New Developments III

[OscarGuy]

I guess it would probably have to do with one of the older "conspiracies," that oft-used dog whistle "Globalism." Baked into conspiracies about Illuminati, new world order, etc, is a foundation of "Jews control the world," which is where the anti-Semitism angle comes in.

[Big Magilla]

Biden has mild symptoms. He should be fine.

I don't know why the last marker is called the "Anti-Semitic" Point of No Return, there are plenty of nuts who fit in that category without being anti-Semitic.

[Sabin]

Thoughts and prayers to Joe Biden who just tested positive for COVID. Top trending on Twitter are now Joe Biden has COVID, President Harris, and Dementia. It's a good world.

I wanted to share something that went viral on Tik Tok a few months ago. I'm such a fan of it. It's an upside-down pyramid chart that breaks down the level of conspiracy theories. The farther "up" you go it, you pass the following markers: Speculation Line, Leaving Reality, Science Denial, and finally The Anti-Semitic Point of No Return.

https://i.redd.it/ma1m1mwdqib61.jpg

I might debate some of these. I don't know how many people still prattle on about the moon landing being fake but I don't think that one is past the Anti-Semitic Point of No Return. And some of them are very silly (Nazis on the Moon). But I remain very, very concerned about how prevalent some of these are both on a personal scale as well as a macro scale. Not just QAnon (I helped to rescue a friend) but shit like New World Order, Deep State, Illuminati, and Cultural Marxism is the one that scares me the most. I'm hearing that shit far more and more these days.

Anyway, I'm sharing this both as a novelty (it's an entertaining) but as part of a persisting worry of mine about how many people in this country are past The Anti-Semitic Point of No Return.

[Sabin]

My fascination with national politics continues to play out in Pennsylvania. Shapiro (the respectable party-line Dem) is only up by 4 against MAGA candidate Mastriano (a straight up coup guy) in the gubenetorial race while Fetterman is up by 9 over Oz, despite being largely off the campaign trail in the hospital. Fetterman is running excellent campaign ads against Oz for being a Hollywood carptetbagger and it seems to be really working. We're still months out and anything can happen but it really just goes to show how much politics is really about Do you trust this person and why? If these dynamics hold, then Fetterman is going to beat Oz because Pennsylvania voters just see Fetterman as one of them more than Oz.

It's really interesting stuff. We're months out. I'm really crossing my fingers for Fetterman's health as well as Shapiro's win or else we're going to end up with a/nother truly crazy MAGA guy in the Senate. I have a few more thoughts on the race that I won't bore you with but the biggest mistake I've made so far in my concerns about this race was in my concerns about Fetterman's candidacy. I still have my concerns about his relationship with the African-American community, but I framed him as a "Bernie" candidate because he was running anti-establishment greivance politics and ran as a "progressive". We saw how that worked for Bernie. But the difference is that Fetterman is running anti-establishment grievance politics in a statewide race, not national race, and that's a major difference. It's choice that won't work everywhere but it certainly seems to be working this year (especially in contrast to Conor Lamb). Also, Fetterman might be running as a progressive but he's not running on signature policies. He may support single-payer healthcare, but he's not running a single-payer healthcare campaign. He's basically running on his outsider identity, which can be a viable strategy and this year in Pennsylvania it seems to be. I'm no kind of expert on politics. I'm constantly wrong on my predictions. But the one assessment I've been most wrong about is the importance of policy in political campaigns.

[Sabin]

We live in dark times. I'll take what little ray of light I can find.

NEW: A woman in Dallas is arguing that she can’t be ticketed for driving alone in the HOV lane because she’s 34 weeks pregnant and the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade—and Texas law now says a fetus is a person. She says they can’t have it both ways.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdo ... -a-ticket/

I don't know who this woman is. I don't know what she believes. But I like the moxie.

[Sabin]

I've been trying to understand why former Japanese PM Abe was assassinated and it seems like the shooter was a conspiracy theorist or something.

[Sabin]

I'll be honest, I wasn't sure this was going to happen. They just have a different politics there.

[jack]

So, British politics, huh.

It’s hilarious. Johnson was a clown of a prime minister.

[Okri]

So, British politics, huh.

[Sonic Youth]

Federal elections, not state elections. And Moore primarily deals with redistricting (although I suppose SCOTUS could change that if they went full whacko). And state legislators do not bear sole responsibility. There's still the federal government to answer to.

Maybe. But this guy is freaked out.

https://www.vox.com/23161254/supreme-co ... -january-6

"A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6"

And that was only 18 months ago. I remember pronouncements of potential events being the greatest threat to democracy since Pearl Harbor and the Nazis. Today, you don't have to go that far back.

Look, it's very bad. I'm not denying that. But there's still an Election Clause in the Constitution, and as long as that Clause is there - and the Supremes are not going to strike that down - the Feds have the final say. In any event, I think Jim Crow would be a State matter, not a Federal matter, and if the State Constitution forbids such legislation, then that proposal would immediately die. Moore does nothing to change that.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm probably explaining this inartfully, but I don't think I'm inaccurate. If I am, please correct me.

[taki15]

Federal elections, not state elections. And Moore primarily deals with redistricting (although I suppose SCOTUS could change that if they went full whacko). And state legislators do not bear sole responsibility. There's still the federal government to answer to.

Maybe. But this guy is freaked out.

https://www.vox.com/23161254/supreme-co ... -january-6

[Sonic Youth]

So, if SCOTUS decides as expected then that means that a state legislature can bring back the Jim Crow laws and nobody can do anything about it.
Right?

No. Moore is only challenging the authority of the state court to enforce (I think) congressional maps.

According to a lawyer guy I read at Vox the plaintiffs argue that the constitution declares that state legislatures bear the sole responsibility when it comes to elections. Gerrymandering is only a part of it. If these people win that means that the governor and the state courts can't veto or strike down any law that pertains to elections, no matter how much it violates the state constitution.

Federal elections, not state elections. And Moore primarily deals with redistricting (although I suppose SCOTUS could change that if they went full whacko). And state legislators do not bear sole responsibility. There's still the federal government to answer to.

[taki15]

So, if SCOTUS decides as expected then that means that a state legislature can bring back the Jim Crow laws and nobody can do anything about it.
Right?

No. Moore is only challenging the authority of the state court to enforce (I think) congressional maps.

According to a lawyer guy I read at Vox the plaintiffs argue that the constitution declares that state legislatures bear the sole responsibility when it comes to elections. Gerrymandering is only a part of it. If these people win that means that the governor and the state courts can't veto or strike down any law that pertains to elections, no matter how much it violates the state constitution.

[Sonic Youth]

So, if SCOTUS decides as expected then that means that a state legislature can bring back the Jim Crow laws and nobody can do anything about it.
Right?

No. Moore is only challenging the authority of the state court to enforce (I think) congressional maps.

[OscarGuy]

Unless the House and Senate can pass laws mandating voting requirements, then yes. Conceivably, the South can reinstitute Jim Crow.