[Winstonm]

 johnu, on 2024-March-03, 17:48, said:

Basically anything can be appealed. With the current extreme right fringe slant of the supreme court, they decide on the outcome their corporate sponsor want, and just make up any justification no matter how remote or unrelated to fill out their decision.

As far as an appeal being successful, I think the right fringe supremes think just like the Alabama court, so I think the Alabama decision would be upheld, but this results would be a national result.

The SCOTUS would have to grant certiori in order for an appeal, which they are not obliged to do. The appeal would have to be made on constitutional grounds as this was ajudicated by a state supreme court.

[pescetom]

 Winstonm, on 2024-March-04, 15:45, said:

The SCOTUS would have to grant certiori in order for an appeal, which they are not obliged to do. The appeal would have to be made on constitutional grounds as this was ajudicated by a state supreme court.

I think you meant certiorari... certiori does not exist and cetrioli is cucumbers.

[pilowsky]

Today, SCOTUS threw open the doors to the Bundestag, laid out kindling on the floor and handed out instructional videos explaining how to start fires.

[shyams]

Heard a dejected expert on CNN tell its nationwide audience that "You can't save a people from themselves. If they are determined to reelect him after he organised that insurrection, then there's nothing to stop the people from doing that". He then sighed as it dawned on him that Trump could well be the next double-numbered president.

[thepossum]

Who would have thought that SCOTUS would let the show go on

[pilowsky]

Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart hosting a podcast where Scaramucci explains why Biden will defeat Trump.

[Winstonm]

The difficulty remains that one cannot hold a rational conversation with the irrational. Our only hope is there are more rational voters who turn out and vote than irrational until death do they part.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2024-March-11, 18:41, said:

The difficulty remains that one cannot hold a rational conversation with the irrational. Our only hope is there are more rational voters who turn out and vote than irrational until death do they part.

My choices in anything from ice cream to presidential candidates are partly rational, partly not. It follows (or sort of follows) that a rational approach to campaigning is to attend to both the rational and the irrational.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2024-March-12, 13:13, said:

My choices in anything from ice cream to presidential candidates are partly rational, partly not. It follows (or sort of follows) that a rational approach to campaigning is to attend to both the rational and the irrational.

I happened upon a rational Republican by accident - Congressman Buck from Colorado who is leaving his seat in a few days, fed up with the insanity. The question now is how to prevent the minority of crazies from being in charge?

PS: Have you actually attempted a rational conversation with a Trump voter?

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2024-March-13, 14:23, said:

I happened upon a rational Republican by accident - Congressman Buck from Colorado who is leaving his seat in a few days, fed up with the insanity. The question now is how to prevent the minority of crazies from being in charge?

PS: Have you actually attempted a rational conversation with a Trump voter?

I can have reasonable conversations with most, not all, of my friends. My guess is that some of them voted for Trump in 2016, I never asked them. The ones I am thinking of will not be voting for Trump this fall, I am pretty confident of that, but I with some pf them I am not so sure they will vote for Biden either. There are a lot of people who are very frustrated by the available choices. Actually, so am I. I can find good things to say about Biden, quite a few good things, but there are times when I am just stunned. There are a lot of copies of me out there.

I will be voting for Biden, surprising no one, but anyone running against Trump should get 90% of the vote, minimum. Biden and his strategists should ask themselves why this is not happeneing. Oh, yes, that's right, people are too stupid. Maybe, just maybe, they should allow for the possibility that while there is some truth to that claim there just might possibly be some other reasons as well. But no, people are just stupid. A handy explanation.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2024-March-13, 15:41, said:

I can have reasonable conversations with most, not all, of my friends. My guess is that some of them voted for Trump in 2016, I never asked them. The ones I am thinking of will not be voting for Trump this fall, I am pretty confident of that, but I with some pf them I am not so sure they will vote for Biden either. There are a lot of people who are very frustrated by the available choices. Actually, so am I. I can find good things to say about Biden, quite a few good things, but there are times when I am just stunned. There are a lot of copies of me out there.

I will be voting for Biden, surprising no one, but anyone running against Trump should get 90% of the vote, minimum. Biden and his strategists should ask themselves why this is not happeneing. Oh, yes, that's right, people are too stupid. Maybe, just maybe, they should allow for the possibility that while there is some truth to that claim there just might possibly be some other reasons as well. But no, people are just stupid. A handy explanation.

Can you give me any reason why a reasonably normal individual would vote for Trump? I know smart people can make unreasonable choices. How does anyone justify a vote for Trump?

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2024-March-14, 12:47, said:

Can you give me any reason why a reasonably normal individual would vote for Trump? I know smart people can make unreasonable choices. How does anyone justify a vote for Trump?

This gets to what I see as a crucial point. A person who cannot justify voting for Trump might still vote for Trump. They can vote for Trump even if they cannot write a five page carefully reasoned paper on why they do so. Over the last ten years or so there have been numerous articles about how coffee is really good for people. But I have been drinking coffee since I was around eight years old and health benefits had nothing to do with that. We all, or at least I and just about everyone I know, go through ife making many choices that we could not justify. Or, if we can justify them, the justification has nothing to d with why we actually made the choice.

I am not saying that people are totally irrational.I am saying that rational argument is only one part of the many things that go into decision making. A guy proposing marriage to a woman is unlikely to lay out ten key reasons why marriage to him is in her best rational interest. .

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2024-March-13, 15:41, said:

I will be voting for Biden, surprising no one, but anyone running against Trump should get 90% of the vote, minimum. Biden and his strategists should ask themselves why this is not happeneing. Oh, yes, that's right, people are too stupid. Maybe, just maybe, they should allow for the possibility that while there is some truth to that claim there just might possibly be some other reasons as well. But no, people are just stupid. A handy explanation.

I don't believe that stupidity is the only explanation

Racism is obviously at play, as is sexism, homophobia and a whole host of other related issues

[shyams]

What about self-interest?

In a democracy, people [are meant to] vote for the candidate, the party, the set of policies that [are perceived to] benefit them the most.

I concede that the above sounds too theoretical and it won't apply to quite a few people who vote. However, why is it not a possible basis for choice for [say] half of all voters?

[hrothgar]

 shyams, on 2024-March-15, 22:11, said:

What about self-interest?

In a democracy, people [are meant to] vote for the candidate, the party, the set of policies that [are perceived to] benefit them the most.

I concede that the above sounds too theoretical and it won't apply to quite a few people who vote. However, why is it not a possible basis for choice for [say] half of all voters?

Many people perceiving oppressing the other as a a benefit
Just like they consider tax policies or health care to be be a benefit...

[Winstonm]

 shyams, on 2024-March-15, 22:11, said:

What about self-interest?

In a democracy, people [are meant to] vote for the candidate, the party, the set of policies that [are perceived to] benefit them the most.

I concede that the above sounds too theoretical and it won't apply to quite a few people who vote. However, why is it not a possible basis for choice for [say] half of all voters?

There can be real benefits from being perceived as part of a group.

[akwoo]

 shyams, on 2024-March-15, 22:11, said:

What about self-interest?

In a democracy, people [are meant to] vote for the candidate, the party, the set of policies that [are perceived to] benefit them the most.

I concede that the above sounds too theoretical and it won't apply to quite a few people who vote. However, why is it not a possible basis for choice for [say] half of all voters?

I don't think this is necessarily a good basis for a democracy. Kenya is an example of where this has failed quite badly (though it's gotten much better). Kenya has 5 major tribes, which for the sake of this post I'll just call A, B, C, D, and E, not all equal in size but equal enough that any 3 form a majority. What happens is that some candidate becomes the candidate of 3 of the tribes, and when they get into office, they proceed to implement policies that basically take everything from the other 2 tribes and give it to their 3 tribes. (It's gotten better because urbanization has created a class of young people who have weak ties to their tribes and work in more capital-intensive industries that benefit from more cooperation rather than endless redistribution.)

Arguably, this is precisely what Trumpism is about - a group of people who have been largely left behind by society who see no better possibility than banding together to form a government that acts purely to implement policies that take from citizens not like them and redistribute to them.

[kenberg]

There are a couple of obvious things about self-interest.

1. Self-interest will not be going away as a motivating feature of our choices.

2. It is often in our self-interest to find ways of working with others even when our intersts are different or even, maybe especially even, when our interests are conflicting.


There was a time when most everyone understood this.

[pilowsky]

Jack Lang, the former Labor Premier of NSW.

Quote

Always back the horse named self-interest, son. It'll be the only one trying.

[Winstonm]

The House of Representatives has overcome the Putin part of the Republican party. Good for the House.