Sonic Youth Gossip - The Politics Thread

Sonic Youth Gossip (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/index.php)

- Non-Sonics (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The Politics Thread (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/showthread.php?t=123593)

Quote:

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

What a shock. Who could have possibly foreseen this.

it was a shock to me because i expected a lot better. biden can read a teleprompter and sound cogent, but last night under the lights he looked like a mummy who could not reply to trump's utter lunacies in a clear and cogent manner. in the previous election he did, but the last 4 years have taken their heavy toll

really it doesn't matter who was right or "i told you so" though. because this is a real world emergency and it is happening and it' pointless to hand out awards and medals. it will affect you too if the beast is back, and you will experience many meltdowns even from your antipodean hideaway. there is no place to hide from 'merica, really... australia is a us ally (aukus hi)

sure biden's term has hardly been perfect, but if experience has showed me anything is that things can always get worse. and i'll always choose imperfection over catastrophe

i know you're young and still believe that utopias are possible if we just wish for them, but people are assholes and real life is an unforgiving fucking bastard. so i've been overall happy with biden's administration

and now i don't know what's going to happen

but trust me, if disaster comes it will come for you too. so don't be snarky and get ready, because it's coming "bigly" (ugh...). this is the big meteorite

anyway my mind has now adjusted from the shock of last night but i'm taking the day off for the body to recover (because stress is chemical and has bodily consequences)

jeezus fucking christ. it's like that peter weir movie with the wave, whatsisname. the last wave! jeeezus fucking christ. fascism is coming, and it will touch EVERYONE. no use in crying, we just have to get ready

warrig

that was the word they used over here to describe Biden
a bit like the Suicidal Tendencies song

Democrats are 50-0 down even before it's began
Right is taking over unfortunately, also in EurHope

In Holland, the upcoming new minister for migration has in the past been promoting the great replacement theory :eek::eek::eek:
The Dutch term is even better or worse however you want to say it: Omvolking. Sounds very Nazi German

Quote:

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

What a shock. Who could have possibly foreseen this.

He was great at his rally today.

Maybe there is something to the QAnon actor/clone/robot retarded conspiracy theory. That's the guy/machine who showed up last night.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

He was great at his rally today.

Maybe there is something to the QAnon actor/clone/robot retarded conspiracy theory. That's the guy/machine who showed up last night.

Dude was dealing with a cold in his 80s. Certain meds can reduce your reaction time and your overall cognitive abilities. And that also comes in waves. He probably was feeling better during the rally.

We can't expect public personas to always perform well under any and all circumstances - that's expecting a machine/robot. Add to that that Biden has never been the most riveting orator. He occasionally does well in debates and has his moments, but an Obama or a Bernie he's not.

I'm perturbed by the media hubbub about it too (Hey, it's only democracy on the line here, no biggie). But no one is immune to giving a bad performance. I'm obviously worried, but the immediate jump to conclusions hyped up the medias is mighty crazy.

Not that I'm a huge fan of Biden's - but he's the better option and by the looks of things, the only option right now. He's had a bad performance, no need to blow it out of proportion right now. Because that tendency too may be detrimental.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antagon

... But no one is immune to giving a bad performance. I'm obviously worried, but the immediate jump to conclusions hyped up the medias is mighty crazy.

Not that I'm a huge fan of Biden's - but he's the better option and by the looks of things, the only option right now. He's had a bad performance, no need to blow it out of proportion right now. Because that tendency too may be detrimental.

i'm actually a fan of his administration, but this was not mere bad performance or stutter. he looked to be coming out of some great depths of confusion, and could not provide clear answers to covfefe's horrid lies. flu or not flu, a candidate should be able to answer

i don't need the media to tell me about my own physical reaction to something happening in plain sight--sure it's mediated by a camera and microphones and colored and shaped by lights and acoustics, but a helpless old man is a helpless old man, and i ended up screaming at the tv for him to do something, like in a boxing match when a fighter is getting clobbered and cannot even raise his guard anymore, or a lion tamer is getting mauled by the lion

it was extremely hard to watch and i just couldn't stomach the entirety of it. i mean i endured what, an hour of torture, not sure, i could not take it anymore. this wasn't a mere bad performance, it was a very old man looking lost with his mouth open and a confused stare. he doesn't have four more years in him i'm afraid. this was practically elder abuse and i saw it happen live

oh i remember this scene... https://youtu.be/b5qwTeCj4jc

the democrats have my support no matter who they run, i'll vote blue no matter who as they say, but i can't expect the rest of the country to do the same, much less the undecideds.

we need someone to protect us from the lying bastard and uncle joe is no longer up to the task. this was evident enough. we can spin it and talk about it, but the big meteorite is coming and we need someone who can stop it, and the old man is looking at the sky wondering what is that orange flame approaching

someone please help. this can't go on like this

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

we need someone to protect us from the lying bastard and uncle joe is no longer up to the task. this was evident enough. we can spin it and talk about it, but the big meteorite is coming and we need someone who can stop it, and the old man is looking at the sky wondering what is that orange flame approaching

someone please help. this can't go on like this

While I do think there would be a couple of candidates up to that task (like I said, not a huge Bidenite), I'm not sure they'd rally the voters on such short notice. It would take a candidate so undeniably popular that mere months of campaigning and a complete overhaul of the entire strategy that late in the game don't seem such a herculean task.

I know Michelle Obama is massively popular, but there haven't been any attempts or even whispers of intentions to run. I love me some Bernie, but I'm aware that at this point, this is pretty much a pipe dream. He'd have a shit ton of rallies and his own party's seeming dislike for him (assuming he'd run as a Dem again) to contend with. Gavin Newsom seems to be the most likely candidate right now based on whispers and murmurs, and he ... is divisive to say the least. Better than Trump? Always and without question. But a sparkling personality that could sway voters with ease? Afraid not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antagon

bernie is too leftie, kamala is unpopular, newsom seems a bit of a douche, but anyone who can stand up straight and speak with a loud and clear voice would be an improvement

i've seen the name of senator mark kelly of arizona bandied about already. i dont know if you remember he entered the public consciousness when his wife gabby giffords was shot in the head by some lunatic. anyway he's an astronaut and navy captain and a centrist. az senator since 2020. i think if he can appeal to arizona voters he could bring on the undecided voters nationally

having said that, i don't know how good he is at television bulshitting and charisma, a requirement these days, but at least on paper looks competent and reasonable which is all we really need to run a country of laws with longstanding institutions which needs no micromanaging by a wannabe dictator

What a fucking week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw2113

Anyone else 2024

What the jokers said in 2016. In ended in a putsch.

Seat projections
Party or alliance Seats
Rassemblement National and allies 230 to 280
Nouveau Front Populaire 125 to 165
Ensemble 70 to 100
Les Républicains and allies 41 to 61
Other 33 to 49
Source: Ipsos, June 30. Absolute majority requires 289 seats.

:/

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

What a fucking week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

What a fucking week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga

...

no i don't believe in that but it has a poetry to put our shit in the perspective of much much more shit hahahahaha

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga

...

no i don't believe in that but it has a poetry to put our shit in the perspective of much much more shit hahahahaha

Hey, we haven't even mentioned SCOTUS' latest horrors. Seek shelter - an IMMUNITY BOMB could blow up Jack Smith's case tomorrow. Washington Post gift link for you all.

I like Gretchen Whitmer. I mean, what's not to like there... What were we talking about? Biden, right. Look, I don't think the guy's going anywhere unless Dr. Jill tells him to drop out. Personally, I'm very conflicted about this - starting a candidacy from scratch with four months to go seems as insane as staying the course. What would Aaron Sorkin write?

By the way, if the candidate is Newsom look for another veep too, as the Constitution says the whole ticket can't be from the same state. That holy text, I tell ya, always a riot... I guess that rules out Gavin's cousin Joanna as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

Personally, I'm very conflicted about this - starting a candidacy from scratch with four months to go seems as insane as staying the course. What would Aaron Sorkin write?

I've been thinking something along those lines too. It seems a huge gamble. In order for this to work, it would have to be someone with the incontestability of ... say a Mr. Rogers. Someone seemingly everyone loves. The Dems, and the pillars of US democracy as it is, are stuck between a rock and a hard place right now.

If THIS is the future, I'm out. I'm peacing out of this shit. OUT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antagon

I've been thinking something along those lines too. It seems a huge gamble.

I mean, you've gotta play the percentages sooner or later. If the Democrats consider a Trump victory to be as horrible as the rest of the country considers it, and they consider Biden to have next to no chance of winning, you've got to roll the dice on a 10 to 1 chance as opposed to a 50 to 1.

Whitmer seems like a pretty good option, at least from what I've picked up - staunchly progressive but not so radical that centrist Dems will freak on her, successful state-based results, clearly going to run for election someday, and picking a Midwesterner would surely help them in the crucial swing states (only one Dem in the last 50 years has lost their home state, and that was Gore in Tennessee lmao; Whitmer's from Michigan and that's one of the most likely states to decide this year).

Quote:

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

yeeeeeeees, very good!

Quote:

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

Hm, I looked up a few more things on Whitmer. And she seems to be very likeable, even has that kind of "folksy" quality that would appeal to a broader portion of the population. She does seem to have a good sense of humor and the gift of gab. I could see her directing very effective jabs and sick burns towards Trump in a one-on-one. Plus her stances and policy decisions are pretty damn solid. She would indeed be a great pick.

kali yuga agents have granted immunity to a criminal! just 468,000 more years to go lolol....ok i'm gonna try to prevent a heart attack here...

i think i'm gonna watch jeff goldblum eat bagels and catch murderers in a make-believe world where shit works out...

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

It's over. The United States is fucking over.

From The Nation:

Quote:

The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially

Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight year crime spree and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable.

by Elie Mystal

Welp, Donald Trump won. The Supreme Court today ruled that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, then contended that pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government was an “official act,” then said that talking to advisers or making public statements are “official acts” as well, and then determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are “unofficial.”

The ruling from the Supreme Court was 6-3, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, on a straight party-line vote, with all the Republican-appointed justices joining to give the president the power of a king. While some parts of the federal indictment against Trump will be remanded back down to the district-court trial judge to determine whether any of Trump’s actions were “unofficial” (“unofficial” acts, the court says are not entitled to immunity), Trump’s victory in front of the Supreme Court is total. Essentially, all he has to do is claim that everything he did to plot a coup was part of his “official” duties, and the Supreme Court provided no clear method or evidentiary standard that can be used to challenge that presumption.

Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here:

The immunity is absolute
There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given

On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts.

Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear.

Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.

And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office.

Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight year crime spree, steal all the money, and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under guise of presumptive “official” behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office. That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires.

There will be Republicans and legal academics and whatever the hell job Jonathan Turley has who will go into overdrive arguing that the decision isn’t as bad as all that. These bad-faith actors will be quoted or even published in The Washington Post and The New York Times. They will argue that presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts,” and so they will say that everything is fine.

But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says “unofficial” acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were “unofficial.” If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t? And if we can’t use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is “official,” then how can we ever show that an act was taken “unofficially”?

Take the now classic example of a president ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival. According to the logic of the Republicans on the Supreme Court, that would likely be an official act. According to their logic, there is also no way to prove it’s “unofficial,” because any conversation the president has with their military advisers (where, for instance, the president tells them why they want a particular person assassinated) is official and cannot be used against them.

There will doubtless be people still wondering if Trump can somehow be prosecuted: The answer is “no.” Special counsel Jack Smith will surely argue that presenting fake electors in connection with his cadre of campaign sycophants was not an “official act.” Lower court judges may well agree. But when that appeal gets back to the Supreme Court next year, the same justices who just ruled that Trump is entitled to absolute immunity will surely rule that submitting fake electors was also part of Trump’s “official” responsibilities.

There is no way to change that outcome in the short term. In the long term, the only way to undo the authoritarianism the court has just ushered in is to expand the Supreme Court. Democrats would have to win the upcoming presidential election and the House and the Senate. Then Congress would have to pass a law expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court; then the Senate would have to pass that law as well, which, at a minimum, would likely have to include getting rid of the filibuster. Then the president would have to sign such a bill, and appoint additional Supreme Court justices who do not think that presidents should be kings, then those justices would have to be confirmed. And all of that would have to happen before the current Supreme Court hears whatever Trump appeal from his January 6 charges comes up next, because if court expansion happens after the current Supreme Court dismisses the charges against him, double jeopardy will attach and Trump can never be prosecuted again under a less-fascist court.

So, since that’s not going to happen, Trump won. He won completely. He tried to overthrow the government, and he got away with it. I cannot even imagine what he’ll try if he is actually given power again, knowing full well that he will never be held accountable for literal crimes.

If you ever wondered what you’d have done in ancient Rome, when the Roman Republic was shuttered and Augustus Caesar declared himself the “first” citizen of Rome, the answer is: whatever you’re doing right now. It’s what you would have done during the Restoration of King Charles II in England, and what you would have done when Napoleon declared himself emperor of France. This, right here, is how republics die.

And the answer that cries out from the abyss of history is that most people, in real time, don’t care. Republics fall because most citizens are willing to give it away. Most people think that it won’t be that bad to lose the rule of law, and the people who stand to benefit from the ending of republican self-government tell everybody that it will be OK. When the Imperium came to be, the Romans didn’t realize that they were seeing the last form of European self-government for 2,000 years, and the ones who did were largely happy about it.

For my part, I assume that like Mark Antony’s wife, Fulvia, defiling the decapitated head of Cicero, Martha-Ann Alito will be jabbing her golden hairpin into my tongue for criticizing the powerful soon enough. But I’m just a writer. I wonder what the rest of you will do as the last vestiges of democracy are taken away by the Imperial Supreme Court and the untouchable executive officer they’ve just created.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

It's over. The United States is fucking over.

From The Nation:

well biden is still president, so... he could immunize himself too

like, he could send all 6 unfavorable judges plus trumpo to guantánamo on "official" capacity, and be immune from prosecution

no?

he could also pick up mtg and matt gaetz and wassername and drop them into the arctic ocean from a helicopter like you-know-who. official immunity!

...

anyway this is fucking ridiculous but here we go anyway

(first as tragedy, then as farce)

stoicism + epicureanism remain individual remedies of last resort

the roman comparison is useful i suppose

the roman empire fought the persians (parthians then sassanids) until the rise of the arabs, who took north africa and spain and judea and persia itself... then rome was finally beaten by the turks who inherited from both arabs and persians

is china the new persia? i want to stay the fuck out of the way of the upcoming wars...

well shit, whatever happens happens. kali yuga here we go!

found this, read it

https://billmoyers.com/story/increas...horitarianism/

without an external opposition however an empire can last forever

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

is china the new persia?

No dude, Persia is Iran now.
:D