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

[Malvolio]

This could be a problem

Marjorie Taylor Greene wants a seat on Pelosi's January 6 committee even as she spreads baseless claims

So she didn't want a bi-partisan commission, but now she wants in on Pelosi's commission? Isn't that like trying to wring an invitation to a party you were against even taking place?

[Tami]

So she didn't want a bi-partisan commission, but now she wants in on Pelosi's commission? Isn't that like trying to wring an invitation to a party you were against even taking place?

More like sabotaging the party, and then barging in on the small, intimate dinner. She brings misery everywhere she goes. Misery Taylor Greene.

[TheRay]

I kind of hesitate to enter in to something like this, but I feel as though my fellow comic nerds are perfect and can discuss these things in a way that's far better than Reddit. Not that I'm going to start off saying anything controversial (well maybe).

I like the way this condo collapse tragedy is being handled by the Miami-Dade community. Terrible that the odds are low, but it's nice to see something that isn't being taken for a ride on the narrative train these days.

[Tami]

I was wondering what he was doing these days


We Spoke to Hunter Biden About His New Life as a Full-Time Artist, and His Personal Quest for ‘Universal Truth’ Through Painting

Hunter Biden is on the move. The lawyer, former lobbyist, and son of U.S. President Joe Biden has left his $5.4 million rental in Venice Beach, California, for a quieter Los Angeles neighborhood up the coast. He won’t say where, exactly, because right-wing guys like to show up on his doorstep with bullhorns.

He’s 15 minutes late for our interview because the house doesn’t have mobile service yet. “I’m wondering how many people are trying to get in touch with me and then failing,” Biden, 51, told me over the phone. “Which is kind of nice actually. Usually, I just don’t answer the phone.”

The topic of our interview has nothing—and yet everything—to do with Biden’s well-documented struggle with addiction, his new memoir, his famous dad, his made-for-the-tabloids romantic life, or his ties to President Trump’s impeachment and to Ukraine. Nothing, because he wants to talk about the art he’s been making and his upcoming show in New York this fall. Everything, because, well, it’s art, and for Biden, everything is connected.

While he has no formal training, Biden has been making art since he was a child. In recent years, the practice has taken on a more formal, serious turn and he now works as an artist full-time. He has a dealer, Georges Bergès; a studio; and a collector base. A solo show is on the horizon. Bergès plans to host a private viewing for Biden in Los Angeles this fall, followed by an exhibition in New York. Prices range from $75,000 for works on paper to $500,000 for large-scale paintings, Bergès said.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I was wondering what he was doing these days


We Spoke to Hunter Biden About His New Life as a Full-Time Artist, and His Personal Quest for ‘Universal Truth’ Through Painting

I've heard tell that Biden long considered Beau Biden to be his favorite son, and saw Hunter as the "Fredo". In the Biden family, Beau was groomed to be both Michael and Sonny but alas.

The right-wing fixation on Hunter Biden is over-the-top and insane and groundless from a legal perspective but all-in-all Hunter Biden does seem to be a schmuck of some kind. And that's okay. He's a rich kid without the ambitions and talents of his family, let him be that and keep out of politics which is what he has sensibly chosen.

[worstblogever]

This could be a problem

Marjorie Taylor Greene wants a seat on Pelosi's January 6 committee even as she spreads baseless claims

This is where the spin needs to be:

Deranged criminal demands to be a part of the investigation they've insisted doesn't need to happen that of a crime there's some education they knew about or may have aided in the planning of.


Because are we letting Biggs, Gosar, and Brooks be involved in the committee? Boebert? Gohmert?

The prequalifier should involve the FBI making it known they're not subjects of the investigation.

[Tendrin]

If you're responding to a post, you could quote it to make it clear what argument you're responding to.

I'm aware of how message board works, thanks.

Racism means so many different things that saying that someone failed to note the huge role racism played in Trump's election isn't very meaningful. The term can be anything from the confession of a white guy running a Diversity Equity and Inclusion training to the belief that Clarence Thomas is unfit to be on the Supreme Court because black people are inherently inferior. I understand that your meaning is somewhere in the middle, but that leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding. A problem in political discussion is people talking past one another because they mean different things with phrases that exist on a spectrum. This isn't limited to people who disagree with one another, as people on the same side will often have a different understanding of a vague term.

This is a lot of blah blah blah to attempt to sidetrack what is meant by stating that wide-ranging racism got Trump elected by the white supremacist party you are a member of. I don't think I need to be more 'detailed' than that about something so plainly obvious only a Republican can refuse to see it. I'm not especially interested in playing a game of defining down the obvious just so someone can try to have a semantic argument about it. A demand for 'greater accuracy' can sometimes serve to obscure, rather than reveal, a point and I think you know that.

"Geographic sorting" is significant because it does mean that some of the alternatives to gerrymandering will benefit Republicans when it's time for redistricting. This has implications. Should independent commissions be guided to come up with new districts that preserve communities of interest, and prioritize geographic compactness? All the political science suggests that will help out Republicans. If you have any evidence or sources to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

Well, Mets, it's very simple: The only time you want to bring up 'geographic sorting' is in defense of gerrymandering or the notion of anti-gerrymandering laws not really doing anything. If you're so convinced it'll help Republicans to undo gerrymandering, then, gosh, you shouldn't really be so opposed to us undoing it.. Geographic Sorting is just an excuse to do nothing about a pernicious practice, and your concern over how doing anything is going to 'just help Republicans in the end' seems designed only to try to convince a left-leaning audience that we should be careful what we wish for. In essence, it feels a whole lot like concern trolling. We're aware that it might have negative outcomes in some areas. One thing you seem to regularly incapable of grasping is that a left-leaning audience will frequently accept a lesser outcome for itself if it increases overall fairness. Populations that tilt GOP deserve an appropriate legislative weight, bearing in mind that land does not vote and people do. Undoing gerrymandering won't have the pie in the sky impact that some people might believe, but it absolutely will serve to disrupt the GOP stranglehold on power in numerous states and reduce extremism in the legislature, all things I think we can agree are ultimately good.

If we take the power of gerrymandering away from Republican legislatures and give it to independent commissions directed to preserve existing communities and keep geographic borders compact, there will be support from the public because it seems reasonable at first glance. If this isn't the plan, we should be open about how legislative boundaries should be determined. Before power is given to independent commissions, there should be an understanding of what standard they'll be held to.

Yes, there should. And I'll leave that to the appropriately talented and skilled bodies to explain and determine and explain and weigh in then. I don't have to be an expert in sociology or demography, however, to see that the increasingly unrepresenative nature of legislative bodies across the country that's creating minority rule is a problem that we have to solve. Realistically, one of the reasons this is happening is because the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 preventing new house seats from being created. This should be repealed. It's one of the reasons the House has become unrepresentative of the people it serves, something that serves to fuel growing extremism and corruption while allowing only ever-narrower viewpoints to ascend to the halls of power. I don't have the answer to what the appropriate formula should be, but we need to grow beyond where we are. The status quo for the House, and legislative bodies across the country, is ultimately not tenable.

There are some alternatives to this, that people don't seem willing to discuss. One is to try to create independent-seeming commission boards that have a veneer of respectability, but can be manipulated into partisan advantage. Another is to make sure that the independent commission boards are judged by how well they eliminate the efficiency gap or how well the number of districts correlate to the number of legislators, both of which are defensible position but should be clearly articulated.

Any body can be manipulated by outside pressures. It's not really a reason not to have them.

I should also add:

'Partisan Sorting' doesn't really have solid evidence behind it, anyway.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/do...10.1086/687569

[Jack Dracula]

http://https://www.politico.com/news...ntenced-495714

Anna Morgan-Lloyd gets 3 years probation for entering the Capitol illegally on Jan. 6.

I was referring to Trump and the Republican party leaders or representatives who may be implicated rather than the insurrectionists themselves.

[Jack Dracula]

The real problem for the GOP is that any Jan. 6th Commission is almost guaranteed to be far far worse for them than it could be for the Dems - even if they successfully expanded it to include unrelated riots so they could try roping in BLM and other stuff that ostensibly the Dems would be vulnerable to.

And it would be worse not because of a partisan slant but because of the actions they took before, during and after.

Too many serving Congressmen and women have tangible ties to the Jan. 6 riots, but even those that don’t could still be caught in a very unenviable spot due to the politically sel-serving delusions they fed into that also inspired the riot - any commission is going to reinforce that the 2020 election was a secure and legal election that Trump lost, so even those who had nothing to do with the riot but voted against certifying the results and who have used the Big Lie as a campaign process would suffer.

And arguably the only thing that looks worse than cooperating with the idiots who could mount a successful insurrection because they were too crazy, privileged, and lazy, is looking like a coward who bowed to those crazy, privileged, and lazy idiots.

The GOP needs the event put behind them as much as possible and to have some other narrative take center stage - because of a conservative movement that ostensibly values patriotism, rugged toughness, and Christianity is exposed as treasonous, weak cowards who will lie to themselves and others, it’s going to burn away what path they have towards using the Trump-crazy base to win primaries but not cost them general elections.

I don't think you and I have been observing the same Republican party these past 5 or 6 years.

[Tami]

‘They were on their balconies, screaming’: The final minutes at Champlain Towers South

SURFSIDE, Fla. — From her fourth-floor balcony, Cassondra Stratton felt a tremor and saw the deck of the swimming pool cave in. She immediately called her husband, Michael, in Denver, 2,000 miles away.

Michael listened as Cassondra, who had been riding out the pandemic at their apartment on the beach in Surfside, described a sudden shaking.

“And then the phone went dead,” he said.

“She screamed bloody murder and that was it,” said Stratton’s sister, Ashley Dean.

It was after 1 a.m. Thursday, and the night owls at Champlain Towers South were up watching TV, relaxing on their terraces, chatting on the phone. A gentle tropical breeze swept in off the ocean. The sky was a hazy dark blue, a common sight on moonlit nights in South Florida, where the clouds and humidity accentuate the glow of city lights.

Then, a howling sound. Midway up the 12-story condo building, eerie orange flashes pierced the night.

[Hellion]

The view of Republicans is than an investigation would largely be partisan.

A valid point, and yet I don't see how any competent investigation wouldn't largely be partisan considering that the very thing they'd be investigating, the insurrection, was partisan to the core, and all the actions of the Republican Party since that event suggest they'd rather downplay the issue, deflect from it, or rewrite history entirely than actually do the right thing and end up alienating a sizeable portion of their voters.

Frankly, the behavior of the party these days is disgusting. And I'll never be able to hear anyone refer to the Republican Party as "the party of personal responsibility" again without laughing.

[godisawesome]

I don't think you and I have been observing the same Republican party these past 5 or 6 years.

Oh, inside the party, this all means nothing and can be easily reconfigured to fit the base’s narrative - most hardcore base supporters will likely become more enamored with the perps and will label those who tacitly agree with the idea but are “too cowardly” to assault democracy as directly as they did as lower-ranking members of the group.

It’s the “in the regular election” part that things go haywire for them. Not everywhere, mind you; denial runs deep enough in some parts of the country. But on the National level, relitigating the 2020 election is just going to exacerbate their stagnant minority party issues, and might actually serve to invigorate enough Dem voters to prevent the usual off-year election precedent.

[Mister Mets]

I'm aware of how message board works, thanks.



This is a lot of blah blah blah to attempt to sidetrack what is meant by stating that wide-ranging racism got Trump elected by the white supremacist party you are a member of. I don't think I need to be more 'detailed' than that about something so plainly obvious only a Republican can refuse to see it. I'm not especially interested in playing a game of defining down the obvious just so someone can try to have a semantic argument about it. A demand for 'greater accuracy' can sometimes serve to obscure, rather than reveal, a point and I think you know that.



Well, Mets, it's very simple: The only time you want to bring up 'geographic sorting' is in defense of gerrymandering or the notion of anti-gerrymandering laws not really doing anything. If you're so convinced it'll help Republicans to undo gerrymandering, then, gosh, you shouldn't really be so opposed to us undoing it.. Geographic Sorting is just an excuse to do nothing about a pernicious practice, and your concern over how doing anything is going to 'just help Republicans in the end' seems designed only to try to convince a left-leaning audience that we should be careful what we wish for. In essence, it feels a whole lot like concern trolling. We're aware that it might have negative outcomes in some areas. One thing you seem to regularly incapable of grasping is that a left-leaning audience will frequently accept a lesser outcome for itself if it increases overall fairness. Populations that tilt GOP deserve an appropriate legislative weight, bearing in mind that land does not vote and people do. Undoing gerrymandering won't have the pie in the sky impact that some people might believe, but it absolutely will serve to disrupt the GOP stranglehold on power in numerous states and reduce extremism in the legislature, all things I think we can agree are ultimately good.





Yes, there should. And I'll leave that to the appropriately talented and skilled bodies to explain and determine and explain and weigh in then. I don't have to be an expert in sociology or demography, however, to see that the increasingly unrepresenative nature of legislative bodies across the country that's creating minority rule is a problem that we have to solve. Realistically, one of the reasons this is happening is because the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 preventing new house seats from being created. This should be repealed. It's one of the reasons the House has become unrepresentative of the people it serves, something that serves to fuel growing extremism and corruption while allowing only ever-narrower viewpoints to ascend to the halls of power. I don't have the answer to what the appropriate formula should be, but we need to grow beyond where we are. The status quo for the House, and legislative bodies across the country, is ultimately not tenable.



Any body can be manipulated by outside pressures. It's not really a reason not to have them.

I should also add:

'Partisan Sorting' doesn't really have solid evidence behind it, anyway.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/do...10.1086/687569

I will disagree on the notion that Republicans are a white supremacist party. That's a pretty large and separate argument. The essay "You are still crying wolf" was a decent take on how that aspect of Trump's appeal has been greatly exaggerated.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/1...l-crying-wolf/

On gerrymandering, I'm in favor of independent commissions rather than legislatures having the power to redistrict. The main difference between us on this question may be that I think it is essential to determine the standards before we give an unelected agency power. It shouldn't be up to appropriately talented and skilled bodies to determine their own responsibilities. That seems like a recipe for corruption and uncertainty.

I'm sure many Democrats will accept unfavorable outcomes in the interests of fairness. I don't think all will. Quite a few would also not consider it fair if a system that prizes compact shapes gives Republicans a higher share of legislators.

The study you linked to doesn't disprove the notion that Democrats are inefficiently distributed geographically throughout the United States in such ways that geographically random borders will favor Republicans. That's mainly what I mean by geographic sorting.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jowei/florida.pdf

Your study's main conclusion is that Democrats and Republicans both have a tendency to move to more Republican zip codes when given the opportunity to do so. This has some implications about the quality of Democratic politicians, although it may also be vital to the flipping of states like Virginia, Colorado, Arizona and Georgia. It may also correlate to people getting more conservative as they get older.

I think the Wyoming rule is a good way to add to the House while keeping the numbers from snowballing. It would set the population of a House district at equivalent to that of the least populated state (currently Wyoming.) That would expand the House a little bit. That said, smaller districts could result in more partisan districts, when the constituencies get less diverse.

[Jack Dracula]

Oh, inside the party, this all means nothing and can be easily reconfigured to fit the base’s narrative - most hardcore base supporters will likely become more enamored with the perps and will label those who tacitly agree with the idea but are “too cowardly” to assault democracy as directly as they did as lower-ranking members of the group.

It’s the “in the regular election” part that things go haywire for them. Not everywhere, mind you; denial runs deep enough in some parts of the country. But on the National level, relitigating the 2020 election is just going to exacerbate their stagnant minority party issues, and might actually serve to invigorate enough Dem voters to prevent the usual off-year election precedent.

An increase in Democratic turnout in 2022 and 2024 is the best result we can hope for.

[godisawesome]

An increase in Democratic turnout in 2022 and 2024 is the best result we can hope for.

It’s the only thing we can hope for.