USA Politics

Don't worry, now that the military resources are available again, the US government can kick off a new war wherever it likes.
 
It is not unusual for me to be mind boggled by Republicans, but the past couple weeks have really left me scratching my head over what the GOP strategy is going into 2022.

In Florida, Governor DeSantis is making himself the face of COVID denial in the US. Not only is he avoiding putting any restrictions in place to slow the spread, he’s actively getting in the way of progress with failed attempts to ban schools from imposing mask mandates. Avoiding lockdowns and restrictions is one thing and par for the course for a conservator, but the overreach into school systems is a special kind of draconian.

Meanwhile in Texas, Governor Abbott signed one of the biggest abortion restrictions ever, making it virtually impossible to get an abortion and encouraging vigilante justice by incentivizing people to report those who violate the law. Again, Republicans have flirted with authoritarianism but this seems like a new step.

I am a bit surprised that this is the direction that prominent republicans are deciding to take. These last few weeks have been brutal for Biden, between covid spikes and the bungling of Afghanistan he’s especially weak right now. Thanks to the two actions above, the conversation has turned away from Afghanistan and into COVID and abortion, two issues where the GOP tends to be unpopular especially in the suburbs. It’s super early, but I am not sure if those are the issues you want to be running on as a republican next year. it has also given Biden the perfect opportunity to pivot to an area where he does better.

There were a lot of signs of things to come around this time in 2017. Between the issues above and two elections that aren’t looking good for GOP (California recall and Virginia gubernatorial election), it could be a disappointing midterm for republicans next year.
 
I think giving Biden an opportunity to use the bully pulpit to go after the unvaccinated was, uh, not smart by Republicans. He was angry, and I think a lot of people feel the same. It's going to be really, really interesting.

But I am more glad than ever that I live in Canada, lemme tell you what.
 
On the ground, I have noticed that anger being shared by a lot of middle aged white women, the sort of culturally conservative leaning people who Trump pissed off into staying home in 2018 and 2020. The race to out-Trump Trump seems foolish, to say the least.
 
I've read that Texas wants to forbid "social media" from banning users over "political views".
Insane shit. What are going to do, tell ISPs to block f.e. Whatsapp for not complying?
 
Mosh said:
It is not unusual for me to be mind boggled by Republicans, but the past couple weeks have really left me scratching my head over what the GOP strategy is going into 2022.
Click to expand...

I don't watch Bill Maher, don't dig his "humor" (or lack thereof), for example this clip. Don't care for the "jokes," but he makes a good point about the GOPs problem having to please constituents and keeping their cushy jobs:

 
Mosh said:
It is not unusual for me to be mind boggled by Republicans, but the past couple weeks have really left me scratching my head over what the GOP strategy is going into 2022.

In Florida, Governor DeSantis is making himself the face of COVID denial in the US. Not only is he avoiding putting any restrictions in place to slow the spread, he’s actively getting in the way of progress with failed attempts to ban schools from imposing mask mandates. Avoiding lockdowns and restrictions is one thing and par for the course for a conservator, but the overreach into school systems is a special kind of draconian.

Meanwhile in Texas, Governor Abbott signed one of the biggest abortion restrictions ever, making it virtually impossible to get an abortion and encouraging vigilante justice by incentivizing people to report those who violate the law. Again, Republicans have flirted with authoritarianism but this seems like a new step.

I am a bit surprised that this is the direction that prominent republicans are deciding to take. These last few weeks have been brutal for Biden, between covid spikes and the bungling of Afghanistan he’s especially weak right now. Thanks to the two actions above, the conversation has turned away from Afghanistan and into COVID and abortion, two issues where the GOP tends to be unpopular especially in the suburbs. It’s super early, but I am not sure if those are the issues you want to be running on as a republican next year. it has also given Biden the perfect opportunity to pivot to an area where he does better.

There were a lot of signs of things to come around this time in 2017. Between the issues above and two elections that aren’t looking good for GOP (California recall and Virginia gubernatorial election), it could be a disappointing midterm for republicans next year.
Click to expand...
The GOP are learning a lot of lessons from Afghanistan. Particularly in how to effectively regress women's rights. Governor Abbott's Texas Taliban won't stop at abortions though. That was just them testing the waters.

Next they'll be asking "should women really be allowed in colleges?" or "can a woman divorce her husband without his permission?" and "can we make rape legal?"

Give them a few more years of unchecked power and it'll be back to segregation. And I really do mean unchecked since Texas will never vote blue and the supreme court is utterly corrupt.
 
It’s the first major election since Biden became president and things are looking really bad for the democrats. A lot can change in a year, but tonight’s results are going to be the first signals of where the electorate is headed in the midterms and will do a lot to drive narratives/momentum going into ‘22.

The marquee race is in Virginia, where the Democrat candidate for governor is likely to be the first dem to lose a statewide race there in years. Biden won there by 10 points and Virginia by all appearances was becoming a solidly blue state. It also looks like Democrats will lose the house majority there.

It’s easy to monday morning quarterback these things, but I think there are some important lessons for both sides here.

If you’re a Democrat:

Passing legislation (or in this case, failing to pass legislation) makes a difference. I’ll have more to say on Biden’s first year later, I’m mostly waiting to see what happens with the infrastructure bill, but the national Democratic Party has painted a picture of being disorganized, incompetent, and unable to pass pretty popular legislation.

The candidate matters. Again, monday morning quarterbacking, but I’m not sure how nominating someone who had been governor before who also barely won when the current democratic president was unpopular (Obama) was a good idea. Some of the other candidates in the primary seemed far more interesting, demographically and idealistically diverse, and more likely to motivate voters. Not being Trump isn’t good enough, especially now that he is no longer in office.

If you’re a Republican:

Run on issues. The Republican candidate made education a big part of his campaign in Virginia and is winning voters with children by something like 10 points (according to polls). Running on an issue rather than around a cult leader seems to win back some of those elusive suburbanites. If Republicans can show that they’re actually interested in governing, rather than making it hard to vote and pleasing the orange menace, they’ll slaughter democrats in those suburban districts and win 40-60 seats next year and probably the senate.

The candidate matters. Contrary to the Dems, the Republicans had a good candidate. He wasn’t too Trump-y (and distanced himself well), but he was palatable enough the the Trump part of the base. Imo he should be a model for the type of candidates Republicans run next year.
 
Well the right one would presumably
Rip their flesh
Burn their hearts
Stab them in their eyes
Rape their women as they cry
Kill their servants
Burn their homes
So you can't really blame them you know.
 
It’s a little more nuanced than it looks at first glance, and a lot of it turns on how Wisconsin law is written. But yes, it looks terrible on its face, and it points to the many problems with inconsistent and weird gun laws in the U.S.

Some more context: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59348734
www.nbcnews.com

How Wisconsin's self-defense law ensured Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal

“The self-defense argument in this case only had to convince one juror,” a former prosecutor said. “That’s less of a burden.”
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
Night Prowler said:
Well, some random guy being able to own a rifle like that one, for starters.
Click to expand...

Fundamental issue. A lot of people there believe that essence of their concept of liberty is a random guy with a rifle.

What I do not get is that rifle was apex of the defense technology when that shit was written down. A bunch of guys with rifles could defend territories. It was the great equalizer, allowing a peasant with basic training to defend against professional armies.

USA has already yielded to the central police concept long ago, there is no more frontier justice, good guys vs bad guys on street. You have the police the police should take care of everything. Yet one of the arguments for arms amendment is the capacity of ordinary people against the state - which is a laughable concept nowadays. Back then you had rifle, state had rifle. Today you have rifle, state has space force.

Last time I checked it says bearing arms, not bearing small arms with caliber/output power specification.

That means until it gets legal for you to arm your helicopter with anti-radar missiles, the amendment is moot and it only works citizen against citizen.

That's in very wide theory anyways. Here and now with this case, the prosecutor also did a very shitty job. Alike metal bands satanists accusals. He has a guy with clear criminal intent yet he focuses on his social media and online games...ends being universally seen as cringe with the Rittenhouse guy being normalized.

In my country any kind of unlicensed weapon is a misdemeanor, with potential felony if prosecutors think there was a criminal intent involved. Thus a lot of small time criminals get past serious repercussions for carrying, simply because they're small time criminals and 'afraid' and claim potential self defense. I did not carry this gun because I want to kill someone - I want to react if someone wants to kill me.

It's convoluted, not straight forward. For state to claim there's no intent but criminal intent in carrying unlicensed weaponry - for USA where its legal just bump it up to full gear out on the street.
 
Zare said:
USA has already yielded to the central police concept long ago, there is no more frontier justice, good guys vs bad guys on street. You have the police the police should take care of everything.
Click to expand...
But in reality, it takes too long for the police to get there in large cities due to the volume of calls they have to respond to, and it takes too long for the sheriff to get there in rural areas because there’s too much ground to cover for a limited law enforcement presence. It’s the 45+ minutes between the 911 call and the arrival of the cops that you have to deal with.

And this only considers the anti-crime angle on guns. In rural areas you also have wild animals roaming onto your property at night putting your own animals and possibly yourself at risk. Hunting is also a very necessary part of putting food on the table for low income rural families. These are realities that urbanites don’t understand and can’t relate to, so they think guns are silly and superfluous and the tools of criminals, while rural folk can’t understand what it’s like to live in a tightly packed metropolis where people get mugged and scores of people can be mowed down quickly by a bad actor with a gun, so guns are viewed in a fundamentally different light there.

It surely doesn’t help when douchebags like Beto O’Rourke come out and say “hell yes, we’re coming for your guns”, either.

Zare said:
Yet one of the arguments for arms amendment is the capacity of ordinary people against the state - which is a laughable concept nowadays. Back then you had rifle, state had rifle. Today you have rifle, state has space force.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, there have been quite a few stalemates between gun hoarders and federal agents over the years. And imagine what might have happened if the January 6th crowd had been full of gun toters. Hell, look at what a few box cutters accomplished on 9/11. I’m not saying any of these things are good, just that they were or could have been effective.

Zare said:
Last time I checked it says bearing arms, not bearing small arms with caliber/output power specification.
Click to expand...
It’s the “a well regulated militia” part that’s most often overlooked and probably deserves more consideration.

As far as Rittenhouse goes, his intent in going to the site was obviously suspect, but Wisconsin law apparently doesn’t allow those events preceding the incident to influence the judgment on the specific charges he was brought up on. So the acquittal is probably technically correct on the points of law, but shows that the laws themselves are flawed.
 
The thing that worries me most about the Rittenhouse killings is that the outcome of the trial was fairly irrelevant to the right wing power brokers. Guys like Trump and Tucker Carlson are over the moon that he exists. If he was guilty, he'd be a martyr. They want more guys like this, 17 year olds willing to pull the trigger.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Jer
Jer said:
And this only considers the anti-crime angle on guns. In rural areas you also have wild animals roaming onto your property at night putting your own animals and possibly yourself at risk. Hunting is also a very necessary part of putting food on the table for low income rural families. These are realities that urbanites don’t understand and can’t relate to, so they think guns are silly and superfluous and the tools of criminals, while rural folk can’t understand what it’s like to live in a tightly packed metropolis where people get mugged and scores of people can be mowed down quickly by a bad actor with a gun, so guns are viewed in a fundamentally different light there.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with rural and remote life.
Where we completely disagree is the urban.

Look at the entire of the world. If you're remote, you're going to be armed. Because of nature and because of not being able to reach for help or institutions. But there are gigantic cities, larger than anything in the USA, weapons are illegal, crimes are lower and nobody goes around with a thought on how to defend himself.

Take Madrid for example, as a similar sized "big metropolis". Do you really think an average person from Madrid got either threatened, mugged, beaten, house invaded at gunpoint once in a lifetime? The problem whose solution is personal arm carrying is not present in any of the big metropolises in EU, Asia, and elsewhere.

The response time of police, if you throw negligence aside, for average USA police dept. that's better equipped and staffed in numbers than some armies around the world, can only be high if there are multiple criminal-police encounters happening at any point of time. Which is, again, not the universal case in big cities.

There are cities >1M in Europe that whole day goes by and police doesn't have any armed interaction at all. Where default crime is petty crime and any assault/battery/robbery/gunpoints is anomalous behaviour.

Armed crimes at large are a specifically USA-related problem in the developed parts of the world. There's no way gun ownership is justified in an average city elsewhere for average citizen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top