The real lesson for America in the French and British elections
memfree @ memfree @lemmy.ml Posts 16Comments 212Joined 2 yr. ago
memfree @ memfree @lemmy.ml
Posts
16
Comments
212
Joined
2 yr. ago
tldr; Vox talks about multi-party systems where coalitions of many groups (not just two) can join together to defeat anti-democratic candidates -- but then thrusts the U.S. in the mix as if it is comparable, and it is not. It is just another lazy commiseration, "Woe is us! Woe is us! Throw Joe Biden under the bus! We don't like Trump! We say it loud, -- but another change is not allowed! We'll only fight with our own kind. So right moves forth. And left? Behind."
chunks FTA:
In particular, the winning parties in both the UK and France won by realizing that the nature of their systems required that they sacrifice some specific candidates in order to defeat the right.
Unlike France and Britain, the United States only has two viable choices on offer: the center-left Democrats and the radical right Republicans.
Biden can’t count on help from other parties to boost him the way it helped Labour or the NFP; polling suggests he actually does slightly worse when third parties are on the ballot.
In their systems, the French and the British had a strategy for addressing their problems: sacrificing marginal legislative candidates in service of the greater good of defeating the right. But in the American system, sacrificing marginal candidates won’t be enough to overcome the effects of general public discontent and anti-incumbent sentiment.
Here, the ticket is defined by the president — a man increasingly seen as too old for the public to trust in addressing their concerns. Defeating the right might very well require the center-left in America to make a more radical kind of political sacrifice: a change at the very top of the ticket.
FU, Vox! The comparison is invalid. This COULD have been an article on why the U.S. needs to change its voting system, but instead it was just another take-down of Biden. removed about Biden and wringing your hands about Trump is EASY. Worse, it is stupid and LAZY. We already know the anti-Biden arguments. We need an alternate playbook. Something like a 2025 plan for the left where as soon as a Congress can do it, they pass new laws invalidating the idea of 'Presidential Immunity', taking back rights that the Courts have revoked, and fixing what has been broken by years of deregulation and underfunding (fund the IRS, fund health/food/safety inspectors, and pay them through tax rates of America's Golden Age of the 50s/60s).
I read the other posts about your relationship with the local birds and now I'm really thinking it is a kid saying, "Mom won't feed me anymore, but she said you'd do it. I CAN'T!!! Look! I'm TRYING and it doesn't WORK!"
I agree with others here. It wanted your attention, probably for help -- either for a 'friend' or for itself. Could it have been a recently fledged juvenile wanting food? It may have seen mom looking for the grass and getting food from that activity, but unable to master the art.
Did you look for a nest or another bird in the original shrub? It could have been trying to keep you from finding an injured friend (killdeer fake wing injuries to lure you away from their nests).
Was it close enough that you can go back with some treats and a camera? I'd do that.
It's not just us humans, chimps trade meat for sex: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/chimps-behavior-sex-news-animals
Yale taught monkeys about money, and yup, they traded money for sex. From archive of NYT article:
Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.
Not a family saying, but my grandad used this joke soooo often:
Q: What's the difference between a snake in the grass and a goose?
A: A snake in the grass is an asp in the grass, but a grasp in the ass is a goose!
My folks liked to purposefully mix metaphors, so instead of saying "The worm has turned", they'd say, "The shoe has turned" and "The worm is on the other foot".
I'm sure there's an origin somewhere, but since I don't know it, the call-out for doing something particularly dumb was, "Why don't you just ram your face into my fist?" (suggesting your stupidity was impressive, but not worth the actual bother of 'punishing' you for it, especially given you were probably stupid enough to punish yourself).
From https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/inflation-higher-biden-rising-pay-makes-rcna158569 :
"Cumulative wage growth since the start of the pandemic has outpaced price growth across the wage distribution, but the most wage growth has been among lower-wage workers," Bank of America economists wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. "This is likely because labor shortages have been the most acute in blue-collar sectors. While recent wage growth has been distributed more evenly across the distribution, the large cumulative wage gains for lower-income consumers since 4Q 2019 have buffered them against the inflation shock."
I admit that every time I buy groceries, I am shocked by the prices. The thing is: I don't blame the President for it. I blame lax regulation that has allowed monopolies to take over everything and pay workers as little as possible -- particularly by misclassifying them as contractors. I also blame the Supreme Court for ruling in favor of the rich and powerful instead of the the citizenry and/or the institutional expertise within the government (EPA, NIS, etc.).
I'm frustrated that it seems the only people who can garner enough attention to get elected are ALL saying nice things to their base, then creating legislation and/or voting to take power from governmental regulators and experts and just let big businesses so whatever they want -- which ALWAYS boils down to stripping as much money and power as they can from the populace.
Have some links:
I blame the defunding of reliable curators. The good gets lost in the torrent of mediocre content. This isn't just music, but videos, news, art, and so on. Most anything that both craftsmen and amateurs can produce is now easily accessible to everyone everywhere. In addition to the old method of producing albums where the band had to go to some location and work on it as a regular job, and with the label sending in extra musicians, equipment, professionals and such, there used to be trusted critics.
Historically, we had a short list of vetted reviewers who could point us towards the best stuff without the need to wade through the rest. Even if it turned out that your aesthetics did not match that of a given critic, you could probably see why such critics held their opinions and could quickly locate a critic whose tastes did align with yours. Now we have a billion fake review sites run by the companies and/or families of those being reviewed. They are not trustworthy. A person is left to try everything on their own and we often run out of time looking for 'good' and settle on 'good enough'.
Being rich turns you greedy. Not you in particular, rather: any of us. Almost everyone. You become more worried about hanging on to what you have and less concerned with the welfare of others. The good news is that you can be reminded to be compassionate and it will help. If you are asked to imagine yourself in another's place, you can become more aware of how others feel. If, however, you are left to your own devices, you are likely to change for the worse without even noticing. I am thankful Melinda Gates married Bill and got him to engage in charities. I think a lesser woman may have allowed him to be a horrible person.
There's lots of studies out there, but here's a quick link with the summary of a few of them: https://blog.ted.com/6-studies-of-money-and-the-mind/
No. You plead the 5th once you are in court. This says that when Nixon wanted the FBI to stop investigating the Watergate break-in, we couldn't ask why because the prez is supposed to talk to the FBI and we can't question his motives. It says that when Trump asked Pence to hold the vote and bring in fake electors, it was official communication and therefore legal -- because we can't ask why. It says that when Trump wanted false charges of fraud brought up for elections, saying his lawyers would figure out the reasons later, that was OK because he's officially supposed to investigate fraud. Prior to this, any potential overlap between the Office of President and potential Candidate for Presidency (and/or candidate for future jail term) could be investigated as if it was not Presidential until there was a solid defense as to why it was official. The ruling turns that on its head and says prosecution must first find proof that actions were unofficial -- and do so without the ability to ask about motivations -- before filing charges. We want the official/unofficial decision to be made with the weight of context and done in court rather than putting prosecutors in the position of 'illegally' investigating a President before they can figure out what actually went down.
This looks new to me. It becomes hard for prosecutors to prove anything when we can't ask about motives and the witnesses are 'privileged advisors'. From the officical court opinion -- note it is in paper-format with hyphens. (page 18: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf):
In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of of- ficial conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II in- terests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” if “[i]n exercising the functions of his office,” the President was “under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry.”
(page 31)
The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification pro- ceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presump- tively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
Not everywhere, but lots of county/state health clinics will vaccinate you for lots of things -- just because they feel it is in their self-interest to keep the locals free from spreadable diseases where they can.
Hrm. No one has mentioned the decline of middle class wages.
I remember in the ... late 70s/early 80s my mother would drag us to the mall nearly every weekend. She was there to buy clothes. She always wanted something new and she wanted to try on at least a dozen items before buying one or two. I was thrilled when I was old enough to go off to the record store and/or hobby store while she did that. Earlier, I begged to go the the toy store, but was typically refused. Later, I was at the book store getting paperback scifi.
I don't think people have as much disposable income as they did then. I don't know many people who can buy as much frivolous stuff as my folks used to. I guess I could technically buy stuff all the time, but I want to save fore retirement. My folks had pensions. I have to put it away myself.
Sadly, the effect of not voting for one of the 2 candidates is to intensify the power of the most extreme views. Say 100 people can vote. 25 on each side are going to vote for their party no matter what. 20 want something crazy in one direction and 20 in the other direction, and both sides are likely to protest and/or not vote if their guy doesn't pander to them. That leaves 10 persuadable people -- mostly people who are busy with other stuff and not paying attention to the minutia of various policies and the likely after effects they will cause.
What is a candidate to do? They pander to the crazies. They can hardly bother to assuage the persuadables because those folks aren't paying attention anyway. They have to go after the people who might bail if they aren't appeased. I hate the system, but there it is.
I have my TV, sound system, and computer all in my living room. They all use the same amplifier and speakers. Would that work for your situation?
I used to visit communities like you did, then I took an arrow in the knee.
But no, seriously, if you don't like the how people are talking, don't bother going there. I don't know people who use Steam's community hubs for actual community. I see them getting used for info/joke sharing about their given games, but not for social bonding. Personally, I like the guides. Sometimes I search the discussions for a piece of information on an issue that I'm hoping someone else has already encountered and worked around. That's about it.
That said, I generally don't mind that people make memes. If it makes them happy, then good for them! If other people get a chuckle, that's even better. For me -- and like my opening line -- any amusement quickly turns to eye rolls as the same things get repeated over and over and were never very funny from the start.
Both tburkhol and I posted about Coon Chicken Inn -- a place for white people BY white people with a denigrating caricature of a black man as their logo (on their delivery vehicles, menu, and even entrances).
spujb links to the chicken stereotype.
It is one thing for a group of people to choose what food to serve themselves, and something else when an oppressed group is mocked, denied rights, and then illustrated as liking foods that EVERYONE likes as if those foods are somehow a hilarious thing for them to eat. Side note: Sooo many places serve fried chicken that the only reason it is racist is associations like Coon Chicken Inn (and the racism leading to its creation). Lots of BBQ places in particular serve collards as well as Caribbean spots. Jollof is specifically African (not American). If I see Jollof or Fufu on the menu, I'm hoping for cassava leaves instead of collards, but I understand it isn't as available in the U.S.
Came here to say that. Barring a few contrarians, EVERYONE likes both watermelon and fried chicken. I know vegetarians who will admit that fried chicken tastes fantastic, even if they no longer eat it.
I also wanted to link to some info about the "Coon Chicken Inn" chain -- founded by a white guy, of course.
No, but if you use natural peanut butter (even Costco has natural peanut butter) and an actual a whole wheat bread without all the additives, it isn't the worst meal. Maybe throw a sliced banana in there to help round it out.
It depends on the weather and the cost. I remember when gas stations offered "full service" or "self service". Full service cost more per gallon, but in addiction to pumping gas, they cleaned your windshield, checked your oil and wiper fluid levels, and might even put air in your tires if they were obviously low. If you wanted it done for you, you paid more. Seemed fair. These days, gas is cheaper in New Jersey than surrounding states, so you pay LESS to have someone else take care of you.
I agree with you on most points except your first: the central point Vox made was to dump Biden as if that was the only option. I WISH Vox suggested a daring change -- or ANY other option. Personally, I don't think that simply replacing Biden would seal the deal.
I do absolutely agree that the U.S. public seems to blame Biden for inflation and credits Trump with ... what? wanting retribution? As if being a wind bag means a person is a strong leader? At the least, too many potential voters seem to have forgotten that a consensus of countries ousted their monarchs/dictators in favor of either democracy or communism. Populations everywhere seem to agree that strong man leaders are both bad for the people and painfully hard to remove. Further, lots of U.S. citizens lost relatives fighting Nazis, so why are they trying to give Nazis power now? We fought that war. We paid in lives to stop that. It dishonors the dead to just give in to it now.