American Politics XIV: The Dawning of the Age of the Pumpkin

[Dimetrodon Empire]

There were elections in Nazi Germany. They weren't free or fair, but there were elections, and the GOP is trying to rewrite the election rules so the next series of elections will be rigged in their favor.

[Yerachmeal]

You said you lean Republican and you went out of your way to defend the party from criticism.

I do lean republican. But your main accusations are that we are stopping free speech on truth, which most of us don't operate, and think Trump won the 2020 election, which I don't.
I still lean republican though. I'm still in favor of the Mexican wall, and against every one of Biden's stimulus packages for example.

[Yerachmeal]

There were elections in Nazi Germany. They weren't free or fair, but there were elections, and the GOP is trying to rewrite the election rules so the next series of elections will be rigged in their favor.

U huh. Enforcing photo ID is rigging rules in their favor.

[Corrian]

Warnock was losing in Georgia last I checked. Unless a currently republican seat is losing to a democrat, the republicans will win the senate. It's the house that I think is a toss up, though I think it will remain democrat by 1 or 2 seats.

PA is the republican seat that the democrats have an advantage in.

Currently polling has Warnock at 49% over Walkers 46% and even the very republican Trafalgar Group has Warnock winning.

And even if Dems don’t win in Georgia all they need is to hold all other seats and pick up in PA which they’ll do.

Dems have the possibility of gaining 2-3 seats.

Yeah I'm pretty sure PA is gonna flip. That seems to be pretty safe there. Wisconsin will Wisconsin. I wouldn't be shocked if Johnson wins reelection despite being unpopular and being a lunatic, despite them also reelecting their much more reasonable other Senator. Wisconsin gotta Wisconsin. But I could be pleasantly surprised and Dems just overperform in general. NH seems basically safe, Nevada despite tied or slightly leaning Republican, I've heard in the past that the polling their always skews Republican for some reason so I think Dems will hold onto there, albeit maybe narrowly. NC I expect to be narrowly Republican like last time, Florida will Florida.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

There were elections in Nazi Germany. They weren't free or fair, but there were elections, and the GOP is trying to rewrite the election rules so the next series of elections will be rigged in their favor.

U huh. Enforcing photo ID is rigging rules in their favor.

They're doing more than that: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... gislatures

[Yerachmeal]

U huh. Enforcing photo ID is rigging rules in their favor.

They're doing more than that: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... gislatures

I have complete confidence that it is a minority of republicans who agree with these allegations. The supreme court will probably not rule in their favor in this one anyway, and it has a majority republicans.

[Cannot think of a name]

There were elections in Nazi Germany. They weren't free or fair, but there were elections, and the GOP is trying to rewrite the election rules so the next series of elections will be rigged in their favor.

U huh. Enforcing photo ID is rigging rules in their favor.

Ah dude...you lead us to believe you had done your research. If you're going to be disingenuous just say so.

[Yerachmeal]

U huh. Enforcing photo ID is rigging rules in their favor.

Ah dude...you lead us to believe you had done your research. If you're going to be disingenuous just say so.

I did. However I'm focusing on areas that the majority of republicans agree on. That whole asking the court about states certifying blabidy blah blah is not something most republicans agree on. Photo ID and I guess the electoral college are the only conservative things I can think of, but several people flip on their parties on the electoral college. Photo ID is the only thing left. If you'd like you can post something else you want me to look at.

[The Black Forrest]

They're doing more than that: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... gislatures

I have complete confidence that it is a minority of republicans who agree with these allegations. The supreme court will probably not rule in their favor in this one anyway, and it has a majority republicans.

Based on what exactly? Liz Cheney supported Trump 80ish percent of the time and I forget the other republican who was the little darling of the news telling people Trump was a poopy head. He supported Trump 86% of the time.

The only way this silent minority will come out against trump unless it’s pretty guaranteed Trump is off to prison.

[The Black Forrest]

Ah dude...you lead us to believe you had done your research. If you're going to be disingenuous just say so.

I did. However I'm focusing on areas that the majority of republicans agree on. That whole asking the court about states certifying blabidy blah blah is not something most republicans agree on. Photo ID and I guess the electoral college are the only conservative things I can think of, but several people flip on their parties on the electoral college. Photo ID is the only thing left. If you'd like you can post something else you want me to look at.

Saying you researched it…..not something people are going to believe. Links are always a good thing.

The problem with saying “Oh they are really against *whatever*” doesn’t really have any value. Them actively working against it?….does.

We have all heard the stories of off the record comments of not liking Trump and yet on the record? They support him.

Anyways.

[Saiwania]

Alex Jones ordered to pay damages of almost $1 billion to 15 plaintiffs in Connecticut.

Hooting. Hollering. Stamping my feet.

Its crazy how he managed to get to this outcome, but he was sort of asking for it. He more likely doesn't have $1 billion+ in assets to pay out. So the question is, will this actually put a stop to what he normally does or keep him bankrupted? In the past up to the present, he's shown an ability to earn around $53 million+ each year on average, but at that rate it'd still take him 20 years to clear $1 billion+ in debts.

I'm a bit skeptical that all the troubles he has caused certain people, were sufficiently proven to actually be worth $67 million+ to each person, but they do have a claim to some big money if Alex Jones' activities got any of them having to move cities or disrupt their income/home life.

This is intended to bury him enough that he can't continue "business as usual" anymore, but Alex Jones is seemingly saying he has no intention of trying to pay this off. Will the court enforce further actions should he fail to pay anything? All of his real estate and assets are vulnerable to being seized with perhaps the exception of his primary residence. And any bankruptcies he enters into, that will be its own process so far as if it can bring the debts down or not.

[Spirit of Hope]

There were elections in Nazi Germany. They weren't free or fair, but there were elections, and the GOP is trying to rewrite the election rules so the next series of elections will be rigged in their favor.

U huh. Enforcing photo ID is rigging rules in their favor.

Why would you need photo ID for voting? I understand that the argument is to stop fraudulent voting, but it sounds like a rather stupid step to try and stop it.

First in person voter fraud is rather rare, so passing more laws to prevent it sounds like a waste of time.

Second it doesn't stop people who shouldn't be voting from voting, that is done by the voter registration process. By the time you are showing an ID to vote you are already registered.

Third its going to be obvious anyways when the type of fraud ID laws are supposed to combat happen. To make any difference it would have to happen at scale, at which point you have people showing up to vote and being told their ballot has already been cast. Plus dealing with the logistics of making the fraud happen (recruitment, avoiding notice of poll workers/observers, etc.).

That said the evidence is that ID laws don't have much effect on voter turn out, so I'm mostly ambivalent. Just seems like a law that makes voting slightly harder for basically no good reason.

[El Lazaro]

Alex Jones ordered to pay damages of almost $1 billion to 15 plaintiffs in Connecticut.

Hooting. Hollering. Stamping my feet.

Its crazy how he managed to get to this outcome, but he was sort of asking for it. He more likely doesn't have $1 billion+ in assets to pay out. So the question is, will this actually put a stop to what he normally does or keep him bankrupted? In the past up to the present, he's shown an ability to earn around $53 million+ each year on average, but at that rate it'd still take him 20 years to clear $1 billion+ in debts.

I'm a bit skeptical that all the troubles he has caused certain people, were sufficiently proven to actually be worth $67 million+ to each person, but they do have a claim to some big money if Alex Jones' activities got any of them having to move cities or disrupt their income/home life.

This is intended to bury him enough that he can't continue "business as usual" anymore, but Alex Jones is seemingly saying he has no intention of trying to pay this off. Will the court enforce further actions should he fail to pay anything? All of his real estate and assets are vulnerable to being seized with perhaps the exception of his primary residence. And any bankruptcies he enters into, that will be its own process so far as if it can bring the debts down or not.

Imagine feds taking over the Infowars studio, not during some NWO violent takeover, but because he’s too broke to pay for a $1 billion lawsuit. Whatever drug this country has been on since 2016, at least it’s entertaining. Though Alex Jones’s Joker outburst was ill-timed considering punitive damages haven’t been determined yet.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Now that Trump has been subpoenaed, when do we find out what Steve Bannon's sentence for contempt is, just so Trump knows what to expect?

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3687 ... l-footage/

Pelosi said before insurrection that she would ‘punch’ Trump if he came to Capitol: footage

[Free Algerstonia]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3687685-pelosi-said-before-insurrection-that-she-would-punch-trump-if-he-came-to-capitol-footage/

Pelosi said before insurrection that she would ‘punch’ Trump if he came to Capitol: footage

and yet pelosi didnt punch trump, classic democrats promising things to their gullible electorate then forgetting about them, when will americans wake up?

[The Jamesian Republic]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3687685-pelosi-said-before-insurrection-that-she-would-punch-trump-if-he-came-to-capitol-footage/

Pelosi said before insurrection that she would ‘punch’ Trump if he came to Capitol: footage

I know that was so cool. I wish someone did.

[Ifreann]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3687685-pelosi-said-before-insurrection-that-she-would-punch-trump-if-he-came-to-capitol-footage/

Pelosi said before insurrection that she would ‘punch’ Trump if he came to Capitol: footage

Why, was he threatening to interfere with her insider trading scheme?

[Cannot think of a name]

Ah dude...you lead us to believe you had done your research. If you're going to be disingenuous just say so.

I did. However I'm focusing on areas that the majority of republicans agree on. That whole asking the court about states certifying blabidy blah blah is not something most republicans agree on. Photo ID and I guess the electoral college are the only conservative things I can think of, but several people flip on their parties on the electoral college. Photo ID is the only thing left. If you'd like you can post something else you want me to look at.

Aw, did some people say something on a poll? Do they still vote for candidates who close polling locations in poor areas, reduce hours, create a superfulous ID requirement because it will disproportionally effect poorer voters who even if you make it free you'll just do what you did with abortion clinics or polling centers by putting the one office nowhere near the people who need it and make its hours like 4 hours a day and not the same four hours every day. Do they still elect official who do massive voter roll purges at or near deadlines so that even if people notice that they've had their voter registration revoked they wouldn't have time to do anything about it? 'Cause you can hide behind that safe little poll of yours and twist your toesies together and go "What, me?" but sorry dude. That's what their elected officials do and if that's not what 'the majority' approves of maybe they can fucking prove it and stop lettlng the people doing what you claim their not into win primaries. Until then, your inferred but not provided survey of opinions means pretty much nothing. Tell me again about the majority. It's cute that you think it matters.

[Platoon of Peace]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3687685-pelosi-said-before-insurrection-that-she-would-punch-trump-if-he-came-to-capitol-footage/

Pelosi said before insurrection that she would ‘punch’ Trump if he came to Capitol: footage

That's just a weird thing to say considering how at the time she didn't know what was happening.

[Yerachmeal]

U huh. Enforcing photo ID is rigging rules in their favor.

Why would you need photo ID for voting? I understand that the argument is to stop fraudulent voting, but it sounds like a rather stupid step to try and stop it.

First in person voter fraud is rather rare, so passing more laws to prevent it sounds like a waste of time.

Second it doesn't stop people who shouldn't be voting from voting, that is done by the voter registration process. By the time you are showing an ID to vote you are already registered.

Third its going to be obvious anyways when the type of fraud ID laws are supposed to combat happen. To make any difference it would have to happen at scale, at which point you have people showing up to vote and being told their ballot has already been cast. Plus dealing with the logistics of making the fraud happen (recruitment, avoiding notice of poll workers/observers, etc.).

That said the evidence is that ID laws don't have much effect on voter turn out, so I'm mostly ambivalent. Just seems like a law that makes voting slightly harder for basically no good reason.

I agree it would be better if they have to show it before they register, but the voting fraud rarely happens in person barely means anything. It would likely happen more if it wasn't required. Either way my point was that enforcing photo ID isn't rigging any elections, whether you agree with it being forced or not.

[Yerachmeal]

I did. However I'm focusing on areas that the majority of republicans agree on. That whole asking the court about states certifying blabidy blah blah is not something most republicans agree on. Photo ID and I guess the electoral college are the only conservative things I can think of, but several people flip on their parties on the electoral college. Photo ID is the only thing left. If you'd like you can post something else you want me to look at.

Saying you researched it…..not something people are going to believe. Links are always a good thing.

The problem with saying “Oh they are really against *whatever*” doesn’t really have any value. Them actively working against it?….does.

We have all heard the stories of off the record comments of not liking Trump and yet on the record? They support him.

Anyways.

And how does that show that the majority of republicans are trying to rig elections, or are fascist? I know a lot about fascism, more than most people do. That's the main thing I' researched on in this area. I need something that shows the republicans fit under that category.

[Yerachmeal]

I did. However I'm focusing on areas that the majority of republicans agree on. That whole asking the court about states certifying blabidy blah blah is not something most republicans agree on. Photo ID and I guess the electoral college are the only conservative things I can think of, but several people flip on their parties on the electoral college. Photo ID is the only thing left. If you'd like you can post something else you want me to look at.

Aw, did some people say something on a poll? Do they still vote for candidates who close polling locations in poor areas, reduce hours, create a superfulous ID requirement because it will disproportionally effect poorer voters who even if you make it free you'll just do what you did with abortion clinics or polling centers by putting the one office nowhere near the people who need it and make its hours like 4 hours a day and not the same four hours every day. Do they still elect official who do massive voter roll purges at or near deadlines so that even if people notice that they've had their voter registration revoked they wouldn't have time to do anything about it? 'Cause you can hide behind that safe little poll of yours and twist your toesies together and go "What, me?" but sorry dude. That's what their elected officials do and if that's not what 'the majority' approves of maybe they can fucking prove it and stop lettlng the people doing what you claim their not into win primaries. Until then, your inferred but not provided survey of opinions means pretty much nothing. Tell me again about the majority. It's cute that you think it matters.

The elected officials aren't good enough proof unless it's a policy. Voters (hopefully)vote off of the policies that each candidate has.

[Des-Bal]

He's taking a pitfall and an underlying issue as a result of under representation and mooshing them together and pretending it's the intended outcome. To no surprise, it's disingenuous.

The 'strong X character' as particularly flawless has been criticized largely by those being represented and is widely considered a misstep. There is literally no one making 'give x characters no flaws!' No one. But it does happen, a massive over correct that sometimes is misapplied. For instance, what are James Bond's flaws? Or Jack Reacher's? There are narratives that revolve around a near flawless wish fulfillment character. James Bond or Jack Reacher or John Wick don't stand out as flawless because there are countless of other white characters who run the gambit from total garbage to absolute pillars.

But when you're under represented each representation matters more. If the only handful of times you're on screen you're a servant of some kind or slave or criminal that becomes an even greater problem. Not only does each depiction carry more weight because there are so few, there becomes an over abundance of a certain kind of representation.

So when you finally do realize that a lack of representation can't just be magicked away, that you're going to have to actively do it do it, there are pitfalls. It doesn't do any good to just put more black faces on screen if it's just going to be movies about drug dealers or street gangs. You're just continuing the over representation of one aspect of an under represented group. But naturally it's complex, because it's not like there are no stories to be told any more about poor minority kids in inner cities. Ideally, though, you let that story be told by then not about them. The difference between Colors and Boyz n the Hood. Or maybe a better example, Spike Lee's School Daze where a white writer director would less likely to even understand much less be able to articulate the inner community conflict between light skinned and dark skinned black people and the discussion revolving around the best way to address or even think about issues of the black experience in America.

That's the argument regarding better representation in the creative and decision making space, because a white creator can only work within their context and while it's the job of a writer or creator to write characters and experiences they have not actually had there is still value in telling the story over having your own story told about you.

The other argument is the problem inherent that Des is pretending is the end goal. Ending up so afraid of your shadow that you're worried that this underrepresented character is under such scrutiny that they're afraid to give any flaws for fear of enforcing a stereotype. While it can happen, most consider it a mistake. Find me a single person that has ever said that an underrepresented character needs to be flawless. If you can find one I'd be impressed much less enough to demonstrate it's a goal of anyones.

But here in lies the rub. When the flaws you want to give a character are based on those stereotypes you do run into resistance. If you then look at the resistance to have yet another character from x group do y and you throw up your hands and go 'you can't give them any flaws' what you're actually doing is demonstrating the power of representation and how it has effected you because no group x characters are not 'realistic' to you without the traits that the medium has been reinforcing for the better part of a century. The 'wild west' a bit more diverse than the entire country is right now when some groups of white people are afraid of being 'replaced'. But that's not the picture of the west that we've painted. Anthropologists and archeologists will tell anyone who will listen that the European middle ages were diverse which is a byproduct of trade routes and the massive reach of the fallen empires that the middle ages happened in the wake of. But we can't even portray made up shit in made up worlds loosely based on the European middle ages as diverse because people think it's 'inauthentic', but the only reason they think that is the regularly inauthentic representations that have built our perception of essentially a time that never existed (especially in the case of the 'wild west' where much of what we think of as 'the wild west' is made up for dime novels.)

So essentially his characterization is built around the very reason these efforts exist.

I didn't see this, then went away, then just argued with someone about this exact topic so here this is.


I appreciate you're responding to a trimmed quote but you're wildly missing the point. I was criticizing pandering and the methods we use to create diversity not the existence of diversity. I also didn’t say the goal was to create flawless diverse characters I said it was the product of skittishness inherent in starting a conversation by going "how about we make a black person and decide what they're like."

Oh hey those randomly selected characters are all from dumb action movies and a description of why they're good characters would almost certainly start with "Well once they did this thing where..." Action movies often have flat protagonists. Their struggles aren't based in their growth or development as a character they're based on dumb violence and often on getting the shit kicked out of them. That's hard when your character is a representative of all people of race and gender. It's not like diversity breaks this formula, if you didnt enjoy the Blade movies please tell me where and when I should fight you.

On the subject as a black child I liked Blade liked Rambo too, I didn't have an easier time relating to Wesley Snipes but that may have just been because I wasn't very racist. I know it sounds insane but somehow when forming attachments to these characters while looking past their age, height, weight, build, and wildly different life experiences, I somehow also looker past their race. It may have been something in the water because the white kids I played with didn't really seem to have much difficulty pretending to be Lando Calrisian or Morpheus.

The goal as I said in the unedited post should be to find the most interesting stories, the most talented writers, the most compelling characters and if everyone's white we are almost certainly failing. Yes there is problem-"get a colored one in here" isn't the solution.

[Stellar Colonies]

Mayor Will Announce Plan to Ban Unsanctioned Camping Across Portland and Build 500-Capacity Homeless “Campuses” (Willamette Week)
Many details remain uncertain, but one thing is clear: The mayor’s office is taking aggressive steps to move homeless Portlanders into large sanctioned camps.

WW has learned that Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler plans next week to announce a sweeping strategy to ban unsanctioned camping across the city and build three massive sanctioned camping areas, called “campuses,” each with capacity for 500 people.

Each campus would be divided into four camps with a 125-person capacity. The city intends to fill one of each of the 125-person camps in each of the three campuses, and then expand from there. The city will seek to hire an outside contractor to run the three campuses.

Campus sites have not yet been confirmed, nor has the funding.

If actually enforced, the ban would signal a massive public policy shift for the city, effectively ending a policy of allowing people to sleep on sidewalks that has existed since then-Mayor Charlie Hales sanctioned camping in 2016.

Currently, the city and county do not have adequate shelter space to accommodate everyone sleeping on city streets. Because of the Martin v. Boise ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, cities cannot arrest homeless campers if there is not adequate shelter to offer them. If the mayor’s plan comes to fruition, the city would likely be allowed to issue criminal citations to people who are living on the streets.

Sources tell WW the plan is just one aspect of a broader initiative by the mayor’s office to address the housing and homelessness crisis; another component is establishing aggressive targets for the construction of affordable housing.

Many details remain unclear about the mayor’s plan: what enforcement mechanism—if any—would be used to enforce the ban, where funding would come from for the sanctioned camping areas (the mayor’s office is courting all three gubernatorial candidates, hoping to get state money from the next legislative session), and how the camps would function.

The plan is akin to the top-line item on a blueprint plan mayoral aide Sam Adams shared with elected officials earlier this year, floating the idea of building 1,000-capacity shelters with the end goal of banning unsanctioned camping. While the plan was widely denounced, the mayor has incrementally implemented portions of Adams’ plan over the past eight months, including emergency orders to ban camping around schools and along high-crash corridors.

The timing of the mayor’s announcement is also significant: It is scheduled to occur the same week ballots arrive in voters’ mailboxes. Democratic candidate for governor Tina Kotek is struggling in the polls, and the sight of large camps along Portland highways is a political millstone for her and other statewide Dems in tight contests.

All three gubernatorial campaigns have been briefed on Wheeler’s plan.

Another thing to keep in mind: Last month, 10 Portlanders with disabilities sued the city of Portland, alleging that tent camping was blocking public access protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In September, as WW reported yesterday, Portland city attorneys asked the lawyer representing the plaintiffs to also name Multnomah County, Metro and the state as additional defendants in the lawsuit.

That’s because if the judge grants the plaintiff’s requests, the city will be forced to remove all tents from the sidewalks and build enough shelter capacity to house all homeless Portlanders. That’s an expensive project—and the city of Portland doesn’t want to foot the bill alone.