He's perfect for The Goonies remake/sequel as Sloth's offspring after a drunken Stef threw herself on him.
2021 American Civil War
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
He's perfect for The Goonies remake/sequel as Sloth's offspring after a drunken Stef threw herself on him.
We'll see what happens after Sept. 18th with the coming Steve Bannon rally at the US Capitol a few weeks away
Surely he’s not that stupid?
Yes, yeah he is.
As it gets closer, I'll share information from people that I know that are tracking Bannon and his nationalist/white supremacy factions.
I seriously doubt that DC law enforcement will be unprepared for this second attempt to overtake the US Capitol Building
The fencing is still up IIRC . Don't think it will be much of an attempt.
I thought they took it down.
We'll see what happens. I just don't get it. With more than 500 people in jail for the Jan 6th attack, it's astonishing that anyone would consider a second attempt
The fencing is down but they may put it back up.
If there is a second attempt at this I doubt the CP or MPD will be as unprepared, or as restrained. Especially the CP as I think they have a few scores to settle. I hope they don't as all police violence is bad, even when I don't like the people they are using it on.
Problem is, there might be rifles in the crowd this time . This calls for more than local law enforcement IMO.
Yeah, I think the DC Guard will be around this time and not purposefully kept away.
Not sure how you conclude there is a coming collapse. Looks the opposite to me. SCOTUS is locked in for a generation of far-right decisions, with the most conservative court in about 75 years. The GOP has found new ways of pushing the limits on procedural issues so even in the bluest state like California, Gavin Newsom is fighting for his life in a recall election that looks far closer than demographically would be possible. And conservative wealthy is buying more media that influences a lot of people. The right-wing is absolutely fired up politically meanwhile a Democratic Presidency, Senate and House can't even get common sense "progressive" laws passed like election reform or marijuana reform because the Dem party is now the party of rich, corporate interests.
In many spheres, the US is more to the right now than it was 20 years ago. The only area it isn't more right wing, is identity politics where the wealthiest tech corporations are making a few more "diversity" hires. Social welfare is still being chipped away, the rich and corporations still control the lawmaking (Citizens United looks locked in and even you admitted many years ago without that gone, you won't see progressive laws across many spheres). If this past year is the best a Democrat Pres, House, and Senate can do, we really won't see much different in the next 20 years than we've seen in the past 40 years - increasing wealth inqueality, increasing control from billionaires and the largest corporate conglomerates, further stripping of social services, a continued demonization of anything criticizing the American status quo as "evil Marxism" and more. But hey, you can celebrate that Larry Elder makes things more "diverse."
You can say things like "just elect more progressives" but the conservative political infrastructure that was began in the 1970s and continued through legal organizations, think tanks, far-right media (since 87's repeal of the Fairness doctrine), and the ongoing effects of Citizens United combined with the protection of things like gerrymandering means that it takes a lot more than a small demographic advantage to affect any meaningful change. In fact, taking all that conservative infrastructure into account, I'd say conservative America won't see another window for collapse for another 15-20 years (and that's if this Gen Z and the youngest millennials don't get more conservative as they get older).
As mentioned before, they aren't behaving in a consistently conservative manner, often frustrating conservatives. So while progressives may see the Texas ruling as a gloomy sign of things to come; overall, conservatives aren't particularly impressed as to how Trump's SCOTUS nominees are performing - specifically on getting rid of the ACA, transgender bathroom cases, flourists who don't want to cater to same sex couples etc. Ailito and Thomas are staunchly conservative rubber stamps, Gorsuch, Kavannagh, and ACB have been largely unpredictable and Roberts often crosses over to side with Dems. There's more unpredictability in this court than anytime I can remember.
You can't use far-right activists not getting everything they want as an indication the court isn't the most conservative it's been in 75 years. They will be frustrated at literally anything short of repealing Roe v Wade, allowing Jim Crow laws back, and handing billionaires carte blanche. Can you list all the SCOTUS decisions that you feel support the conclusion that this court is "more unpredictable" than any time you can remember?
Anyway, I don't see anything that corroborates your assertion there will be a coming collapse of the GOP in America. Bannon holding a rally hardly means the conservatives are collapsing. It means they are getting fired up for 2022 midterms.
It was the far right people who wanted the justices in the first place, so obviously their dissatisfaction means they haven't gotten what they wanted, and as such, the court can't be regarded as reliably far right until they actually repeatedly prove it by acting on the far right agenda that emplaced them. This doesn't mean the court is moderate, it simply means they've been more unpredictable than reliably conservative.
Can you list cases that support your stance that the court is not "reliably conservative"?
And again, what they want are things like the complete repeal of Roe v Wade, Jim Crow laws, etc. So them "not getting everything they wanted" means feck all in relation to the court being more right-wing than it has been in 75 years. Do you disagree with the statement that the court is the most conservative it has been since before the Warren Court?
Last edited:
I already did several posts up. There's also a litany of articles published about conservatives moaning about Trump's 3 SCOTUS picks being disappointing.
If they dare do a 1/6 redo I hope the armed USCP/others assigned blast every single one of them.
Those articles are hardly compelling. You're basically saying "Sean Hannity isn't happy 100% of the time so its a WIN for liberals". You listed what, 2-3 extremely niche social cases that have no business interests behind them. The key, as legal observers have noted repeatedly in "a litany of articles" is that in every high-profile or important case the rulings are reliably conservative. Far-right activists not getting 100% of what they wanted doesn't change the fact they are getting what they want roughly 95-97% of the time. Which makes the court more conservative than it's been in about 75 years. But hey, continue celebrating the 1 in 100 win for transgenders in bathrooms while business interests are cleaning house on dozens and dozens of rulings as Sheldon Whitehouse has repeatedly noted.
The ACA is a separate beast because there really is no progressive ruling possible on that. Business interests including the privatized insurance companies support the ACA so that ruling really is more like business conservatives vs social conservatives with no progressive stake holder options.
Its not a win for liberals by any stretch, but it also isn't the depressing, dystopian "sky is falling" pro right wing conservative scenario being portrayed by some. The court has largely been a disappointment for conservatives and left wingers over the years, because both sides want it to behave in an activist way on their behalf. The present court is no different in this regard.
Last edited:
The court has largely been a massive joy for conservative business interests over the years with this court being the most pro-conservative business of any in the last 75 years.
Which goes back to what my initial point was. By most all measures, the conservatives are not even remotely close to "collapsing" and are consolidating a lot of wins. A few social wins out of hundreds doesn't change the fact that business interests have consolidated their political influence over both parties, the social welfare programs continue to be weakened and chipped away at, wealth inequality shows no signs of becoming better, the homeless problem continues to get worse with no solutions from either politcal party in sight and all by the most rabid social conservatives look to be enjoying a string of victories in the next 15 years. But yeah, ignore the dozens of victories for the wealthy and conservative business interest because there was a minor win for transgenders in bathrooms
I feel we're getting dangerously close to Enlightened Centrism here. A friendly reminder that we're talking about the Supreme Court that at least temporarily sanctioned what essentially amounts to a ban on abortion. This isn't a both sides thing.
These are two separate issues. The court itself isn't behaving conservatively as some thought it would. Its behaving unpredictably which means the fringes of each side of the political spectrum will be unhappy with it.
The conservative movement as a whole, is on the rocks in the US. Trump has completely dismantled the traditional three core characteristics of American conservatism (fiscal, social, and defense) and converted it into a full on culture war cult of personality that rejects science and enables anti-government violence. That is not a long term sustainable model for any political party - especially not one with aging, homogenous demographics who aren't being replenished by younger adherents. This is why Rs have taken to gerrymandering, voter suppression, court packing, immigration restrictions, and various other policies - because they know they can't win without cheating. This is, again, not a sustainable model for any major political party in a democratic system. So unless the US is headed to full on authoritarianism, the conservative movement is going to gradually run out of sufficient voters to continue winning elections.
I think this ruling is a good indication of how the court will proceed in the foreseeable future. They made a ruling based on "complex and novel procedural issues" that prevented them from stopping the Texas abortion ban. I think that's what we will see more of in the coming years. "complex and novel procedural issues" that prevent the conservative majority from ruling on conservative pushed laws as a way of sidestepping the Constitutionality of the issue and still rubber-stamping the conservative agenda in the states (where 27 states have GOP governors and the GOP controls 30 state legislatures).
If a ban on abortion isn't a sky falling scenario, then what is? Reintroduction of slavery?
Meaningless statement. The court never behaves as "some" thought it would.
However, the court is behaving exactly like many here predicted it would - rubberstamping conservative business interests and all the most high profile and long-lasting conservative political interests.
That naive optimism is charming but I fail to see any evidence that really supports that due to the facts I listed in the first post which you ignored to focus solely on a handful (out of hundreds) of SCOTUS decisions while ignoring all the pro-business SCOTUS decisions and important political decisions like this one on abortion.
Also, I wouldn't call controlling 27 governorships, 30 state legislatures, and being able to pass more restrictive abortion laws than any time in the last 50 years "on the rocks" either. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to conclude that conservatives pushing laws at state level and getting away with it as proof they are "on the rocks". A more reasonable interpretation of all these laws being passed is that after 45 years of conservative infrastructure building (from legal to lobbying to media) conservatives are able to pass these laws and get away with it when 10, 20, 30 years ago they would not have been able to get away with it.
Oh and another angle:
The Democrats controlling Pres, House, and Senate can't/won't reform marijuana laws despite the War on Drugs being a massive failure.
The Democrats controlling Pres, House, and Senate can't/won't pass actual Federals to protect election and reduce disenfranchisement being pushed by state-level GOP control.
The Democrats controlling Pres, House, and Senate can't/won't pass laws strengthening the social welfare system and reverse 40 years of decline.
The Democrats controlling Pres, House, and Senate can't/won't pass laws protecting things like affirmative action, which have proven positive benefits in social mobility.
etc
So it doesn't really look like the conservatives are on the rocks. It looks like they've sufficiently infiltrated both parties through money in politics that they aren't solely reliant on the GOP.
Last edited:
I can see red states mirroring the Texas law, or pushing even more restrictive measures.
If the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down when they eventually rule on whether it violates the constitution, the right to an abortion is dead in the US. Some states will have it, and others won't.
Pelosi already out talking about codifying it in law. As if it could even remotely pass in the senate.
I find the Conservative movement is alive and well in Europe at a time when it’s been largely blunted in the States.
I don't want to live in a world where this ever gets old.
I got halfway through an angry/sarcastic/condescending reply before my memory regurgitated the source of this gem.
As an outsider, I would agree with all of that. The conservatives may need voter suppression to stay relevant, but as long as they manage that (and they are), they aren't going away any time soon; that the worst social conservative ideas aren't passing the Supreme Court doesn't mean that nothing conservative does; and even if this were all somehow opposite, the fact remains that the current all-Democratic government is quite tired towards the right itself and doesn't actually provide much hope for progressives either, especially economically.
Also, it's all very nice if maybe in 30 years demographic shifts will have made the current social-conservative right obsolete, but there may well be a new variant by then, also because people in the US continue to grow up in an environment with abundant propoganda for those kinds of views. Plus it will do nothing for everyone who is screwed over right now in the US if maybe in 30 years some economic reform might start getting on the horizon, somewhere in the distance.
Can someone explain where this is from? I've seen it a few times on here.
This post I think (which from subsequent discussion appears to have been meant seriously):
It's quite old at this point, to be fair. I definitely don't want to see what I wrote in 2012. I'm pretty sure I talked about how I'd love for Trump to run for president, because it would make the Republican Primary debates so entertaining.
They aren't going away anytime soon, but they are facing a fundamental numbers problem that is only going to get worse over time. Speaking strictly of national elections, its going to be very hard for Republicans to win the Presidency if their core group of voters is shrinking. They could of course win if the Dems make a mess of things. or put up a terrible candidate, but it will be an uphill battle.
The thing with voter suppression from the conservatives is that it's not some new thing they are coming up with as a reaction to anything. It's been part of their strategy since the inception of the USA. Blacks, Native Americans, Women, Asians, etc have all been denied the right to vote outright through everything from Congressional legislation to poll taxes, literacy tests and more. So this recent iteration is not really an indication of anything new but just a continuance of how they always do business.
And I don't buy into Raul's over-simplistic demographic determinism for a variety of reasons.
1) party identification doesn't mean people won't still vote GOP in any given election (heck just look at that graph. in 1992 or 1998, some concluded the same things Raul is now only to see a resurgence in GOP party identification)
2) there are plenty of studies that prove people do actually vote more conservative the older they get, so today's influx of youth voters that look like some permanent swing could easily turn into GOP voter majority by the time they retire in 40-50 years (if retirement is even an option for many of them)
“We can say, with a great deal of confidence, that people get more conservative when they get older—and a lot more,” says Chicago Booth’s Sam Peltzman, who conducted the research. “It’s not just a little bit. It’s a pretty big change over their lifetime.”
Though some people form their political beliefs early in life and stick with them, most of us follow a predictable and durable pattern: our political beliefs steadily become more conservative as we age, no matter what generation we belong to or what era we grew up in, the research finds. "
https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2020/article/there-are-two-americas-and-age-divider
The sky is hardly falling for the GOP in the long term.
Last edited:
feck Hillary Clinton though. It would have been 6-4 to liberals otherwise.
Would it have though? I am 80% sure Turtle would have kept all the seats open for 4 years.
You are right, fecking douchebag turtle.
Exactly. At the very least, Kennedy would not have stepped down to get replaced yet and Bitch McConnel would not have allowed a replacement for Ginsburg. They *might* have been able to get Garland through for Scalia but I wouldn't have bet on that either.