Zompist Bboard Again

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2026 7:15 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2026 6:30 am The problem here is that the Republicans are more internally unified than the Democrats.

Are they? I have my doubts here. The Republicans are a heterogenous alliance of different right-wing currents who neither are all convinced that Trump was the perfect leader, nor agree in all issues.

Well, during times when they have a President who is still very popular among their primary voters, their politicians usually go along with that President.

Formally, alice is enlightened; practically, less so. US politics, like UK politics, is subtle and intricate far beyond the ken of outsiders.

Egg producers got charged with price fixing, but then get a slap on the wrist a measly 3.3 million dollar fine and a requirement to donate 53 million eggs.
- https://www.michiganfarmnews.com/major- ... t-with-doj

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2026 6:37 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2026 5:28 pm BTW, the actual SAVE act failed to pass the Senate last month. Four Republicans voted against it. Pundits in Missouri did not deign to comment, as this does not fit the indisputable facts of DOOM DOOM DOOM WORSHIP TRUMP.

But other sources say the new bill contains the provisions of the SAVE act. Who is telling the truth in this case and why is the other side lying?

Is the new text not on-line? We're reasonably intelligent people here, so we can hope to find something we can make sense of. Or is the USA just too primitive for that? Surely not!

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2026 3:40 pm If the Democrats have any sense, they will ignore your brand of optimism and develop countermeasures for when the bill inevitably passes. Presumably they could launch a massive campaign to help married women update their birth certificates or something.

It would have to be 'something'.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2026 6:30 am The problem here is that the Republicans are more internally unified than the Democrats. The Democrats in the Senate usually contain a few Senators who can not at all be counted on to vote with the Democrats, and whom no one can make vote with the Democrats. Which is a problem when the Democrats have just one or two more Senators than they would theoretically need.

This is out of date, I'm afraid. It's the Republicans who are notoriously fractious. As I noted, the SAVE act itself failed in the Senate with defections of four Republican senators. Even the budget resolution under discussion, in the less contrarian House, lost 2 Republican votes (and one ex-GOPer).

(I said earlier some Democrats voted for the bill, but I misread. None voted for the budget resolution; six Democrats voted for the defense authorization bill passed the same day. OTOH 7 Republicans voted against it.)

Richard W wrote:Is the new text not on-line?

If I'm not mistaken, the bill is here. Apparently the $10 billion (over 10 years) allocated on page 42 is the reference to the SAVE act; the House Administration Committee is supposed to write the actual laws. Note again what this actually is: a requirement that a House committee pass another law.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2026 4:26 pmThis is out of date, I'm afraid. It's the Republicans who are notoriously fractious. As I noted, the SAVE act itself failed in the Senate with defections of four Republican senators. Even the budget resolution under discussion, in the less contrarian House, lost 2 Republican votes (and one ex-GOPer).

There is definitely a strong fracture between the left and center wings of the Democratic party though. If anything it seems increasingly intense as the left wing has gained genuine clout over the past year.

malloc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2026 7:08 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2026 4:26 pmThis is out of date, I'm afraid. It's the Republicans who are notoriously fractious. As I noted, the SAVE act itself failed in the Senate with defections of four Republican senators. Even the budget resolution under discussion, in the less contrarian House, lost 2 Republican votes (and one ex-GOPer).

There is definitely a strong fracture between the left and center wings of the Democratic party though. If anything it seems increasingly intense as the left wing has gained genuine clout over the past year.

Yes, I've been trying to explain that to people for 30 years.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2026 5:43 am

jcb wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2026 12:32 am and so can the Democrats who didn't counter it.
(1) They could've pushed Ginsberg harder to resign.

Fair enough.

(2) They could've pushed harder to fill Scalia's seat.

Nonsense. They. Didn't. Have. The Votes. The Democrats can't just wave a magic wand and make Republicans vote for either their proposals or their ideas.

(3) They could've not bungled the 2016 election in the first place.

Fair enough.

(4) They could've pushed to enlarge the court so the loss of a single justice wasn't as important.

That would be a fair point if there would really be a single entity called "The Democrats". But if you keep in mind that the term "The Democrats", in practice, means, among other things, a whole lot of different officeholders with a hold lot of political positions, then it becomes clear that there wasn't a majority for something like that back then.

(5) They could've pushed to make the court elected.

They should've realized long ago that the unelected court has almost always been a reactionary thorn in the side of the country, and created and enacted a long-term plan to reform it.

That would have required a constitutional amendment. I guess it's the Democrats' fault that they couldn't get, checks notes, two thirds of both the House and the Senate and three quarters of all states to go along with your plan.

Your objections are valid, but missing my point. Yes, Democrats didn't have the votes to tactically do these things, but *why*? Why are they always tactically weak? Because they have a bad strategy. They don't have a valid *long-term* strategy of how they're going to win and wield power.

This video/audio from Chapo Trap House explains some of my feelings well.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIR4_SUh4ys

zompist and jcb: Fair enough. Though I'm absolutely no fan of the Chapo Frat House crowd and their myopic tankie bullshit.

alice wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2026 2:29 pm Formally, alice is enlightened; practically, less so. US politics, like UK politics, is subtle and intricate far beyond the ken of outsiders.

Oh, I'm not from either of these countries, and I think by now I've got a reasonably good grip on their politics. And it only took me a quarter of a century of regularly spending large parts of my spare time following the English-language political internet!

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2026 4:26 pm If I'm not mistaken, the bill is here. Apparently the $10 billion (over 10 years) allocated on page 42 is the reference to the SAVE act; the House Administration Committee is supposed to write the actual laws. Note again what this actually is: a requirement that a House committee pass another law.

I wonder if there is a thought that there may be some need to issue birth and marriage certificates free so as to comply with the requirement not to have to pay to vote.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2026 12:58 am zompist and jcb: Fair enough. Though I'm absolutely no fan of the Chapo Frat House crowd and their myopic tankie bullshit.

alice wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2026 2:29 pm Formally, alice is enlightened; practically, less so. US politics, like UK politics, is subtle and intricate far beyond the ken of outsiders.

Oh, I'm not from either of these countries, and I think by now I've got a reasonably good grip on their politics. And it only took me a quarter of a century of regularly spending large parts of my spare time following the English-language political internet!

I may have inadvertently omitted a tactful "most" before "outsiders". Here it is:

most

alice wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2026 2:29 pm Formally, alice is enlightened; practically, less so. US politics, like UK politics, is subtle and intricate far beyond the ken of outsiders.

Even many insiders like me find it rather perplexing. It really is bizarre in many respects that we ended up in this situation with an utterly unqualified and increasingly demented reactionary in charge of our country. Back in my school days, my civics teachers talked about checks and balances in the US government and said the electoral college was supposed to protect us from demagogues...

Question to People Not Named malloc: How do you rate Troy Jackson's chances, and what do you make of him in general?

Going by the photo on top of his actual official campaign website, he doesn't seem to be the kind of man who does this whole "upbeat" thing.

Marx is clearly talking bullshit. No, not that Marx.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPDXBg2c-8U

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2026 5:25 amGoing by the photo on top of his actual official campaign website, he doesn't seem to be the kind of man who does this whole "upbeat" thing.

Considering the state of the world today, it hardly makes sense to feel upbeat. The midterm elections in particular are both critical to the future of the country and not particularly hopeful. Americans could soon vote to ratify the end of democracy with no opportunity to restore it. No wonder he looks so glum.

My generation is rising in politics, and it's glorious (no, I don't mean that in a sarcastic way):

https://bsky.app/profile/erinmayequade. ... qzto32ts2m

I guess people are probably fairly sick of me posting stuff from Bluesky by now, but in this case, I just couldn't resist.

Various obligatory warnings:

content warning: deals with cis women's health.
NSFW warning: link to a post showing a screencap that includes a mostly-non-explicit, not-all-that-much-nudity-showing, but still fairly revealing drawing of a woman's lower body.
second content warning: pretty crass misogyny.
final content-that-is-embarrassing-rather-than-simply-offensive warning: very confidently knowledgable use of a sports metaphor by a man who doesn't seem to know all that much about the sport in question.
In case anyone's wondering why I'm posting this in the US Politics Thread, men like that have been a large and growing force in US politics for a while now, are probably relevant in the politics of various other countries, too, and are a significant part of the current US President's grassroots base.

I'm not that good at the technology side of making memes, but I made one about the news that Elon Musk wants to throw a whole lot of cash into the Senate Maine race in support of Susan Collins anyway.
(All images that went into making this are in the public domain.)

After thinking about it for a bit, I'd say my updated version of Hanlon's Razor for the 21st Century is: "Never ascribe to smart forms of malice that which can be adequately explained by stupid forms of malice."