Politics: where a week is a long time

Topic

Talk about anything political here.

Replies

JRCarter wrote:

Biden’s 100 days: Low-end approval, yet strong marks on pandemic response: POLL

Lower approval than every President in history except Trump and Ford. Can’t tell if that’s a high bar to clear or a low one.

Yes

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, JRCarter

JRCarter wrote:

Lower approval than every President in history except Trump and Ford. Can’t tell if that’s a high bar to clear or a low one.

As the article suggest I think it’s a sign of the increasingly hyper-partisan approach to politics. You’ve got a large percentage fully entrenched and a small middle that can shift that approval rating a little.

It’s impossible to imagine in the current climate that in 1988 George HW Bush took 40 states for the Republicans and in the next election Clinton took 33 (including DC). That’s a major swing across most of the country in just 4 years.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, JRCarter

Honestly 52 % approval is not bad. You have to think almost no Republicans approve, so quite a lot of democrats approve. I think getting far past 50 % is pretty impossible.

 

I quite like Biden’s approach, he doesn’t make much of a fuss, works quietly and unremarkably. Almost weird for this age.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Chris D, garjones, Todd, JRCarter

Yeah, his making some strong moves in climate protection is definitely scoring him points at the moment.

1 user thanked author for this post.

garjones

52% is about the best he can hope for. I think the breakdown was something like 10% of Republicans approve (no shock considering about 50% of them have been convinced the election was stolen), 90% of Dems approve, and 60% of independents approve. Elections and won and lost one the independent vote, so again it’s about as good as you could expect. I do find it pretty funny, though, that Biden gets high marks on his pandemic response and the infrastructure bill is fairly popular too. Yet republican voters still say they disapprove of his performance. Basically there’s around 10-15% of republican voters out there saying they like the things Biden has done or is planning to do, but refuse to approve his job performance.

2 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Todd

Honestly, if Biden can make his climate push work and his minimum corporate tax rate, his presidency will have changed the world for the better to a really unexpected extent. I can see why Obama went for health insurance with all of his political capital, but in the wake of the financial crisis, a reordering of the global financial and economic system is what he should’ve gone for instead. Because it’d have meant getting the funds to do everything else.

Anonymous wrote:

To clarify my point here, the message probably wouldn’t be received the way it’s intended since the people behind THE TURNER DIARIES already believe the government is run by corrupt wealthy Jewish interests aligned with militant, barbarian black people. So, they’d see it as a victory if the unlawful government accused them of being responsible of violence they probably personally agree with and proved their accusations of tyranny correct by violating the freedoms afforded by the constitution with a book ban. Meanwhile, as we can see in the discussion, the message it would send to the average Americans is that the government is willing to use its power to censor political ideas it finds reprehensible so maybe don’t trust them with that power.

I’ve allowed the topic to calm down, and over the past month, my views have changed.

First of all, what do we mean by “the people behind”? As far as I can tell, while the publisher is a Neo-Nazi organization, the rights owners are not. They just believe in free speech, and think any view should have its day. However, given the string of violence following the book, perhaps the families victims of any future Turner-inspired acts should consider the idea of pressing for the rights owners (if they are who I think they are) to be Civilly liable, with the idea that they can avoid future  liability if they put a disclaimer saying “this book depicts illegal actions in a positive light. Those who act on them will subject themselves to possible arrest. [RIGHTS OWNERS] denounce such actions, and are continuing to allow the book to be published as an act of free speech only, and views it as a work of fiction only.” This would allow free speech to continue, but would communicate that there is a point that simply publishing such works without distancing oneself from the message is irresponsible, especially if one disagrees with that message.

 

EDIT: From the beginning, my point was only for civil liability, given who I can find the rights owners are, but I wanted to make it look like I was compromising, but I got to heated in my case for criminalization. I should have pivoted earlier, but things got heated. I also at that point, did not consider myself fine with saying “They can clear themselves of future liability by a disclaimer”, but my view on that has changed. Given some of the points brought up, I felt that saying “always liable” would be rejected too, so I stopped the conversation, but now that I have changed my mind, I feel I can argue the point with more reception.

Starmer did a decent job at PMQs today questioning Johnson over his recent comments and the fiasco over the flat funding. Johnson didn’t – couldn’t – give any straight answers and after floundering around for a bit he went into a full-on toys-out-of-the-pram meltdown that left him looking exposed and rattled.

I don’t think this one incident will mean much to the people who aren’t actively watching these exchanges, but it suggests to me that Johnson is being quite wrongfooted by the current scandals plaguing him and his government, and it feels like he’s showing his true colours under the scrutiny.

Assuming a few more well-timed Cummings revelations I think he could soon end up in a very bad place politically.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ben

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah I agree Jenner would be terrible, I just really really hate Newsom.

A few years ago he was seen as a future Presidential hopeful. I wonder what his cousin Joanna thinks of him.

JRCarter wrote:

Caitlyn Jenner Announces Run For California Governor

Do we really need another reality star in office? Especially considering how abysmal the last one was?

That was literally a plot point in South Park. They had Mr. Garrison as a Trump stand-in, and Jenner was his running mate.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Dave wrote:

I don’t think this one incident will mean much to the people who aren’t actively watching these exchanges, but it suggests to me that Johnson is being quite wrongfooted by the current scandals plaguing him and his government

I agree. It reminds me a bit of John Major’s tenure where it wasn’t an individual incident that had them lose popularity but that slow drip of lots of little ones.

Starmer is using the right tactic to label this as ‘Tory sleaze’ and keep repeating it so whatever happens next gets put in the same bucket and carries the same narrative for the public.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Dave

I’ve listened to some podcasts about Afghanistan and they were grim. They’re saying there’s a large chance the country will eventually go back to a Taliban style theocracy once the international forces leave.

Dave wrote:

Assuming a few more well-timed Cummings revelations I think he could soon end up in a very bad place politically.

It’s surprising what does damage to politicians.

On this one? The “John Lewis nightmare” comment isn’t going down very well at all.

Yeah it’s funny how details like that resonate.

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve listened to some podcasts about Afghanistan and they were grim. They’re saying there’s a large chance the country will eventually go back to a Taliban style theocracy once the international forces leave.

Well, yeah. Was anyone expecting anything else? Aren’t the Taliban already in charge of huge chunks of the country?

Almost 20 years of death and destruction to leave Afghanistan in pretty much the same place it was before the Americans invaded. At least Raytheon made a lot of money out of it though!

7 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, Will_C, Christian, Sean Robinson, Rocket, Todd, Ben

Dave wrote:

Yeah it’s funny how details like that resonate.

It is and it often seems reliant on what the press want to pick up on. While they are partisan the papers can often break ranks and The Daily Mail from Monday to Thursday this week has had negative front page stories about Johnson. While they don’t sell what they once did the TV news does still tend to follow the print press agenda in what makes a top story. I think this refurb thing is less damning than him cheating on his wife and then giving his mistress contracts with state money but this one seems to have caught on.

His policy so far to any scandal or setback has been basically to ride it out until people get bored of it and something else appears, which has been working very well up until now. It’s why I think packaging this stuff into ‘Tory Sleaze’ from Labour is the right tactic, they will still ride out individual things but it will build up a bigger and bigger sleaze pile.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, lorcan_nagle

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Almost 20 years of death and destruction to leave Afghanistan in pretty much the same place it was before the Americans invaded. At least Raytheon made a lot of money out of it though!

And how many years did Russia fight a losing battle there before the US waded in?

2 users thanked author for this post.

Will_C, lorcan_nagle

Todd wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Almost 20 years of death and destruction to leave Afghanistan in pretty much the same place it was before the Americans invaded. At least Raytheon made a lot of money out of it though!

And how many years did Russia fight a losing battle there before the US waded in?

So basically Afghanistan has been at war since 1978, when there was a communist uprising.
The Soviets invaded in 1979 in support of the communist government fighting Muhajedeen rebels, and they pulled out in 1989.
The communist government held on for another three years before the Mujahedeen won out
The Taliban immediately rose up against the Mujahdeen, and took effective control of the country by 1996
At which point the groups that would come to be known as the Northern Alliance rose up against the Taliban, and they were fighting the Taliban more or less on their own until the US invasion in 2001.

Depending on how you want to split it out, the fighting between the Soviet withdrawal and the US invasion is either considered a single civil war, or three separate ones as the nominal ruling force in the country changed from Communists to Muhajedeen to Taliban.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Will_C, Todd

Yup and it’s very sad when you see pics of Afghanistan in the mid 1970s before this all kicked off. Change the skin hues slightly and this could have been taken in the outdoor market in my town in 1975.

They’ve essentially been at war continuously since I was 5 years old.

 

6 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, Will_C, Al-x, lorcan_nagle, Todd

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Almost 20 years of death and destruction to leave Afghanistan in pretty much the same place it was before the Americans invaded. At least Raytheon made a lot of money out of it though!

Now that’s just being unfair.

I mean, there are a lot of companies who made money off Afghanistan.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Will_C, Todd, lorcan_nagle

Christian wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Almost 20 years of death and destruction to leave Afghanistan in pretty much the same place it was before the Americans invaded. At least Raytheon made a lot of money out of it though!

Now that’s just being unfair.

I mean, there are a lot of companies who made money off Afghanistan.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, Todd, Martin Smith

[Al-x]

• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by Al-x.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by Al-x.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by Al-x.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, njerry, Todd, lorcan_nagle

garjones wrote:

Yup and it’s very sad when you see pics of Afghanistan in the mid 1970s before this all kicked off. Change the skin hues slightly and this could have been taken in the outdoor market in my town in 1975.

They’ve essentially been at war continuously since I was 5 years old.

 

I think Afghanistan was a vacation spot for pot smoking hippies at that time.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

This is an utterly embarrassing piece from Laura Kuenssberg about Boris Johnson’s “relationship with the truth” that does nothing to refute the notion that she’s far too cosy with the PM.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56624437

Is he a serial liar who has shamelessly lied to the public about some very important things? No, it turns out he’s just brilliant and unpredictable and tries to shape the world as he sees it and is just like Steve Jobs, or something.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Ben, lorcan_nagle

Meanwhile, over in the US, scandal! President Biden picks a flower and givez it to his wife – it’s an outrage.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd, lorcan_nagle

Ben wrote:

Meanwhile, over in the US, scandal! President Biden picks a flower and givez it to his wife – it’s an outrage.

So long as the flower wasn’t guarded by these guys

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

There is a bunch of “left wing” political commentators and youtube people who I used to listen to at times, but after some consideration I feel they are too comfy with some authoritarians. The worst is Max Blumenthal who is now a full on Assad apologist, some others are Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges. I have always been a bit skeptical about the whole “Russiagate” stuff, but these guys really do seem to fall in line with Putin a lot. It kinda sucks because some of the things they say seem alright but then they throw in a lot of propaganda garbage.

 

Maybe that’s the 80/20 rule of propaganda: most of the stuff you say is genuine news and proper analysis, but 20 % is fake news, demoralization, misleading, out of context stuff that serves a certain agenda.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

There is a bunch of “left wing” political commentators and youtube people who I used to listen to a bunch, but after some consideration I feel they are too comfy with some authoritarians. The worst is Max Blumenthal who is now a full on Assad apologist, some others are Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges. I have always been a bit skeptical about the whole “Russiagate” stuff, but these guys really do seem to fall in line with Putin a lot. It kinda sucks because some of the things they say seem alright but then they throw in a lot of propaganda garbage.

True – it’s usually starts with a good point and then flies off the rails. There are good points that the United States has one of the largest prison populations in the world, is about the only wealthy nation that does not have truly national universal health care plans or strong unemployment protection, has a finance sector that dominates rather than supports the productive economy and so on. But all these good points are then used to serve far more questionable perspectives by the end.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Will_C

Of course criticizing stuff about the US is alright, but there is something about Chris Hedges that I think is suspicious. First thing I noticed was that he has a show on RT and he has defended them against criticism, while talking shit about the “Western corporate media” non-stop. Sure, Western media is beyond the pale, but you can work with Putin’s propaganda arm. Also he just seems to bash everything in the US non-stop, without even admitting there are some good things about the US as well. He follows the Russian line in going on about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and even says Bernie Sanders is a traitor to “the revolution”. Conclusion:  there is absolutely nothing good about American politics. I think this is a kind of demoralization propaganda. He is soft on Russia, and also he is soft on China. (Again Max Blumenthal is the absolute worst in this regard, saying there is no evidence China is detaining Uighurs in large numbers.)

 

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

[DavidM]

And this is why “controversial” politicians will keep happening.

 

• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by DavidM.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by DavidM.

2 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, lorcan_nagle

Actually I’m surprised Obama doesn’t feature on that list, right below Trump. The right-wing media never shut up about him.

Anonymous wrote:

There is a bunch of “left wing” political commentators and youtube people who I used to listen to at times, but after some consideration I feel they are too comfy with some authoritarians. The worst is Max Blumenthal who is now a full on Assad apologist, some others are Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges. I have always been a bit skeptical about the whole “Russiagate” stuff, but these guys really do seem to fall in line with Putin a lot. It kinda sucks because some of the things they say seem alright but then they throw in a lot of propaganda garbage.

 

Maybe that’s the 80/20 rule of propaganda: most of the stuff you say is genuine news and proper analysis, but 20 % is fake news, demoralization, misleading, out of context stuff that serves a certain agenda.

Haven’t Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald been going on Fox News as panellists recently?

Yes I think both have been on Tucker. Greenwald actually called Trump and Bannon socialists.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

This is gold:

As @jemelehill would say… Wanna see a dead body? pic.twitter.com/S1Pap1F4AL

— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 4, 2021

DavidM wrote:

Actually I’m surprised Obama doesn’t feature on that list, right below Trump. The right-wing media never shut up about him.

That’s because if you realize that “Bush” and “Clinton” must mean “Jeb” and “Hillary”, you have the list of candidates from the  2016 Democrat and Republican primaries.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

DavidM wrote:

And this is why “controversial” politicians will keep happening.

Controversy is good though! Any system which will not produce controversy is just tyrannical.

If someone (X) in Country A is arrested for Immigration Fraud, Charity Fraud, and Perjury (among other crimes) and another person,  Y in Country B, while in Country B sent material support to Country A, and knowingly encouraged citizens of Country B to go to Country A and commit X’s crimes in Country A, could Country A have a case to ask for Y’s extradition as an accomplice even though Y never entered Country A, since Country A’s laws were still effected? If not, could they ask Country B to obligate Y to come to Country A to be questioned if there is reason to suspect Y knows actual criminals in Country A, or to send Y’s computer for investigation in such a case?

Anonymous wrote:

Any system which will not produce controversy is just tyrannical.

True but equally more controversy doesn’t equal more democracy. You need debate for a heathy society but just getting attention for making the most noise can distract from the real issues.

Yes I agree. You need some balance. If there is too much division I believe things cannot hold. To some extent people in a country have to share certain fundamental principles. Or a large majority of them anyway.

1 user thanked author for this post.

garjones

Anonymous wrote:

DavidM wrote:

Actually I’m surprised Obama doesn’t feature on that list, right below Trump. The right-wing media never shut up about him.

That’s because if you realize that “Bush” and “Clinton” must mean “Jeb” and “Hillary”, you have the list of candidates from the  2016 Democrat and Republican primaries.

Ok, that makes a lot more sense.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Anonymous wrote:

If someone (X) in Country A is arrested for Immigration Fraud, Charity Fraud, and Perjury (among other crimes) and another person,  Y in Country B, while in Country B sent material support to Country A, and knowingly encouraged citizens of Country B to go to Country A and commit X’s crimes in Country A, could Country A have a case to ask for Y’s extradition as an accomplice even though Y never entered Country A, since Country A’s laws were still effected? If not, could they ask Country B to obligate Y to come to Country A to be questioned if there is reason to suspect Y knows actual criminals in Country A, or to send Y’s computer for investigation in such a case?

The answer is “42”.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Todd, garjones

njerry wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If someone (X) in Country A is arrested for Immigration Fraud, Charity Fraud, and Perjury (among other crimes) and another person,  Y in Country B, while in Country B sent material support to Country A, and knowingly encouraged citizens of Country B to go to Country A and commit X’s crimes in Country A, could Country A have a case to ask for Y’s extradition as an accomplice even though Y never entered Country A, since Country A’s laws were still effected? If not, could they ask Country B to obligate Y to come to Country A to be questioned if there is reason to suspect Y knows actual criminals in Country A, or to send Y’s computer for investigation in such a case?

The answer is “42”.

So my question is the same as “Life, the universe and everything in it?”

1 user thanked author for this post.

njerry

Anonymous wrote:

njerry wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If someone (X) in Country A is arrested for Immigration Fraud, Charity Fraud, and Perjury (among other crimes) and another person,  Y in Country B, while in Country B sent material support to Country A, and knowingly encouraged citizens of Country B to go to Country A and commit X’s crimes in Country A, could Country A have a case to ask for Y’s extradition as an accomplice even though Y never entered Country A, since Country A’s laws were still effected? If not, could they ask Country B to obligate Y to come to Country A to be questioned if there is reason to suspect Y knows actual criminals in Country A, or to send Y’s computer for investigation in such a case?

The answer is “42”.

So my question is the same as “Life, the universe and everything in it?”

Close enough for government work.

2 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Rocket

Caitlyn Jenner, In Sean Hannity Interview, Offers Praise For Donald Trump As A “Disrupter,” Says Joe Biden “Scares Me”

Jenner can eat a dick.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Chris D, Todd

I never expected life to imitate South Park, yet here we are.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Also, given Kanye, do the Kardashians have an STD that makes people who marry them Trump stans?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

njerry wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If someone (X) in Country A is arrested for Immigration Fraud, Charity Fraud, and Perjury (among other crimes) and another person,  Y in Country B, while in Country B sent material support to Country A, and knowingly encouraged citizens of Country B to go to Country A and commit X’s crimes in Country A, could Country A have a case to ask for Y’s extradition as an accomplice even though Y never entered Country A, since Country A’s laws were still effected? If not, could they ask Country B to obligate Y to come to Country A to be questioned if there is reason to suspect Y knows actual criminals in Country A, or to send Y’s computer for investigation in such a case?

The answer is “42”.

In all seriousness, there was a case uncovered recently where an American forged papers to get residency in another country that America has close ties to, with intent to possibly commit other crimes there, if he needed it. The forging was done with the help of another American or Americans, so my question is, even though they were Americans acting on American soil, since they were helping someone defraud another country, that America has close ties to and a strong extradition treaty with, could the other country get them extradited? Or even if not, is it a crime under American law to forge documents even if they’re meant to defraud a foreign government, especially an ally?

Anonymous wrote:

njerry wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If someone (X) in Country A is arrested for Immigration Fraud, Charity Fraud, and Perjury (among other crimes) and another person,  Y in Country B, while in Country B sent material support to Country A, and knowingly encouraged citizens of Country B to go to Country A and commit X’s crimes in Country A, could Country A have a case to ask for Y’s extradition as an accomplice even though Y never entered Country A, since Country A’s laws were still effected? If not, could they ask Country B to obligate Y to come to Country A to be questioned if there is reason to suspect Y knows actual criminals in Country A, or to send Y’s computer for investigation in such a case?

The answer is “42”.

In all seriousness, there was a case uncovered recently where an American forged papers to get residency in another country that America has close ties to, with intent to possibly commit other crimes there, if he needed it. The forging was done with the help of another American or Americans, so my question is, even though they were Americans acting on American soil, since they were helping someone defraud another country, that America has close ties to and a strong extradition treaty with, could the other country get them extradited? Or even if not, is it a crime under American law to forge documents even if they’re meant to defraud a foreign government, especially an ally?

It depends on the law of the country but probably won’t be extradited. Normally the country where the crime is committed, which would be America, will have to prosecute the crime if they see cause to prosecute.

 

Wether forging those papers is a crime in the US, I am not sure but it’s probably fraud.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

[Martin Smith]

It’s a been a couple of weeks and this still hasn’t been locked down, so I figure it’s fair game by this point – and apposite given the way the local election results are going today (I assume a version of this didn’t get broadcast):

• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by Martin Smith.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Todd, Martin Smith, DavidM

And you could replace “Corbyn” with “Miliband” and then replace “Starmer” with “Corbyn” in that meme and it would hold equally true.

Corbyn returned historically poor results for Labour last general election so he isn’t the solution here. And yes, Brexit was a factor then but so is Covid a factor here.

One thing that has been a consistent problem for a long time now for Labour is the party’s ongoing inability to put internal conflicts aside and get behind their man. Under Corbyn and now under Starmer the party seems far more intent on fighting its internal battles than it is on pulling together and trying to do what it needs to do to win elections.

The Tories have their own internal conflicts but they (and their voters) seem to be much better at putting those squabbles aside and getting behind their leader when it counts.

I don’t see any change for Labour while it still has such damaging internal divisions. Something needs to change there for the party to move on.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ben

[Martin Smith]

Martin Smith wrote:

It’s a been a couple of weeks and this still hasn’t been locked down, so I figure it’s fair game by this point – and apposite given the way the local election results are going today (I assume a version of this didn’t get broadcast):

• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by Martin Smith.

Oh, that reminds me, new Alan Partidge again tonight.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith

Dave wrote:

And you could replace “Corbyn” with “Miliband” and then replace “Starmer” with “Corbyn” in that meme and it would hold equally true.

Except the Corbyn wing didn’t really undermine Miliband’s leadership – it didn’t even particularly exist at that time beyond them being backbench MPs no-one paid attention to. Miliband’s version of Labour failed pretty much by itself.

Martin Smith wrote:

Except the Corbyn wing didn’t really undermine Miliband’s leadership – it didn’t even particularly exist at that time beyond them being backbench MPs no-one paid attention to. Miliband’s version of Labour failed pretty much by itself.

Oh, there were definitely internal divisons during the Miliband era with factions that wanted him to push more hard left and make more of a break with the New Labour era. It just wasn’t an argument that was conducted out in the open so much as it has been in the Corbyn and Starmer eras.

To be clear, I think Labour has done a very poor job of setting out the ideas that it stands for and connecting with voters under Starmer. I also think that was true for the Corbyn and Miliband eras though.

What I don’t think helps is making the internal process of solving that problem within Labour an adversarial and factionalised one. Continuing with that means you’ll always have half the party unhappy with their choice of leader at any given time, and undermining their efforts with in-fighting.

Under Corbyn it was very damaging that the parts of the party that were against him were so vocal about it. Under Starmer it’s equally so. Neither side of it comes out of it well.

Whether or not the leader has come from your side of the party, you ultimately have to get behind him if you want the party to succeed. The Tories seem to understand this better than Labour.

Dave wrote:

To be clear, I think Labour has done a very poor job of setting out the ideas that it stands for and connecting with voters under Starmer.

100%.

Labour need to get back to the drawing board on some real basics. It’s not just the infighting, although that never helps I think most voters are oblivious to most of it. Nobody seems to be asking what those disaffected ‘red wall’ voters want. They don’t consider that a lot of the reaction is that these places are in decline under Labour councils and MPs and how to counter that. It’s to me an extension of what killed them in Scotland, they had all these safe constituencies and for the people on the ground nothing got better. That’s not always entirely their fault but they have no narrative to counter it.

I don’t believe him but Johnson does promise that at least.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, lorcan_nagle, Dave

Anonymous wrote:

Normally the country where the crime is committed, which would be America, will have to prosecute the crime if they see cause to prosecute.

I talked to someone who knows more about international relations then either of us, and he actually says it’s more complicated then that. There is a principle that if someone in another country did something that puts great stress on the functioning of your government or your citizens , it is in your country’s jurisdiction. Normally, this applies only to things like terrorism, but since there is evidence that the person in America forged or helped forge, documents for at least a few dozen others, and the other country is taking the idea seriously, if more people are found and linked to the American in question, they might have a case to argue that that principle applies, especially since, while what happened would meet no one’s definition of terrorism, as multiple people there have pointed out, given the cultural norms and the effects on the cultural norms that this act violates, the idea that there may be dozens of others has the same psychological stress as terrorism.

Anonymous wrote:

they might have a case to argue that that principle applies

This is essentially the problem with the hypothesis though. It’s potential legal standing versus practical norms.

Extradition is relatively rare and is a legal pain in the arse even between friendly countries. In 99.9% of cases if you commit a crime you face trial for it where it happened.

 

 

It is sort of an exceptional case, in that there may be a network of Americans forging documents to allow people to easily obtain residency and citizenship in the other country, and also, they seemed to feel entitled to do it, since their purpose, if done in America completely, would be constitutionally protected (albeit, if properly explained, highly immoral in the eyes of many), and could technically be done in the other country with no other crime then immigration fraud, given a similar view of civil rights (though, given how the other  country applies those rights, to them it is only a minor set of laws that barely cross the line from a civil rights to non-rights, and that’s only because the perp went beyond what the purpose of the fraud was). The only other crime he committed was charity fraud and he would be subject to a giant class-action, but I don’t think anybody realized that sometimes, charity fraud would be involved (even domestically he might have been arrested for it). But there seems to be a large amount of people who think like this, that just because both countries recognize what you want to do as civil rights, you’re entitled to break immigration laws to do it, including these people. The message that that is abject nonsense needs to be sent. Besides, certain groups have been relying on their country’s immigration laws  to protect them from certain immoral, yet otherwise legal, actions by certain American groups (the country in question’s immigration laws makes it very hard for a foreigner to pull off without breaking those laws), and are now facing the reality that a well-planned network might have gotten in, and their ordinary lives might be broken by such actions at any moment by people comitting immigration fraud, and some of them, while acknowledging that it’s not terrorism legally, by anyone’s measure, the reality breaking in feels like it’s terrorism on the psychological, emotional level.

Paragraphs, you are familiar with the concept, yes?

3 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, njerry, Al-x

Yeah laws have all sorts of exceptions. It isn’t really possible for any of us to say what will happen in this case without knowing all the specifics, and even then it is impossible because it is so fucking complicated only experts can say it. It’s a fascinating field.

 

Contrapoints did this great video on the principle of justice which is well worth watching.

 

garjones wrote:

Labour need to get back to the drawing board on some real basics. It’s not just the infighting, although that never helps I think most voters are oblivious to most of it. Nobody seems to be asking what those disaffected ‘red wall’ voters want. They don’t consider that a lot of the reaction is that these places are in decline under Labour councils and MPs and how to counter that. It’s to me an extension of what killed them in Scotland, they had all these safe constituencies and for the people on the ground nothing got better. That’s not always entirely their fault but they have no narrative to counter it.

Maybe they need to look to what has worked in Wales, where they seem to have done surprisingly well.

Labour makes big gains in Wales defeating ex-Plaid Cymru leader

 

I was pleasantly surprised to find yesterday that the central area of Tewkesbury – my home town that has been solidly Tory (at best a bit Lib Dem) for decades, has had a Tory MP since day dot – elected a Green county councillor. My half of town didn’t, but the bit that covers not only the centre of town but the rich, rural village that our MP hides out in, has.

Dave wrote:

Maybe they need to look to what has worked in Wales, where they seem to have done surprisingly well.

The significant difference in Wales has been Labour’s First Minister, Mark Drakeford, fronting the Covid response on TV. He’s not the most charismatic character to put it lightly but he’s been seen as a steady hand and while Johnson is getting the vaccine glow in England he’s getting it in Wales – which after a slight stutter at the start has the highest percentage vaccinated now in the UK.

The other element is the decline in UKIP support, it seems in Wales that was a single issue vote and not a shift to the right, the analysis says many of the UKIP votes have shifted to labour, not the Tories, which doesn’t seem to have happened in England.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, Ben

Sigh, I wanted Count Binface to get more votes than Laurence Fox but it was not to be.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, garjones, DavidM

garjones wrote:

The other element is the decline in UKIP support, it seems in Wales that was a single issue vote and not a shift to the right, the analysis says many of the UKIP votes have shifted to labour, not the Tories, which doesn’t seem to have happened in England.

Yes, in England it seems like the UKIP voters have largely switched (back?) to being Tory voters. So what looks like a backwards step for Labour in some areas as the Tories make gains is to some extent due to the right-wing vote being less split, now that the Brexit-focused parties aren’t a factor any more. A bit like the last general election.

I do think the success in Wales shows the current value of having someone who has been prominent in fronting the fight against COVID. I think that Labour in opposition at a UK level have been somewhat irrelevant to the conversation for the past year when the larger focus is on getting the COVID response right, so they’ve been pushed to the sidelines a bit. Whereas in Wales it seems like they’ve benefited from that high-profile leading position, as Johnson has as PM, like you say.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, garjones

One thing I’m very happy about in Wales is that the UKIP/Reform or whatever grifters and loonies of the last 5 years have been wiped out. People with no connection to Wales like Neil Hamilton and Mark Reckless can now fuck off back from whence they came.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Dave

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve listened to some podcasts about Afghanistan and they were grim. They’re saying there’s a large chance the country will eventually go back to a Taliban style theocracy once the international forces leave.

At the same time, no one can really predict what will happen unless they are the people making it happen.

The separate question is that the “international forces” (how international is it when the United States has twice as many troops than all other nations combined?) have been there 20 years, so if the country is still on the verge of reverting to Taliban control, what good did that occupation do? No one has ever been able to deliver peace and democracy through bombs, bullets and boots on the ground.

Of course, on top of all this, our allies in the region don’t have any better human rights records than our enemies. The only reason people in power want to maintain the occupation is to put pressure on Iran.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I like the sound of the “Abolish” party. I have no idea what they want to abolish but what the hell, just generally abolishing stuff is enough to get my vote.

DavidM wrote:

I like the sound of the “Abolish” party. I have no idea what they want to abolish but what the hell, just generally abolishing stuff is enough to get my vote.

The full title is ‘Abolish The Welsh Assembly’, which is ironic really as it has been renamed The Welsh Senedd/Parliament for a few years now so it’s like abolishing Rumbelows or something.

It’s quite indicative really of how little the main media in the UK takes notice of this stuff. I was listening to the Guardian Politics podcast this week and their ‘expert’ on the show was discussing how although there was support for independence in Wales was equalled out by the abolish movement. Plaid Cymru who propose independence got 20.4% of the overall vote, Abolish got 1.5%.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

Anonymous wrote:

No one has ever been able to deliver peace and democracy through bombs, bullets and boots on the ground.

 

Well, peace maybe not, it would be Orwellian to claim war leads to peace. But democracy, yeah you sometimes need war to bring democracy. However you need to do more than only go to war, once the regime has been removed you actually still need to build a democratic society.

 

Khan’s been re-elected as Mayor of London, with 55% of the vote, compared to Bailey’s 44%, with a voter turnout of 42%.  (58% of voters don’t give a shit)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms won’t run for re-election

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said Thursday that she will not seek re-election this fall.

In a letter, Bottoms, a first-term Democrat, confirmed news she had shared in a call with staff members and allies, which was first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

In the letter, posted to her Twitter account Thursday evening, Bottoms thanked residents and her supporters, highlighting her accomplishments in jobs, housing, public safety and redevelopment. Bottoms said she and her husband “have given thoughtful prayer and consideration” to their next chapter and had decided not to seek another term.

“It is with deep emotions that I hold my head high, and choose not to seek another term as Mayor,” she wrote, adding that she could win re-election but decided against running.

During a Friday morning news conference, Bottoms did not indicate what she might do next, nor did she mention future political aspirations.

“I don’t know what’s next for me personally and for my family,” she said. “But what I do know is that this is a decision made from a position of strength and not weakness.”

Asked if she would consider a potential role in the Biden administration, she replied, “we’ll see,” noting that being mayor with Biden in the White House has “made a world of difference.”

Bottoms said it was a “very difficult decision” not to run for re-election and said that there was not one single thing that led her to it.

“In the same way that it was clear to me five years ago I should run, it is abundantly clear to me today that it’s time to pass the baton on to someone else,” she said.

Bottoms, who appeared emotional at times, joked to reporters that, “Somebody said to me yesterday, whatever you do, don’t cry. And for God’s sake, don’t have an ugly cry.”

Bottoms, who was elected in 2017, rose to national prominence during the 2020 election cycle as one of Joe Biden’s earliest supporters and an outspoken critic of Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s decision to reopen Georgia, going toe to toe with him in court over her decision to enforce a mask mandate in Atlanta. She was rumored to have been considered to be Biden’s running mate.

Bottoms was also thrust into the national spotlight during the civil rights upheaval ignited by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody last May.

The announcement comes days after the reinstatement of the Atlanta police officer charged with murder in the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks in June. The officer, Garrett Rolfe, will remain on administrative leave. Rolfe had been terminated from his job last year — a move that Bottoms defended on Friday.

“I firmly believe it was the right decision. I firmly believe that if I had not made that decision, this city would have seen much worse,” she said.

Bottoms, whose term expires in January 2022, rejected speculation that she’s leaving office for fear of losing November’s election, pointing to her approval rating and strong fundraising.

“I’ve raised the money. I had the most successful fundraiser of any mayor in the history of this city with President Biden,” she said.

Bottoms said she plans to serve through the end of her term.

Bottoms had already begun fundraising for her re-election campaign, including holding an event with Biden. A few other people have decided to run, and Bottoms’ announcement could widen the field. City Council President Felicia Moore, a Democrat, has already announced plans to run Nov. 2.

Bottoms faced a number of issues over the past year regarding crime and public safety. Last year, for instance, the city had a record number of homicides, the Journal-Constitution reported.

In her letter, she did not say what her next role will be and she did not shut the door on running for office again, but she said she will finish out her term.

“I have engaged in several elections, facing multiple candidates, and never once have I cowarded from the competition,” she said. “It is my sincere hope that over the next several months, a candidate for Mayor will emerge whom the people of Atlanta may entrust to lead our beloved city to its next and best chapter.”

She added, “For our country, it means working to advance the agenda of the Biden-Harris Administration.”

Anonymous wrote:

Well, peace maybe not, it would be Orwellian to claim war leads to peace. But democracy, yeah you sometimes need war to bring democracy. However you need to do more than only go to war, once the regime has been removed you actually still need to build a democratic society.

Not just war, though, but also 20 years of occupation. Not that either normally leads to democracy – honestly, when has invading nations and overturning regimes actually ended up in a democracy compared to the number of times it leaves a nation controlled by dictators or warlords? Even if there is the possibility that occupation could support a democratic outcome for a nation, obviously it is and has never been the goal of the Afghanistan occupation. Foreign troops – mostly US troops – have been there 20 years, and the Taliban still have more influence on the nation.

The problem is that it is so easy to engineer these situations, whenever you believe the claims that military action can bring anything good to people, you’re being a sucker. From the Roman Empire to the British Empire, the same claims of humanitarian interests have been made to justify wars that are simply power struggles between leaders who have absolutely no trouble ignoring human rights violations in their own countries or with their allies in the same region.

Organized international action in response to a hurricane or natural disaster on a very temporary basis makes sense, but sending troops into a civil war, to support a rebellion (that the USA has already been funding for decades) or to topple unfriendly regimes has no concern for the conditions of the people in those targeted nations.

We’re so primed to buy this crap, it’s embarrassing. You’re fighting for women’s rights and gay rights and all sorts of minority rights in your own country, and along comes some warmonger that says “hey, what about those things in Afghanistan?” So it feels hypocritical not to support them, but it’s a total con. The people sending these soldiers to get killed and maimed and to kill and maim over there don’t give a shit about the rights of Afghani women or gay Afghans or even our own soldiers – they just want to keep a buffer against Iran. Hell, most of them are absolutely opposed to the rights of women and gays and soldiers even here in our own damn country. So why they hell would you not only buy but try to sell their own damn stupid war?

If someone tries to use that con to get you to go along with an invasion, just tell ’em “fuck you, it’s not my country. I don’t have any say in what they decide. I’ll use my vote where it counts, you murderous pervert.”

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

The people sending these soldiers to get killed and maimed and to kill and maim over there don’t give a shit about the rights of Afghani women or gay Afghans or even our own soldiers – they just want to keep a buffer against Iran.

I think the proof is in the pudding, are the troops there right now making a difference for human rights, or are things as bad as under the Taliban? If they made a positive difference, they’re doing something good. Maybe the Afghan people should have a say in wether they remain or not.

 

You can’t assume a posture that going to war is bad under all circumstances, that is giving the win to your opponents. For some things like genocide or other human rights abuses war can be a just measure. But there has to be a realistic plan to change things for the better, for instance in Syria right now I think there is no good option.

Anonymous wrote:

I think the proof is in the pudding, are the troops there right now making a difference for human rights, or are things as bad as under the Taliban? If they made a positive difference, they’re doing something good. Maybe the Afghan people should have a say in wether they remain or not.

It would be blood pudding in this case. However, in the surveys I’ve seen the majority of Afghans naturally do want foreign troops out of their country on both sides, as well as the majority of people in countries that have troops in Afghanistan. I imagine that’s been pretty consistent since Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and all the “Black Site” revelations. It quickly turned into another dirty war with more lost than gained and more to be lost especially for the Afghanis if troops remain and engage in another yet another full-blown conflict with the Taliban.

You can’t assume a posture that going to war is bad under all circumstances, that is giving the win to your opponents. For some things like genocide or other human rights abuses war can be a just measure. But there has to be a realistic plan to change things for the better, for instance in Syria right now I think there is no good option.

Leaving Afghanistan is better for us and worse for our opponents in the region – and for Russia as well. Essentially, getting bogged down in these conflicts is helping everyone that hates the Western nations. It’s extremely costly and all that is accomplished are temporary gains that don’t compare to the humanitarian crises and mass destruction.

Yeah honestly I have no idea what is wisdom in the Afghan scenario. I’m not advocating staying, I just don’t know. It seems even messier than Iraq. But I kinda doubt the US would let the Taliban take over Kabul. If that is on the verge of happening I think Biden can’t afford to let it occur, it would look terrible, they would probably bomb the Taliban and maybe send some troops, like what happened in Iraq when ISIS was getting close to Baghdad.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Honestly, I don’t think Biden would care if the Taliban took over Afghanistan. The primary concern was always Al Queda. If Afghanistan becomes a haven for terrorist training camps, it is likely he’d get support for limited military action, but Americans – especially Democrats – are not going to support going back into Afghanistan any more than anybody would’ve supported going back into Vietnam after troops left in the 70’s. The sentiment over here is that once we’re out, that’s it. We’re not going back.

It’s become too clear today that what we’re facing is that the same people who caused the problems are the ones providing the strategies to solve it — and naturally that’s only making it worse. The same thinking that gets us into these messes will not provide the solutions to get out of them.

 

I have doubts about that. Obama went back to Iraq too, to bomb ISIS and he sent special forces. We could see the same happen here if there is bloodshed when the Taliban tries taking over. I remember ISIS killed a lot of Yazidi’s which was basically genocide, making the moral demand to “do something” bigger.

 

Admittedly the Taliban isn’t ISIS and Iraq isn’t Afghanistan. The strategic value of Iraq is probably bigger for the US.

1 user thanked author for this post.

I just can't unsee it now… pic.twitter.com/6RkbUQht42

— Luke Russell (@LukeRussell1281) May 8, 2021

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, njerry, lorcan_nagle

And, in “Ted Cruz is a jackass” news:

Senator Ted Cruz Says Making It Easier To Vote Is Actually ‘Jim Crow 2.0’

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

And in “The GOP is now just a Trump worshipping cult” news:

Cheney booted from Republican leadership spot

3 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Rocket, Todd

The GOP is really not trying to hide who they are anymore. Meanwhile Joe Manchin and Sinema are just twiddling their thumbs and pouting about how Senate procedural nonsense is more important than actually protecting democracy. The Dems have a very small window in which to curb GOP efforts to undermine democracy but they’ve got a couple of jackasses intent on ensure minority rule in the US because…reasons?

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, JRCarter, lorcan_nagle

Chris D wrote:

reasons?

the supply of mindless slaves to rubber stamp your every whim is getting too small

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

In a fair and just world, Tomi Lahren would be a stain on the roadway…

2 users thanked author for this post.

Will_C, Todd

Republicans Unhappy With Trump GOP See Path for Alternative

Both major parties could probably stand course correction but especially the GOP.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I think the Cheney thing demonstrates that there really isn’t a different way for the GOP. They’ve gone all in on the Trump (/Buchanan) side of the GOP, because opposing Trump can lose them votes.

The good thing is, I think this is it for the GOP. The election has shown that as attractive as Trump and his brand of right-wing populism are to a lot of people, it’s not enough to win them a national election. They can do as much gerrymandering and voter restriction as they want, this may be less disastrous in the short term than opposing Trump, but in the long term, it’ll lose them everything.

It’s interesting to see that there are still some Republicans who see that and try to fight, but they don’t stand a chance. This has been decided.

The question is, if this sinks the Republicans (and I’m not sure it will), what replaces them? The Democrats are pretty conservative on a global scale, so it’d be nice to see an actual progressive left-wing party attacking them from the left, but I have very little faith in American politics. The Greens there are a fucking disaster area.

He said, hoping nobody looks at the Irish Greens for comparison.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Will_C

lorcan_nagle wrote:

The question is, if this sinks the Republicans (and I’m not sure it will), what replaces them?

Probably nobody.

If it fails for long enough at the ballot box they will change approach eventually.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Dave

lorcan_nagle wrote:

The question is, if this sinks the Republicans (and I’m not sure it will), what replaces them?

There hasn’t been a truly viable third party Presidential candidate in the US since Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Progressive ticket in 1912, due to the power and influence of the Dems and the GOP. If the anti-Trump Republicans form their own “conservative” party, however, it is possible they could attract Democratic voters and politicians who are not comfortable with their party’s current left-leaning agenda. The opportunity to develop a strong central party of like-minded former Dems and Republicans has never been as likely as it is now, when there is such divisiveness throughout the country.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Al-x, Todd, lorcan_nagle

Welp, someone’s sharpening the knives (not necessarily Reeves – she was one of about 10 names mooted in this opinion poll).

Many people have been predicting the demise of the GOP since Clinton… and then we got GW Bush. Then after Obama, we got Trump. And Biden is hardly a progressive. The Democrats are more conservative now under Biden than they were under Obama and the Republican party is far more right wing. For all their internal disputes, the Republicans nationwide tend to stick together especially if challenged strongly by any external political party. There’s a greater likelihood that the progressive wing of the Democratic party will break away than there will be an actual break up of the moderate Republican voters and the right wingers.

Also the tendency to grow more conservative with age could lead a lot of voters moving toward the GOP as the aging right wingers die out or depart the party.

Anonymous wrote:

The Democrats are more conservative now under Biden than they were under Obama

I’m not sure that’s true. Obama was very centrist and since his time in the Democratic party the likes of Sanders and the Squad have come ar more to the fore in pushing their agendas.

Biden himself is definitely n0 radical and someone who once boasted of being the most conservative Democrat but I think his policy plan is to the left of Obama’s. How much of it will happen is another matter.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, Chris D

Anonymous wrote:

There’s a greater likelihood that the progressive wing of the Democratic party will break away than there will be an actual break up of the moderate Republican voters and the right wingers.

Like Gar says though, Biden seems to be aware of this. Either that, or he’s rather more left-wing than people realised. Pushing for a global corporate tax rate and a version of the Green New Deal right out of the gate, that’s nothing to scoff at.

Anonymous wrote:

Also the tendency to grow more conservative with age could lead a lot of voters moving toward the GOP as the aging right wingers die out or depart the party.

I wonder if this holds true. I don’t really see people abandoning lifelong convictions because they’ve grown old.

Let’s see what’s out there in studies and the like? Here’s one from, hah, the policial science department in Düsseldorf.

https://blogs.uni-due.de/wissenschaft-politik/2018/01/22/as-we-age-we-do-not-grow-politically-more-conservative-age-differences-in-political-preferences-are-almost-exclusively-due-to-the-ways-different-cohorts-grew-up/

One of the great myths about ageing and older people in politics is that individuals become more conservative with age. There is the commonly known bon mot that “if you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.” This saying, which cannot be traced unequivocally to one source but seems to have been expressed first with slightly different age groups and adjectives by John Adams in a 1799 diary entry, seems to ring a bell with many observers of our European societies (Shapiro 2011).

The simple and, to some people, very appealing idea behind this is plainly wrong. Yet there seems to be something intuitively accurate about the phrase, which might explain why it has lasted so long despite the fact that there are very concrete empirical problems with it. In modern Europe, the period between an individual’s twenties and thirties is one of many changes for many people. They settle into their jobs, maybe they start a family, they start using different services provided by the public and private sector. Thus, it seems to make sense that political preferences change, too, during this period.

[…]

More importantly in the context of our discussion about conservatism, there have been broad developments in Europe that shaped the ways in which members of different cohorts relate to politics. One of these broad developments is socio-economic modernisation and democratisation (Inglehart 1997). This is a broad development at the social, economic and political level through which individuals grow more individualistic, more cosmopolitan and more accepting of diversity. This development catches cohorts differently, such that it is mostly those cohorts whose members are still young and can still be shaped by this change. When we look at a snap shot of younger and older people as we did with our data, this can explain the varying degrees of cultural conservatism among older people. Their cohorts have been less impacted by this development than cohorts of younger people. Thus, it is not a coincidence that the richer and, according to this theory, socio-economically more developed countries in Europe (Western Europe) tend to be more on the right of the x-axis in Figure 1. The further along societies are in the process of socio-economic development, the smaller the gap in cultural conservatism between younger and older people is. Lithuania, Greece, Estonia and Slovakia show culturally much more conservative older people relative to younger people in their countries because they are, according to this theory, less developed (with GDP per capita being a simple indicator of that). Iceland, the Netherlands and Belgium, in contrast, show a rather low level of difference.

This co-evolution with socio-economic development is remarkable because the social status of older people tends to decline with increasing modernisation. In pre-modern society, the social status of older men (not women!) as the heads of households was still high (Foner 1984). This status declined with increasing industrialisation and was finally removed altogether with the introduction of the modern welfare state, which allowed all individuals to seek their own material fortunes without the family having to be the main safety net.

The Pew Center also finds evidence for this kind of generational imprinting being the factor, rather than individual age:

The politics of American generations: How age affects attitudes and voting behavior

This seems to be pretty much the consensus in political science research; there is also a 2008 study being mentioned a lot that apparently demonstrates that older people actually even tend to become more tolerant rather than more conservative. There are, however, also some recent studies that suggest some small support for the conventional wisdom; in those few cases in which political alignments do shift in higher age, people are more likely to shift towards conservative than towards progressive. However, that seems to be so few cases that it wouldn’t be relevant to an election.

So… it doesn’t seem like the GOP can rely on people shifting to their politics as they grow older. The recent tactic of sweeping up the disenfranchised with right-wing populism has worked much better and given them a boost, but not even that was enough to hold on to power for more than one term.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

lorcan_nagle wrote:

The question is, if this sinks the Republicans (and I’m not sure it will), what replaces them? The Democrats are pretty conservative on a global scale, so it’d be nice to see an actual progressive left-wing party attacking them from the left, but I have very little faith in American politics. The Greens there are a fucking disaster area.

He said, hoping nobody looks at the Irish Greens for comparison.

Well… see, this is in part what happened in Germany. The left wing of our Labour party split off and formed “Die Linke” to attack the SPD from the left. This has, however, only led to the SPD forming one great coalition with the conservatives after another (because they hate Die Linke too much and see them too much as a danger to form a coalition with them). This has left the SPD politically irrelevant at this point, with only about 16% of votes left (and Die Linke faring as badly, with now about 6% in current surveys).
But the conservative party has taken hits, too; with Merkel gone, projections are they’ll be stuck with about 25% of the votes only, which pretty much could tie them with our Green Party. The CDU is now stuck in the same situation as the SPD was back then, because they’ve bled their more right-wing party to the right-wing populists in the AfD party (due to Merke’s socially liberal approach), and forming a coalition with those fuckers would be political suicide for the CDU. This quite possibly opens up a shot at a Green chancellorship, and our first non-conservative government in fucking decades.

One thing that is interesting about this is the age cohort and political voting thing I mentioned in the reply to Jonny’s post:
The rise of the Green Party is explainable because it’s the party that my generation, who is now in their forties, always voted and still is voting, while they’ve also been gathering younger voters.

It helps that out of all the parties right now, the Greens are the only ones who actually are pretty together and had two candidates for chancellorship that are pretty much universally liked (whereas the potential CDU candidates were pretty much universally abhorred) and they managed to go with one of their choices without tearing themselves apart over this.

With any luck, this will be our first Green Party chancellor, Annalena Baerbock:

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Yeah, I don’t buy the “people get more conservative as they age” thing, because if nothing else my politics have gotten increasingly radical over the years. I think there’s a couple of factors to the perception though:

1. Class interests change. If you’re a homeowner, your perspective on taxation, especially around property and inheritance is going to be different, moreso when you get close to paying off that mortgage. Similarly if you have career progression and are disconnected from the struggle of life many younger people face there’s a reliance on intellectual sympathy rather than emotional resonance.

2. Working class people die younger. A larger percentage of older people were likely to have been raised in conservative families just based on class. Similarly the life expectancy for ethnic and social minorities is lower.

3. Standards change. Someone who was a progressive 40 years ago has seen much, if not all of what they support come to pass, they might not be interested or willing to support the next generation’s fights. Take a look at the different waves of feminism, especially the bitter fighting between many of the leading lights of the 70s and 80s vs younger, more radical voices today over trans inclusion and the intersection of feminism and socialism/anarchism

6 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, Christian, Todd, Dave, Martin Smith, DavidM

lorcan_nagle wrote:

3. Standards change. Someone who was a progressive 40 years ago has seen much, if not all of what they support come to pass, they might not be interested or willing to support the next generation’s fights. Take a look at the different waves of feminism, especially the bitter fighting between many of the leading lights of the 70s and 80s vs younger, more radical voices today over trans inclusion and the intersection of feminism and socialism/anarchism

I think this is a big part of it. While I do think that some people will probably veer right as they get older (due to the kind of class changes you mention) I think it’s often overlooked that the moral/ethical landscape is these days changing hugely, certainly over the period of a lifetime, and what was seen as progressive when someone was young isn’t necessarily going to align with progressive thought today.

I think is one of the reasons you often get that tension within ‘the left’, because it isn’t a homogenous group with the same views, and those differences in outlook often cut across generations.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Bumping to fix the thread.