4 ms·

You're right, this is a high-emotion one and probably doesn't belong on HN at all, since it is just devolving into a poorly informed flame war. (although Lawfa

You're right, this is a high-emotion one and probably doesn't belong on HN at all, since it is just devolving into a poorly informed flame war. (although Lawfare itself is not an objective observer either.)

tootie 2y ago
Lawfare is a very well-informed source and I think at this point we should really quit pretending that "liberal" sources are biased in any meaningful way and that their staunch opposition to the political right is thoroughly justified on objective grounds. This decision is a bad one. Previous decisions by the conservative justices that were derided by the left have been bad for the country in tangible ways. They were appointed by a guy who lead an insurrection. Who committed a load of crimes they are fine with him getting away with. Strict construction isn't even a fig leaf on much of what they're writing
- lolinder 2y ago
  Rhetoric like this is how we got Trump in the first place. You don't even try to understand the other side, you rest easy in knowing that you are objectively right and they're objectively wrong. It doesn't even particularly matter if you're right or wrong on the merits, as long as the Left talks like this the Right will be ascendant. You don't tame populism by being condescending, that only fans the flames.
  - tootie 2y ago
    I don't need to understand the voters to know they're causing a very bad outcome. Trying to assert some sort of equivalence is what got us here.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      What got us here is a huge percentage of the population feeling disenfranchised and cut off by a condescending elite. A sociopathic demagogue recognized those people and made them feel seen, and you and the Democratic party still just don't get it. That's why we're here, and we'll stay here as long as the Left continues to condescend to them.
      - techdragon 2y ago
        Ok… so looking from the outside in Australia… a country with mandatory voting that always happens on weekends to make it incredibly easy for people to do their civic duty, thus allowing us to levy a fine against anyone who doesn’t vote… with electoral divisions and regional boundaries managed by a specific government department that has been structured so as to prevent politicians doing any gerrymandering… In the USA it’s clear that voter suppression and gerrymandering have allowed for partisan groups of elites with both progressive and conservative views to hold onto power for decades as the voting public they represent feels more and more like their vote does not matter, or that they are unable to vote due to their financial situation (no time off, no money for transit, no money for required identification, required identification needs a fixed address and their homeless, etc)… it’s pretty dire… and I have always been kind of shocked how it’s managed to limp along with such statically low voter turnout for decades… money is speech (citizens united) and media are allowed to treat made up news as entertainment with no need to distinguish really from fiction (FCC vs Fox News)… I don’t see any way the situation doesn’t eventually lead to demagoguery… because at some point your public is just so disenfranchised that a demagogue doesn’t have much work to do beyond “I’m not them, get the fuck out and vote for me so I can change things”… But the problem with a demagogue is that even if they don’t turn dictator, they are by nature of their rise to power, going to be very dictator like, it’s their choice, their charisma, their force of will that motivated the voting public… the only problem is that the checks and balances to prevent the demagogue from becoming a dictator, have only been barely tested, first with FDR, then with Nixon, one who died before the change to the system was relevant, the other begrudgingly bowed out before the system had to fully engage with the issue... How would you do it better?
        skissane 2y ago
        > How would you do it better? Many political scientists believe that the parliamentary system used in most of Europe, and in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, is superior to the presidential system in producing political stability and good policy Many have also said that Latin America has experienced the brunt of the negatives of the presidential system, while the US largely escaped them due to wealth, cultural norms, and maybe even good luck. But over the last few years, things in the US have been degenerating to the point that maybe they aren’t escaping those negatives any more Maybe one of these days it will get so bad that Americans will listen to these political scientists and switch to the Westminster system. Maybe what America really needs is a Prime Minister. The Westminister system doesn’t require a monarchy, see Ireland and Malta for examples of parliamentary republics with predominantly British political traditions. In a parliamentary republic, you have a figurehead President while the Prime Minister holds the real power. Other examples of parliamentary republics (albeit non-Westminster) include Austria, Germany and Israel

tootie 2y ago

Lawfare is a very well-informed source and I think at this point we should really quit pretending that "liberal" sources are biased in any meaningful way and that their staunch opposition to the political right is thoroughly justified on objective grounds. This decision is a bad one. Previous decisions by the conservative justices that were derided by the left have been bad for the country in tangible ways. They were appointed by a guy who lead an insurrection. Who committed a load of crimes they are fine with him getting away with. Strict construction isn't even a fig leaf on much of what they're writing

lolinder 2y ago
Rhetoric like this is how we got Trump in the first place. You don't even try to understand the other side, you rest easy in knowing that you are objectively right and they're objectively wrong. It doesn't even particularly matter if you're right or wrong on the merits, as long as the Left talks like this the Right will be ascendant. You don't tame populism by being condescending, that only fans the flames.
- tootie 2y ago
  I don't need to understand the voters to know they're causing a very bad outcome. Trying to assert some sort of equivalence is what got us here.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    What got us here is a huge percentage of the population feeling disenfranchised and cut off by a condescending elite. A sociopathic demagogue recognized those people and made them feel seen, and you and the Democratic party still just don't get it. That's why we're here, and we'll stay here as long as the Left continues to condescend to them.
    - techdragon 2y ago
      Ok… so looking from the outside in Australia… a country with mandatory voting that always happens on weekends to make it incredibly easy for people to do their civic duty, thus allowing us to levy a fine against anyone who doesn’t vote… with electoral divisions and regional boundaries managed by a specific government department that has been structured so as to prevent politicians doing any gerrymandering… In the USA it’s clear that voter suppression and gerrymandering have allowed for partisan groups of elites with both progressive and conservative views to hold onto power for decades as the voting public they represent feels more and more like their vote does not matter, or that they are unable to vote due to their financial situation (no time off, no money for transit, no money for required identification, required identification needs a fixed address and their homeless, etc)… it’s pretty dire… and I have always been kind of shocked how it’s managed to limp along with such statically low voter turnout for decades… money is speech (citizens united) and media are allowed to treat made up news as entertainment with no need to distinguish really from fiction (FCC vs Fox News)… I don’t see any way the situation doesn’t eventually lead to demagoguery… because at some point your public is just so disenfranchised that a demagogue doesn’t have much work to do beyond “I’m not them, get the fuck out and vote for me so I can change things”… But the problem with a demagogue is that even if they don’t turn dictator, they are by nature of their rise to power, going to be very dictator like, it’s their choice, their charisma, their force of will that motivated the voting public… the only problem is that the checks and balances to prevent the demagogue from becoming a dictator, have only been barely tested, first with FDR, then with Nixon, one who died before the change to the system was relevant, the other begrudgingly bowed out before the system had to fully engage with the issue... How would you do it better?
      - skissane 2y ago
        > How would you do it better? Many political scientists believe that the parliamentary system used in most of Europe, and in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, is superior to the presidential system in producing political stability and good policy Many have also said that Latin America has experienced the brunt of the negatives of the presidential system, while the US largely escaped them due to wealth, cultural norms, and maybe even good luck. But over the last few years, things in the US have been degenerating to the point that maybe they aren’t escaping those negatives any more Maybe one of these days it will get so bad that Americans will listen to these political scientists and switch to the Westminster system. Maybe what America really needs is a Prime Minister. The Westminister system doesn’t require a monarchy, see Ireland and Malta for examples of parliamentary republics with predominantly British political traditions. In a parliamentary republic, you have a figurehead President while the Prime Minister holds the real power. Other examples of parliamentary republics (albeit non-Westminster) include Austria, Germany and Israel