

[godisawesome]

I like the idea of bringing back the talking filibuster in principle, but I fear it may lead to more stunts like Kevin McCarthy reading Green Eggs and Ham. I, for one, would not want to see Rand Paul reading one of Ayn Rand's novels on the floor of the Senate.

It may be annoyingly stupid, but to be his story, the fact it would damage the practically of the filibuster as a stalling tactic would be the main victory.

And of course, the entertainment favor could apply to both parties.

And I’d add that if a Republic figure tired to read the Bible... there’s more than a few parts I think a Biblically savvy Dem could highlight or draw attention to when it comes to hypocrisy. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” and “what you have done for the least of these, you have done for me.”

[DrNewGod]

Most people in the US aren't aware of the problematic aspects of the Royal Family and aren't directly effected by their actions. If the Royal Family were for example secretly exercising Royal Consent over the political process in America, that'd be a different story. But since most of their questionable actions effect people in the UK, people have far less of a problem with them.

The Royal Family are unelected aristocratic parasites leeching off hardworking citizens and maintain their authority by centuries of repeated violence on the peasantry sanctified by tradition, custom, and decorum.



The UK Royal Family for instance are subsidized by taxes from the government. These laws create restrictions for them to some extent and so you do have aristocratic PR-rebels like Diana, Meghan, and Harry. But at the end of the day the royal family and their pageantry and lifestyle is paid by UK tax-dollars.

As constitutional monarchs, the Royal Family are supposed to be figureheads and not be involved in politics. However in practise that means you have no transparency and accountability and no real survey of the actual influence the Queen has on politics on the national level. Of course, the Queen and the Royal Family are only interested in political survival and would be on their best behavior to avoid calls for the Referendum to remove the monarchy, so they wouldn't outright put their thumb on the scales and so they suffered Attlee to Wilson.

There was a news article that came out which highlighted how the Queen covertly influences Bills introduced in parliament:
https://***************.com/the-quee...slation-154818

So you have an unelected parasite acting in the interests of her own unelected brood putting their concerns and interests over the commonweal and exercising say on legislation brought by elected officials granted mandate by the electorate.

Link got censored. Can you repost? I was curious when as the last time a royal seriously impacted legislation or policy.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Link got censored. Can you repost? I was curious when as the last time a royal seriously impacted legislation or policy.

Just copypaste this and remove the spaces around "the" and this link should work now.
https:// the conversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-shows-how-her-majesty-wields-influence-on-legislation-154818

Also,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...private-wealth
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55975199

There is a myth the queen never involves herself in political matters. In public view, all she does is act on ministerial advice, signing her name or initials where required.

But she has always done more than this. She exercises extensive soft power by influencing government policy and bills before they are introduced to parliament. Her power is exercised behind closed doors, and is more potent because of it.

Due to secrecy laws, it is extremely hard to find documentary evidence of the queen’s exercise of influence. In the United Kingdom, government documents that “relate to” communications with the sovereign or the next two persons in line to the throne, as well as palace officials acting on their behalf, are subject to an absolute exemption from release under freedom of information or by government archives.

This exemption lasts until at least five years after the death of the relevant member of the royal family – meaning we cannot access British government documents about the queen’s political role, including in relation to Australia.

New documents discovered
But The Guardian has managed to expose a chink in this armour of secrecy.

In the UK’s National Archives, it discovered documents from 1973 showing the queen’s personal solicitor lobbied public servants to change a proposed law so that it would not allow companies, or the public, to learn of the queen’s shareholdings in Britain.

The gambit succeeded, and the draft bill was changed to suit the queen’s wishes.

Perhaps these documents escaped the secrecy embargo because they involved communications with a private solicitor, rather than palace officials. Or perhaps the eyes of the person vetting the file glazed over due to the boring nature of the bill and missed the reference to the queen.

Either way, it is a rare insight into what goes on behind the scenes.

Queen’s consent
The procedure involved is known as “queen’s consent”. This is different from “royal assent,” which occurs after a bill has been passed by both houses of parliament. “Queen’s consent” happens at a much earlier stage, usually well before a bill is introduced to parliament.

Queen’s consent is required where a bill would affect the governmental powers formally vested in the queen (such as powers to enter into treaties, declare war, dissolve parliament or grant mercy), matters directly affecting the monarchy (such as succession to the Crown, royal marriages and royal titles), and the property and revenue interests of the queen and her heir held by the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.

Basically a sliver and a small hole into the evil orgy scene of EWS (metaphorically speaking in terms of the disgusting evil things rich people do behind close doors) came out over some dealings back in 1973, and that raised issues about what else could the Queen be hiding.