A) Independents are breaking for Dems lead by "suburban soccer moms" and professional women and some young Republican women according various polls.

(B) I suspect turnout will be very high – comparable to the 2018 midterms, especially for Dems

(C) Dozens of indictable co-conspiratorial (pardon-seeking) GOP senators & congress persons who will be named by the J6 Committee by September. NB GOP silence is deafening about the J6 Cmte's findings so far (which is bound to get worse yet).

(D) I also suspect gas prices will come down during the summer and be felt by consumers / voters in the fall which makes them less eager punish encumbant Dems (though supply chain + Russian War-driven inflation will drag the G7 economies into recession by late summer)

Independents are not breaking for Democrats, so far as I see. Happy to be shown differently.

B and D are based on your suspicions. We have no idea if there will be high turnout or lower gas prices, but MY suspicion goes the opposite way — based on historical midterm trends and the Ukraine war, respectively.

As for C, I don’t think these hearings will have the slightest impact on Republican voters. They will continue voting for their Red team, because Blue team has been demonized to the point of little Anti-Christs.

Appreciate the response, just not very convincing in my view. But I hope I’m proven wrong.

Government has never hurt me.

I guess government isn’t the problem after all.

Top notch logic.

—

What a stupid political ideology.

"Vote! Contact your reps! Protest!", yes, we have been doing all this, and it's clearly not enough, otherwise none of this would be happening to begin with. The problem isn't external to the system, the problem is the system itself. — _db

True. But I’d argue it’s happening because the counter forces are stronger and better organized. They have the wealth and resources to create networks of power— mainly through use of propaganda. The Koch network is a prime example — Jane Mayer has done good work here.

But the answer, as always, is organizing. Especially on the local level. We’re often too distracted by the national drama — where we can do little to change — and pay little attention to state and local issues, where we can have a very real effect. That will have to be the way moving forward.

That’s what the right has been doing since Obama was elected— starting with state legislatures and midterm turnout. It worked very well. There’s no reason the left can’t do the same.

True, the Tea Party was largely motivated by the fear of “losing their country” to those very scary immigrants and minorities, but if the left can generate the same level of energy sans the xenophobia and racism, watch out.

The issue is we have the most disorganized Left in the world.

Lol!

I was thinking the exact same thing. Thought I misread it.

Physics IS philosophy. — Joshs

Yes indeed. It’s the fundamental branch of natural philosophy. (Perhaps astronomy is older — but physics is still central.)

I think this too often gets forgotten. People want to make sharp distinctions, as if the sciences have no need for philosophy and long ago “detached” from it. I think hidden in that view is dogmatism — namely, scientism — which arises out of a justifiable disdain for organized religion… and one I used to share.

But we throw the baby out with the bathwater if we make these rigid compartmentalizations. Better to break free of it. Life is messy.

Multiple universes seems to push the question back, much like God. Who or what created God? What created the universe or the multiverse? Etc.

Human beings aren’t omnipotent. This could be a question we just can’t answer, and perhaps demonstrates our cognitive limits.

Personally I think since the question is a scientific one, and thus assumes a concept of “nature” (the universe), we should inquire about what we mean by universe, nature, causality and time.

If the explanation lies outside our capacities, or outside of naturalism, then we need to accept it or broaden our fundamental concepts of existence.

just shut up and let me vent — T Clark

No.

If you want to vent, don’t make things up about me in the process.

Pointing out a truism isn’t being dogmatic, nor pompous.

The reality is that you’re upset he was banned, and you’re looking for a fight.

Also unwise. But I do similar things often, so I don’t hold it against you.



Yeah— it’s unfortunate. Personally I found most of it funny, even at my own expense. Pretty predictable.

I saw this coming back in November. So I’m not at all surprised. All the more reason to fight back in the same way the right has for the last few decades: state and local level politics. We’ve largely lost National power for a while now.

You never said you were wise, but you pontificated on another's lack of wisdom. — T Clark

“Pontificated” is an odd way to interpret me there. It’s just plainly true that he acted unwisely, to the extreme in fact, over and over again and even after multiple warnings.

No one is asking you not to miss someone you clearly have attachment to. But let’s try not to make things up in the meantime.

[irony]Thank you for your insightful comments on wisdom.[/irony] — T Clark

I’m not sure where irony fits in here. Sarcasm, perhaps?

In which case all I can say is: I never said *I* was wise. I struggle with my temper and lack of patience as much as anyone.

Still, I think the question stands.



:up:

Someone suggested how pivotal the 2014 and 2016 election were which betrays a myopic view of the conservative's legal movement to achieve political objectives; […] Regardless of how 2014 and 2016 turned out (had Hillary won in 2016 who knows how she would have fared in 2020), the conservative legal movement would be waiting by the wings. — Maw

We can go back farther than 50 years, in fact.

My point about ‘14 and ‘16 was specific to this slate of rulings. Had the Senate not been taken by the republicans in ‘14, Trump wouldn’t have gotten 3 anti-abortion appointments. I mention these years especially because many have argued that there was no point in voting since “both parties are the same.” But they’re not the same. The differences are minor, but they’re important, and Dobbs (and today’s EPA ruling) shows that very much indeed.

I’d argue if a philosopher isn’t thinking about politics, he’s hardly a philosopher at all. Here I echo (and agree with) Aristotle.

he must have known that his way of talking to people is hardly adequate, — Manuel

Yes— but couldn’t help himself.

He contributed to the forum, and it’s unfortunate.

On the other hand, how one conducts oneself is equally (if not more) important than knowledge or logical correctness, in my view. So for all the talk about how intelligent he was, he was far from wise.

Makes you ask: What good does all this reading and studying do when you’re constantly angry, hostile, demeaning, and vulgar?

I look at great teachers like Chomsky, Sagan, Zinn, etc. — their actions speak for themselves. Perhaps Street was like that in person — in which case he’s one more victim of the online disinhibition syndrome.

Heidegger: we cannot talk about objective things, because we are always immersed in the objectivity we talk about. — Angelo Cannata

This has little to do with anything Heidegger has written, ever. In fact he rejects the notion of subjective and objective— over and over again.

I wish you’d stop invoking Heidegger in your own musings if you can’t put the minimal amount of effort into representing him accurately.

Btw, Dems will retain control of Congress this fall and the White House in 2024. — 180 Proof

What makes you say this? Because of a potential reaction to Dobbs?

The Republicans have done a fine job making the country ungovernable —and here I mean especially moderate Republicans (viz., Democrats). Seems unlikely that anyone shows up in support.

No.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Cassidy Hutchinson Changes Everything

:rofl:

There’s almost no chance that Trump will be prosecuted for anything. “X changes everything” has been said for 7 years now.

Reasons-to-believe things are directives. Directives need a director. The director needs to be a person. — Bartricks

This is nonsense.

Evidently, there is an apparent "inside" (e.g. me), and an apparent "outside" (e.g. not me). — Relinquish

Nope. Already way too much baggage here.

What is meaningless about human existence?
— Harry Hindu

That it's all for nothing. — Tate

Which is an interpretation. If you want to interpret life that way, you’ll find plenty of evidence.

Just as if you interpret human beings are inherently selfish, sinful, and violent.

Or interpreting the glass as half empty.

It’s not that any of these interpretations are wrong— it’s simply that it’s not the whole story. What’s more interesting to me is the psychological aspects of why your mind emphasizes one aspect over another.

At that point we get into temperament, family dynamics, upbringing, culture, attitudes, habit, etc. These factors help explain one’s negative/nihilistic perceptions.

Who says we should take as a given that life is meaningless? Life isn’t meaningless.

What causes a turn from distraction to facing the meaninglessness of human existence? — Tate

Human existence isn’t meaningless, so there’s no need to deal with it.

Given what you know about robotics and machine learning, do you think that there are jobs that can't be automated? Are there one's that are going to be harder to automate than others? What are those jobs? — Josh Alfred

Anything that involves meaning and nuance and flexibility.

I hold the belief that there are limits to logic and mathematics in the sense that there are other aspects to being — intuition, awareness, sensation, emotion, skills, and importantly habituation; aspects of being that can’t be replicated in mathematics, logic, symbols, or “material.” I think attempting to do so is probably a fool’s errand — but I could be overlooking something.

In any case, if all human action is automated through machines then it’s centuries off.

When did I say there wasn't and Old Right ...or those who are against the New Deal? There are those even today — ssu

Yes, and that’s who I was and am talking about. Corporate America. Since about 1971, there was a collective, deliberate push against New Deal policies and towards a neoliberal agenda— an agenda which has dominated since, to the point of becoming the “Washington Consensus.”

And your interjection is: “Well it’s not ALL elites.” Just a fatuous comment, really.

With inflation, wage increases are usually viewed as the bad guy. — ssu

Right— and it’s complete nonsense. Anyone who buys into that really just hasn’t looked into the matter closely enough.

But if you think inflation is just a conservative talking point, which I would correct it is when the conservatives aren't in power, then there is not much else for you to contribute in this thread. — ssu

No, I didn’t say inflation is a talking point— I said attributing inflation to raising wages and handing out stimulus checks is a talking point.

Oligopoly and profiteering are far more a problem then child tax credits.

After the bursting of a speculative housing bubble inflation won't pick up as the bubble bursting is highly deflationary. — ssu

This is a story. But the fact remains that it was predicted at the time, and it didn’t happen.

Furthermore— stimulus was given and QE was implemented. Interest rates were extremely low. Lots of money pumped into the economy. No inflation.

Scramble for excuses if you wish. Just proves it a dogma, not a serious theory.

Why do think so? — ssu

Because they’ve been screaming about debt and inflation for decades. A broken clock is right twice a day.

All this is, in the end, is a conservative talking point. It’s an excuse to ignore supply-side issues like line distributions, price gouging, profiteering, and oligopoly. Rather they want us to believe it’s because some poor people got $1200 bucks and wages increased by 4%. Give me a break.

Complete bullshit.

What I'm disputing is the idea that the Keynesians and those who pushed for the New Deal weren't part of the elite. — ssu

When did I claim otherwise?

Like in 1971 Nixon saying that he is now a Keynesian? When especially Keynesianism is one of the most successful economic schools of all time, the idea of Keynesianism/New Deal -thinkers vs. the elites just sounds a bit strange. — ssu

Then you really haven’t looked into this much. There was, for decades, a powerful network of people who despised the New Deal efforts. Google the “Old Right.” Right from the beginning, in fact. Plenty of intellectuals against it as well— Mont Pelerin, etc.

Ask Powell and the Chamber of Commerce why they needed a blueprint for action if you find it “strange.” It’s not my claim.

How long should you believe this "supply shock" argument? — ssu

How long are you going to believe the demand-side argument? Apparently it’s unfalsifiable.

Again— inflation was predicted after all the spending in 2009. Didn’t happen. But to save the theory, we make up excuses. 13 years later, inflation happens after an unprecedented global pandemic — inflation that’s occurring all over the world — and the same believers say “See? Told you so.” It’s simply nonsense.

Before it was Covid. Fine. But now? — ssu

Well interest rates have been raised— inflation persists. So how long are we going to believe this is the solution?

The point is: these things have lingering effects. Supply lines are still very much disturbed.

War in Ukraine? Really? — ssu

Yes, really. That’s had a huge impact. Also unprecedented and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Fed.

However, it seems that all those who blame inflationary pressures on commodities continue to ignore the massive price increases in housing, healthcare, and education, as well as in goods and services where there was evident overcapacity.

I’ve actually addressed all of that. They have different causes. Commodities effect homebuilding as well.

Nothing else has inflated more than energy. A quick look at the CPI shows this.

Yet history and economic history point the finger on government policies. — ssu

History points to multiple causes in multiple asset classes.

There simply aren’t easy answers to what’s happening. The evidence points to supply-side issues more than to demand in the current case.

not so much actual solidarity inside the class — ssu

There was a concerted effort from the owners of the country, and they banded together very well indeed. One outline is given by Powell in his early 70s memo, literally laying out the strategy. Think tanks, lobbying groups like the US chamber of commerce/Business Roundtable, judicial programs like the federalist society, etc. All part of a real, conscious push against the Keynesian / New Deal programs.

True, it wasn’t 100% solidarity. No kidding.

Some, but only partly. — ssu

This is saying very little.

What I mentioned has been fairly well studied. When concentrations of power feel threatened, you bet there will be some changes. See Harvey, Brown, Chang, Gerstle, etc.

Just "who" these people are is a genuine question as people just love the stereotypes they create of "the other" as the enemy. — ssu

I’m not stereotyping, nor do I consider the ruling class enemies.

Odd that this is your knee-jerk reaction.

Exactly. — ssu

Hence “back” in quotation marks. They believe they lost power during the New Deal era, and were under threat in the 60s. There’s some truth in that.

Since when have the elites not had the power? — ssu

Never.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday to strike down Roe v. Wade will help further create a single class of Texans able to terminate their pregnancies with little financial hardship: the wealthy.

Even before the ruling, a person living in Texas could expect to spend between $1,000 and $4,000 to cover the costs of obtaining a surgical abortion, shutting out all but the most financially secure residents and cutting off access to an already disadvantaged population of Texans.

[…]

Traveling out of the state or country to obtain abortion services will simply be beyond the reach of many Texans. That includes people who will find it difficult or impossible to leave the state on short notice, if at all; those working in wage-based jobs with no paid time off; those with no access to child care; those living in rural areas with no airports and few options for public transportation; teenagers with little or no parental support; and those without enough in their savings accounts to cover expenses.

Reflects what I mentioned above. Further evidence.

https://apple.news/A5WfqI89ZRU2GyhQmpDHSOg

A core of conservatives have never reconciled themselves with New Deal programs — Bitter Crank

This is what it’s all about.

Behind the culture war “issues,” guns, abortion, the environment, and even Christian beliefs — lies the absolute contempt for the “stupid and ignorant” masses. It’s a commitment to taking power “back” from the New Deal era, returning it to its proper place: to the elites.

It’s really that simple, in my view. This is all about power, and always has been. It’s not about the constitution, or consistently applied principles, or “both sides,” or the love of freedom. It’s about one group of people wanting to keep/increase their power.

Dobbs is one symptom of this, and an important one with devastating consequences. Allowing guns to proliferate so that a few manufacturers can profit off the death of children (Heller; Bruen), allowing corporations to buy elections (Citizens United), preventing any governmental action on climate change (coming soon in West Virginia v. EPA), restricting unions from collecting dues (Janus), etc etc. — all perfectly predictable if one views things from the assumption above.

it's purely political and caters only to a relatively small group of people living in the USA. — Benkei

Indeed. Although I wouldn’t say it’s a small group of people.

One doesn’t have to read the text— as I have. It’s plainly obvious what would happen, given the selection of justices. It’s not that they’re not sincere — they are, and that’s why they were selected to begin with.

The rest is just a great example of motivated reasoning. We dislike big government— so abortions must go back to the states. But gun restrictions? No— apparently states can’t restrict them. Why? Dozens of pages of legal mumbo jumbo— all of which was predictable. All you have to do is figure out who appointed the justices, and do the math.

There will be plenty of 6-3 absurdities to come. All with very “principled” and complex reasoning to justify a philosophy of life that the 6 individuals have adopted— a Christian-neoliberal one. The rest follows from that.

Two questions.

How was the court able to overturn Roe VS Wade? Can they do it unilaterally without a new case reaching the court to make the decision based upon? Or a law written by a lower court that the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with?

Secondly, is the prochoice stance about sentient life versus any life? Therefore the start of life on its own is basically irrelevant?

@TiredThinker

This discussion was merged into The Death of Roe v Wade? The birth of a new Liberalism?