Dem Post Mortem

[Politesse]

California and the entire American southwest was stolen from Mexico in an illegitimate war deprecated by Lincoln.

In fairness, Mexico stole it first.

Great thing about EuroChristians colonialism.

When they steal stuff it remains theirs forever. Because they stole it according to the Christian culture of the day!
Tom

I don't think most European governments ever recognized Mexico's right to rule all the Spanish provincias in the West. Spain refused to recognize Mexican indepence at all until 1836, and they never conceded all of their territorial claims. Mexico establishing new land grants outside of the already claimed territories in California was sheer cheek, and critically undermined their efforts in the North over the long run.

 

[ZiprHead]

The trans movement is a symbol of just how out of touch the Democrats are, but it's not just that one thing. As my Trump voting cousin told me last night, "Dude, it's all that shit."

Sounds to me like you fell for the anti trans advertising the Trump campaign spent a million dollars on.

Keep willfully misinterpreting things people didn't say and clearly had no intent to say it. It's been working really well.

I will once again refer to the transactivists who relentlessly went after JK Rowling for the most innocuous answer to a stupid fucking question.

I'll be perfectly honest: I don't care about the miniscule trans demographic as it relates to political engagement. If one wants to permanently change themself, then they can go right ahead. It's their right and none of my business. But when such a tiny group with a horribly amplified voice impairs the judgment of an entire political party, then yeah, I'm going to have something to say about it.

So a few dumbass trans activists said stupid things to an author so we should just abandon democracy.

Courting miniscule margins while ignoring and making the largest demographics feel unwelcome, thereby helping to put an unqualified idiot in charge of nukes-----again? Yeah, I'm going to have something to say about that.

By and large, Trump supporters are reprehensible morons. Most of those people can't be saved. They're irredeemably ignorant and bad faith actors. We know that, and we've harped on it for so long and to such a degree that it's not only tiresome, it's detrimental because rather than find a viable solution, liberals have instead failed to recognize their own detachment from reality by disregarding the problems that everyone faces.

Out of touch ideals have taken precedence over practicality and IMO, it's played an important role in potentially ending our democracy.

Where were the out of touch ideals display by Harris/Biden. Blaming people for doing what someone else did is stupid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What "gendered suffix problem" did Latinos want to be solved?

Implicit exclusion of trans and non-binary people from Latino spaces. I take it you never learned how to Google? Am I your Google?

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this. Like it or not, the vast majority of Americans don't give a damn about any trans issues, and it's especially off putting for Latinos, who have a serious conservative streak. It's a losing cause in terms of getting and then maintaining a voter base.

Agreed. Trans is where gay used to be.

The group is super vocal and sucks up a lot of air on the internet, which gives them an outsized voice. You wanna see attempted cancellation, see their psychotic and unrelenting attacks on JK Rowling. That's the epitome of the movement.

She gets attacked because she made it an issue.

The Dems need to moderate their position on this issue e.g. we believe in equal rights for everyone, but not special rights. No more extra accommodations, no more taxpayer funded surgeries, and no more of this "There's no such thing as a man or a woman" bullshit.

It's not special rights. It's just society isn't ready to not look down on them.

It has not been a problem until the Republicans made it a problem. There are countries where it's been a non-issue for a long time, we have seen it's not a problem. But it's a wedge issue to beat the Democrats over the head with.

If you wanna alter what you're born with, that's up to you, but not until you've reached the age of consent, and insurance companies should never be required to pay for that. It's a voluntary surgery.

Surgery is almost never done before the age of consent. The issue is with puberty blockers. If you're going to transition it will be easier if you never went through puberty the other way.

 

[Elixir]

The issue is with puberty blockers. If you're going to transition it will be easier if you never went through puberty the other way.

How did they deal with it back in the days of enlightenment?

 

[Politesse]

Agreed. Trans is where gay used to be.

How, when, and why did the situation of gay men change in the public imagination?

 

[robnisch]

The issue is with puberty blockers. If you're going to transition it will be easier if you never went through puberty the other way.

How did they deal with it back in the days of enlightenment?

US: Harmful Surgery on Intersex Children

Doctors in the United States continue to perform medically unnecessary surgeries that can inflict permanent harm on intersex children, Human Rights Watch and interACT said in a report released today. Despite decades of controversy over the procedures, doctors operate on children’s gonads...

www.hrw.org

I heard this many years ago.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Democrats’ Refusal to Break With a Broken System Cost Them Dearly

The party has followed its affection for Beltway institutions and their stodgy norms to its logical endpoint—getting locked out of power. It’s time for a rethink.

newrepublic.com

It’s become something of a glum tradition in the Democratic Party. After an electoral beating, opinion makers and political elites—along with everyone with a social media account—offer their takes as to why Democrats blew it. For many, it is that the Democratic Party and President Joe Biden didn’t do more to help protect innocent lives in Gaza. For others, it is that Vice President Kamala Harris dared to campaign with Liz Cheney. Senator Bernie Sanders and many others point to the Democratic Party having moved away from its roots as the party of working and blue-collar folks.

The one self-evident answer that no high-minded pundit wants to admit is that people simply bought what Donald Trump was selling. Specifically, that Trump manages to appeal to voters who believe the system sucks and respond to what he says, over and over again, he’s going to do about it: crush it, shove obstacles out of the way, and get immediate results. It’s obviously authoritarianism and a terrible way to actually run a country. But I sympathize with many of the people who pinned their hopes on a radical transformation of a status quo that’s left people behind, including many in traditional Democratic constituencies.

Donald Trump tapped into something that everyone feels—that our current system of checks and balances and polite political norms doesn’t allow the country to move either nimbly or boldly enough, resulting in a consistent failure to deliver relief and results that people tangibly feel and desperately want.

 

[Jarhyn]

...

Well, I can totally agree on the thing about exceedingly unusual minds, but I think you're wrong about the rate. I think we have a problem in society where society fails to spot and properly cultivate those minds.

 

[Derec]

Lead with? They were independent actions, not a queue. The hush money case is simply the one he was least able to obstruct.

Of course they are independent actors, but the independent actor Alvin Bragg screwed up by pursuing the hush money case - which both Feds and his predecessor in the Manhattan DA's office passed on. It tainted all other cases by association.

I think that on merits the Georgia case had merit. But Fanni Willis unwisely dipped the company pen in her inkwell, which derailed the case. Fulton County DA's office and courts were also very busy prosecuting the Young Thug/YSL RICO case which took forever.

And what was weak about it? The payment existed. The campaign reporting laws required them to be reported, they weren't. The law exists specifically for going after those who cover up improper financial transactions, what's so wrong about using it to go after someone who did exactly that. I do have a problem with it being civil, though.

It's a misdemeanor (with expired statute of limitations) where Bragg had to invent "novel legal theories" to make it a felony (and 34 of them to boot).
It would be one thing if Bragg had a reputation as a tough prosecutor who seeks to prosecute people to the maximum extent he can. But he has been doing the opposite - he downgrades straightforward felonies like armed robberies to misdemeanors. And he chose to do the opposite to prosecute a political enemy.
Ask yourself this: would Bragg have prosecuted this case if it was anybody else, say Cathy Hochul or Bill deBlasio?
And what do you mean by "it being civil"? The hush money case was criminal, not civil. The EJC and real estate valuation cases were civil.

Once again, a case where there's no way he could have been convicted had he not incriminated himself in defending himself. Before he came along my position was that long ago rapes were virtually certain not to be provable--but twice now we have had high profile defendants who have convinced me of their guilt. The women didn't prove to me that they were raped, the defendants convinced me that they raped the women. He even brags about grab them by the pussy--that is at a minimum sexual assault and if there's any penetration that's rape.

"Grab them by the pussy" is just talk. Distasteful talk, but not specific (could well be empty braggadocio) and not evidence. Again, EJC could not even recall what year the alleged attack happened. She published a book where she claimed to have been attacked many times during her lifetime - is she that unlucky or just making shit up? Why didn't she report it when it allegedly happened and there could have been corroborating evidence?
I don't know whether anything happened in a Bergdorf changing room sometime in the mid-90s. Neither do you, nor the jury that voted against him. There certainly isn't any evidence one way or the other. There is evidence that EJC is a weird duck for sure - her talking about rape being "sexy" to Anderson Cooper, or her insistence that she kept "the dress" unwashed in the back of her closet for a quarter century.

That's a problem with the 14th. I don't like what Colorado did, but the 14th doesn't define a standard of proof. It needs fixing. That can only be fixed by a constitutional amendment or by SCOTUS yeeting it as insufficiently defined.

14.5 does say that the Congress has the authority.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[ZiprHead]

Agreed. Trans is where gay used to be.

I don't agree. I said years ago that trans issues were going to be a far more sticky situation than gay issues.

 

[ZiprHead]

14.5 does say that the Congress has the authority.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That's not what it says.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

[Derec]

That's not what it says.

It does. I quoted it verbatim. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to enforce provisions of 14th Amendment. Not to state courts.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Yes, I am familiar with the text. But how does one define "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

 

[ZiprHead]

The election result was not about VALUES or IDEOLOGY. It was about CHANGE and the ECONOMY. There was a perception that the economy was not recovering fast enough and people wanted swifter changes to get us there. Kamala Harris was seen as the status quo and just as much at fault for not improving things swiftly as Biden even though VP's have little power.

Frankly, to fix the economy the way they wanted it fixed would require a DeLorean and

 

[Derec]

Their alienation can do nothing to invalidate science, but it can certainly threaten scientists.

Science can tell us a lot, but does not really address salient issues here.

Science does not tell us that biological girls should compete against biological boys who transitioned to some degree or another.
Science does not tell us that expensive reassignment surgeries should be paid by taxpayers.
Science does not tell us that people should be pressured to put their "preferred pronouns" in their bios, which is now common in academia.
Science does not tell us that people should be pressured to use singular "they" for people who are e.g. biologically male and also male presenting, like for example this guy:

I am generally in favor of trans issues. I think people should be free to be who they want to be.
But I also think that activists take it too far, and that alienates many people. Like for example activsits that say that no transition is even necessary to demand to be addressed as another gender or "non-binary". Or that preferred pronouns should be inquired about on a daily bases, as people may change them based on mood. Do I feel like a "he/him" or "they/them" today? And then get upset if "wrong" pronouns are used. It is hardly surprising that this kind of self-centerdness alienates people.

Indeed, there is a lot of infighting. For example, with attacks on Seth Moulton (D-MA).

Needed: A respectful debate on trans women in sports

After his party’s election defeat on Nov. 5, Rep. Seth Moulton (Massachusetts) offered some blunt advice: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. … I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
Mr. Moulton’s remarks sparked an immediate backlash within his own political camp. His campaign manager quit. A state legislator accused him of “scapegoating transgender youth.” A city council member in Salem, Massachusetts, called for him to resign. The Bay State’s governor, Maura Healey, opined that Mr. Moulton was “playing politics with people.” Even Tufts University briefly got in on the act when David Art, chair of the political science department, reportedly called Mr. Moulton’s office and told him not to contact the university to recruit interns in the future, though Tufts quickly clarified that “we have not — and will not — limit internship opportunities with his office.”

There is this weird purity culture on the contemporary left.

 

[ZiprHead]

That's not what it says.

It does. I quoted it verbatim. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to enforce provisions of 14th Amendment. Not to state courts.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Yes, I am familiar with the text.

At best we have a paradox. The language of section three seems at odds with section 5. I frankly think it seems clear that the language of section 3 overrides section five.

But how does one define "insurrection

in·sur·rec·tion
/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwiE2o7x5d-JAxV738kDHVFqNVcQ3eEDegQINhAM
noun

1. a violent uprising against an authority or government.
   "the insurrection was savagely put down"

or rebellion

re·bel·lion
/rəˈbelyən/
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwiEkLmV5t-JAxXzLtAFHV-mDWAQ3eEDegQINhAM
noun

1. an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.
   "the authorities put down a rebellion by landless colonials"

against the same,

Seems pretty damn clear to me.

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

Horse crap. We all know what he did and who he had helping him. The fake electors scheme goes straight back to the Oval Office. The fact that he let the insurrection go on for three hours definietly shows aid and comfort. His promise to pardon those convicted of associated crimes also shows it.

Trump should have been immediately arrested the morning of January 21st.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why do you believe that Trump's view is representative of all conservatives?

What leads you to feel that the ads for a single specific candidate represent the views of all conservatives?

What mockery did Fox push that specified college educations? Why do you assume that infotainment has the beliefs of all conservatives nailed?

Why do you always argue using strawmen?

What part of those posts do you think is a strawman?

all conservatives

all conservatives

all conservatives

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don’t think anyone is saying “there is no such thing as a man or a woman.” They are saying something perhaps subtly but crucially different, as can be seen from P.Z Myers’ rebuttal to Jerry Coyne.

If people want to get worked up and lathered up about trans’ rights, that’s their problem.

As I see it: There are differences. So what? Disclose it up front in anything romantic, otherwise what's in your pants is your business.

I'm not convinced either way on the sports bit, though. Both sides seem biased.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is not the Dems fault. This is the Supreme Court's fault. Trump should never have been allowed to run but the Supreme Court overruled the constitutional requirement that candidates for the presidency not be traitors.

Disagree. The 14th is fundamentally flawed in that it uses an undefined term. Good intent, bad implementation.

 

[Elixir]

This is not the Dems fault. This is the Supreme Court's fault. Trump should never have been allowed to run but the Supreme Court overruled the constitutional requirement that candidates for the presidency not be traitors.

Disagree. The 14th is fundamentally flawed in that it uses an undefined term. Good intent, bad implementation.

Wait! You’re both right.
For all the good it does, we’re still screwed.

 

[Politesse]

The Democrats’ Refusal to Break With a Broken System Cost Them Dearly

The party has followed its affection for Beltway institutions and their stodgy norms to its logical endpoint—getting locked out of power. It’s time for a rethink.

newrepublic.com

It’s become something of a glum tradition in the Democratic Party. After an electoral beating, opinion makers and political elites—along with everyone with a social media account—offer their takes as to why Democrats blew it. For many, it is that the Democratic Party and President Joe Biden didn’t do more to help protect innocent lives in Gaza. For others, it is that Vice President Kamala Harris dared to campaign with Liz Cheney. Senator Bernie Sanders and many others point to the Democratic Party having moved away from its roots as the party of working and blue-collar folks.

The one self-evident answer that no high-minded pundit wants to admit is that people simply bought what Donald Trump was selling. Specifically, that Trump manages to appeal to voters who believe the system sucks and respond to what he says, over and over again, he’s going to do about it: crush it, shove obstacles out of the way, and get immediate results. It’s obviously authoritarianism and a terrible way to actually run a country. But I sympathize with many of the people who pinned their hopes on a radical transformation of a status quo that’s left people behind, including many in traditional Democratic constituencies.

Donald Trump tapped into something that everyone feels—that our current system of checks and balances and polite political norms doesn’t allow the country to move either nimbly or boldly enough, resulting in a consistent failure to deliver relief and results that people tangibly feel and desperately want.

Classic MSM sanewashing! If people believe Trump was campaigning on any such construction of an enlightened, understandable populism, it's because they watched too much CNN; they could not possibly have derived this position from any of his actual speeches or campaign platform! When has Donald Trump ever promised to "radically transform the status quo that has left people behind?" That's a better summary of Obama's campaign platform than Trump's... Trump doesn't promise economic justice through stirring institutional reform, he offers people conspiracy theories about who's hurting them, and solemnly promises to hunt down America's enemies, internal and external, while making vague promises about a "golden age" that must be returned to but can only be reached through him. That's not the same thing at all. He's a Mussolini, not a Mao. Where do "commentators" come up with this shit?