Sie scheinen einen AdBlocker zu verwenden.

Wollen Sie LEO unterstützen?

Dann deaktivieren Sie AdBlock für LEO, spenden Sie oder nutzen Sie LEO Pur!

  • Betrifft

    Biden-Ära III


    Wir kommen von hier Siehe auch: Biden-Ära II - #299

    und ich habe per ordre mufti verfügt, dass auch Herr Biden sich ab jetzt im QZ zu tummeln hat. Also bitte.

    Grad steht in den USA das Recht auf Abtreibung massiv auf der Kippe :-/

    Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 04 Mai 22, 11:15

    ... und man kann ja nicht mal mehr sagen, dass der Supreme Court nur aus alten weissen Männern besteht... 🙁

    #1Verfasser virus (343741) 04 Mai 22, 12:12

    Bei der möglicherweise bevorstehenden Änderung des Abtreibungsrechts werden zwei Aspekte diskutiert, einmal die inhaltliche Entscheidung (die wir hier nicht diskutieren sollen und wollen) und zum anderen die Frage, ob und gegebenenfalls wann und unter welchen Umständen der Supreme Court frühere Entscheidungen ändern darf. Das Argument, dass man sich auf einmal gesprochenes Recht bis auf alle Ewigkeit verlassen können muss und dass der Widerruf früherer höchstrichterlicher Entscheidungen Verrat am Rechtssystem sei, überzeugt mich nicht, denn dann wäre eine Entscheidung von 1954, die die "racial segregation" von Schülern für verfassungswidrig erklärt hat, auch ein Verrat am Rechtssystem gewesen, denn damit wurde eine gegenteilige Entscheidung aus dem Jahr 1896 aufgehoben. Auch höchste Gerichte müssen meiner Ansicht nach dazu lernen dürfen.

    #2Verfasser harambee (91833)  04 Mai 22, 12:18

    Das Argument, dass man sich auf einmal gesprochenes Recht bis auf alle Ewigkeit verlassen können muss und dass der Widerrif früherer höchstrichterlicher Entscheidungen Verrat am Rechtssystem sei, überzeugt mich nicht, denn dann wäre eine Entscheidung von 1954, die die "racial segregation" von Schülern für verfassungswidrig erklärt hat, auch ein Verrat des Rechtssystems gewesen, denn damit wurde eine gegenteilige Entscheidung aus dem Jahr 1896 aufgehoben. Auch höchste Gerichte müssen meiner Ansicht nach dazu lernen dürfen.

    Stari decisis does not mean that a previous decision must always and for eternity be followed.See a partial description of it below:

    Although courts seldom overrule precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” When prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is “particularly true in constitutional cases.” For example, in deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly renounced Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the doctrine of stare decisis.

    What's especially infuriating about this situation is that recent nominees have all been asked about Roe v. Wade, and all gave answers that made it sound like they considered it to be a decided issue. I listed to good parts of the hearings for the three tRump appointees, and I could tell that they were fudging their answers, never really answering the question itself, just throwing out some generalities. This leaked opinion proved my hunch correct.

    Back in 1987, Reagan-nominee Robert Bork was asked about Roe v. Wade in his confirmation hearings. Unlike what has happened in the recent hearings, he actually told the truth about what he thought, and it cost him the seat by a 58 to 42 margin, with a number of Republicans joining the Democrats in voting against him. (One commentator said that it's as if Alito had taken extensive notes on Bork's answer that day and reproduced it in the leaked opinion all these years later.) Since then, no GOP nominees have answered fully and truthfully when asked about Roe v. Wade.

    #3Verfasser hbberlin (420040) 04 Mai 22, 12:40

    Grad auf Farcebuch gelesen:

    "Republicans on vaccines and masks: my body, my rules.

    Republicans on abortion: Your body, my rules."

    Besser kann man es nicht treffen.

    "Since then, no GOP politicians nominees have answered fully and truthfully when asked about Roe v. Wade."

    Ich will jetzt nicht so weit gehen zu sagen "formulier um wie angezeigt", aber es liegt nahe.

    #4Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  04 Mai 22, 13:45

    Since this is about the Biden era, it's not off topic to note here that there is also much discussion in the US about the fact that Biden promised, while on the campaign trail, that he would see to it that Roe v Wade was codified into federal law. I'm no legal eagle so I don't know how that would actually work, but I do know that no attempt at it has been made. As in, none. Zero. Nada. Obama promised the same thing even more explicitly, but as soon as he got into office, he said Nope, sorry, that's not a priority. Again, no effort made.

    And yet the Dems are very vocal on this issue when it comes to fundraising, and when it comes to threatening voters ("You have to vote for us, because the Republicans want to strike down Roe v Wade!"). I know lots of people who received several fundraising emails within hours of the SCOTUS leak, referring directly to this danger now that it appears imminent.

    Biden's party likes to say they can't do things that the Republicans won't agree with, but a) There are in fact ways to get the things done without any Republican votes (and ways to pressure your own party members, even the Manchins and the Sinemas, to fall in line) and b) Not even attempting to put up a fight, on this and so many other issues (which are becoming truly urgent in the face of rising poverty, homelessness, etc.), is a very large part of the problem with the abysmal voter turnout in the US. Higher turnout always benefits Ds more than Rs, but most people just don't see the point any more.

    At this point, the prospect for the presidential election in 2024 is utterly dismal.

    #5Verfasser Janette B. (1227601) 04 Mai 22, 14:58

    There are in fact ways to get the things done without any Republican votes.

    When you write "get things done" are you referring to passing legislation?

    #6Verfasser SD3 (451227) 04 Mai 22, 17:07

    What's especially infuriating about this situation is that recent nominees have all been asked about Roe v. Wade, and all gave answers that made it sound like they considered it to be a decided issue.

    Ich konnte durch Googeln so schnell keine Antwort finden, aber werden unsere Bundesverfassungsrichter*innen vor ihrer Berufung nach ihren Ansichten gefragt? Ich denke, dass die generelle politische Verortung bekannt ist - die Männer und Frauen sind ja schon länger in dem Beruf - aber konkrete Fragen zu bestimmten Themen? Das kann ich mir irgendwie nicht vorstellen. Es wäre ja, wie man sieht, auch nicht sehr sinnvoll: Wenn man den Posten nicht bekommt, wenn man die Wahrheit sagt, ist es ja nicht überraschend, dass gelogen oder ausgewichen wird.

    (Wenn ich den Prozess falsch verstanden habe, bitte richtigstellen.)

    #7Verfasser Gibson (418762) 04 Mai 22, 20:25

    #6: Yes (and also executive orders). Efforts are required – whip fellow democrats into line, end the filibuster, use the bully pulpit, etc.

    The Speaker of the House has been actively supporting anti-choice Democrats, putting the power of the Party behind them. So there's another avenue for change: Don't do that.

    #8Verfasser Janette B. (1227601) 04 Mai 22, 21:24

    There are 16 states that already protect the right to abortion. Working at the state level in the other states is another option.


    #9Verfasser patman2 (527865) 05 Mai 22, 23:53

    I'm no legal eagle so I don't know how that would actually work, but I do know that no attempt at it has been made. As in, none. Zero. Nada.

    That's not true. Attempts have been made in both houses of Congress and, surprisingly, from both sides of the aisle.

    From Roll Call:

    A bill passed the House by a vote of 218-211 in September 2021, but when Schumer called up a test vote in February, it did not get a simple majority.

    Senators Collins and Murkowski (who both have an R after their names) apparently have drafted legislation as well:

    Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who has drafted legislation with Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski to put protections from the Roe v. Wade decision and the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision into law, said earlier Tuesday that she was optimistic about getting Manchin on board with that measure. Schumer said he had not reviewed the text from the two Republicans.

    #10Verfasser hbberlin (420040) 06 Mai 22, 10:49

    Sorry to have been unclear, by "attempt" I meant a president making it a priority and making the effort to get it through. Presidents have more power than some would have us think, if they would only choose to wield it.

    #11Verfasser Janette B. (1227601) 06 Mai 22, 12:11

    Presidents have more power than some would have us think, if they would only choose to wield it.

    Be very careful what you wish for...

    #12Verfasser covellite (520987) 11 Mai 22, 12:12

    The powers I would not wish them to wield are what's basically being wielded all the time.

    The powers they would have us think they don't have are those that would help the the majority of people (as opposed to primarily helping wealthy people and corporations).

    #13Verfasser Janette B. (1227601) 11 Mai 22, 12:40

    Hallo zusammen, und danke für diesen informativen Thread!

    In den letzten Monaten war ich "real life-bedingt" etwas in Rückstand geraten, und wurde zuletzt durch zwei Dinge aufgeschreckt: Ein per se völlig unpolitischer Kollege erzählte mir feixend von einem Video, wie Joe Biden einer nicht vorhandenen Person die Hand schüttle, und ein Zitat von Trevor Noah, das ungefähr so lautet: "It is truly the age of conspiracy theories - the Republicans believe they can still win the election of 2020, and the Democracts believe they can still win the election of 2024"

    Im Spiegel hatte ich vor längerem einen Artikel gelesen, dass Kamala Harris als Vizepräsidentin nicht besonders gut zurechtkomme. In den von mir geschätzten links-liberalen Late Night Shows hatte ich zuletzt nicht viel von ihr gehört, in den rechten Medien wird sie umso mehr verrissen, und zwar mit ganz ähnlichen Argumenten wie den im Spiegel genannten.

    Das alles fand ich dann doch ziemlich besorgniserregend.

    Daher bin ich an den "Ort" zurückgekehrt, an dem ich dazu zuletzt gute "Insider"-Informationen bekommen hatte - diesen Faden, der mittlerweile stillgelegt ist. Dort hatten wir mögliche Vize-Präsidentschaftskandidaten diskutiert und Norbert hatte mehr oder minder das vorausgesehen, was der Spiegel jetzt über Kamala Harris schreibt.

    Ich würde mich sehr dafür interessieren, wie ihr, die ihr näher an dem allen dran seid, Kamala Harris und die Chancen der Demokraten bei der Wahl 2014 einschätzt.

    #14Verfasser Sammakko (1221779) 13 Mai 22, 17:45

    Sammakko, der Faden ist gar nicht stillgelegt, und dein Beitrag wird da auch gerade diskutiert, inklusive - wahrscheinlich - Missverständnisse.

    #15Verfasser Gibson (418762) 13 Mai 22, 19:07
    Tja, grad kam die Meldung rein, dass der SCOTUS "Roe vs. Wade" aufgehoben hat. Damit ist gesichert, dass es auch in Zukunft genug Schulkinder geben wird, die dann dem - seit gestern - nur sehr schwer einschränkbaren Waffenbesitz zu Opfer fallen können.

    Und in Florida derweil:


    Schüler*innen und Lehrer*innen dürfen nicht mehr über sexuelle Orientierung sprechen. Die armen Kinder könnten ja "verschwult" werden. Scheiß reaktionäres Republikaner-Mistpack.
    #16Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  24 Jun. 22, 16:27
    #17Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 24 Jun. 22, 16:53

    Zur Waffenbesitzentscheidung: Verstehe ich das richtig, dass die Politiker aus allen Lagern ihre Bemühungen einstellen können, den Waffenbesitz in irgendeiner Form einzuschränken, weil ein solches Gesetz ohnehin wieder aufgehoben würde?

    #18Verfasser harambee (91833) 24 Jun. 22, 17:46
    Bei der derzeitigen Besetzung des SCOTUS ist das schwer anzunehmen, ja :-/
    #19Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 24 Jun. 22, 19:56
    Und weiter geht's ...


    Thomas wants the Supreme Court to overturn landmark rulings that legalized contraception, same-sex marriage
    In a concurring opinion to the Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, the conservative jurist called on the court to overrule a trio of watershed civil rights rulings, writing, "We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

    Was als nächstes nach den gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehen? Gemischtrassige Ehen? Aberkennung der Bürgerrechte für Nicht-Weiße?

    *The Handmaid's Tale" war eine Fiktion, kein Handbuch :-/
    #20Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 24 Jun. 22, 20:32

    The Handmaid's Tale" war eine Fiktion, kein Handbuch :-/

    Wie dulcinea (?) mal wo geschrieben hat: Alles, was in dem Buch beschrieben wird, war irgendwo zu irgendeiner Zeit Realität.

    Ich hätte es im Leben nicht für möglich gehalten, dass eine liberale Demokratie wie Amerika sich zurückentwickelt. Das ist wirklich gruslig. Scary.

    #21Verfasser Gibson (418762) 24 Jun. 22, 21:13
    Aber wirklich :-(
    #22Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 24 Jun. 22, 22:00

    Ich stolpere ein ums andere Mal in der Übersicht über die "Biden-Ärä" des Fadentitels. Nun komme ich ich (völlig zusammenhanglos, habe nicht mitgelesen und weiß nicht, ob und wie oft der Einwand schon kam) nicht umhin, einzuwerfen, dass die Bezeichnung "Ära" für Herrn Bidens Präsidentschaft in keiner Weise gerechtfertigt ist. Die Ära wird bedauerlicherweise bis auf Weiteres von seinem Vorgänger bestimmt (werden). Wäre es nicht möglich/sinnvoll den/die Titel in "Biden-Episode" oder "Biden-Illusion" umzuändern? :-(

    #23Verfasser Bambam (48248)  24 Jun. 22, 22:08

    Ich glaube, das wäre bei drei Fäden einfach zu viel Aufwand. Doris ändert eigentlich nur Titel, wenn es für die Forumssuche wichtig ist.

    Und für ein abschließendes Urteil über Biden ist es eh etwas früh, finde ich.

    #24Verfasser Gibson (418762) 24 Jun. 22, 22:43

    Oberstes US-Gericht kippt Abtreibungsrecht

    (Stand: 24.06.2022 19:05 Uhr)

    Fast 50 Jahre lang gab es in den USA eine bundesweite Regelung für das Recht auf Schwangerschaftsabbruch. Nun hat der Supreme Court es gekippt - und es gelten wieder die Gesetze der einzelnen Bundesstaaten.

    Trump [...] feierte das Urteil. "Gott hat das entschieden", sagte der Ex-Präsident dem TV-Sender "Fox News".


    Ob Gott wirklich entschieden hätte, dass nun nicht nur ungeborenes, sondern auch geborenes Leben weniger Schutz genießt? In Entwicklungsländern, in denen Abtreibung verboten ist, wird nämlich viel illegal abgetrieben. Und wo Abtreibungen streng verboten sind, sind auch Aufklärung und Gesundheitsvorsorge meist schlecht. Frauen, die illegal abtreiben, haben ein erhöhtes Risiko, dabei zu sterben.


    #25Verfasser WittGenStein (1323045) 24 Jun. 22, 23:24
    WittGenStein, das ist diesen "ProLifern" doch sowas von sch**ßegal.
    #26Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 25 Jun. 22, 06:40

    Wenn Donald Trump behauptet, Gott habe das entschieden, scheint er sie ja höchst persönlich zu kennen. Wahrscheinlich hat Gott ihm ins Ohr geflüstert, dass Frauen (von denen sich die Mehrheit aus Verzweiflung für einen Schwangerschaftsabbruch entscheidet) für ihre Tat mit dem Tod eine gerechte Strafe erhalten.

    Ich würde mich auch mal so gerne mit Gott persönlich unterhalten, anscheinend können das aber nur Trump und seine evangelikale Anhängerschaft.

    #27Verfasser WittGenStein (1323045) 25 Jun. 22, 12:06

    Wenn man berücksichtigt, dass Trump selbst in seiner Amtszeit frei werdende Richterstellen mit erzkonservativen Nachfolgern besetzt hat, kann man die Behauptung, Gott habe das entschieden, so interpretieren, dass er sich für Gott hält.

    Eine Nummer kleiner geht bei ihm eh nicht.

    #28Verfasser Analphabet (1034545) 25 Jun. 22, 21:17
    Übrigens braucht es dafür kein Entwicklungsland, die Frauensterblichkeit ist in vielen Industrieländern mit restriktiven Abtreibungsgesetzen höher als in liberaleren.
    In Polen, in den USA... und in manchen südamerikanischen Ländern sitzen Frauen jahrelang im Gefängnis, weil sie nicht beweisen können, ob ihre Schwangerschaft absichtlich oder unabsichtlich geendet hat.
    Absurd angesichts der hohen Rate an Fehlgeburten bis zur 12. Woche, fast jede Frau hat einmal einen Frühabort.
    #29Verfasser tigger (236106) 26 Jun. 22, 23:24
    #30VerfasserPolko (1138531) 29 Jun. 22, 10:29

    Nicht so wirklich sicher wo man das posten sollte. Aber es passt zur Spaltung der Nach-Trump-USA, zu immer mehr Verschwörung nicht nur in der USA und vermutlich noch zu vielem mehr was irgendwie schief läuft in der Welt.


    Georgia Guidestones: 'America's Stonehenge' demolished after blast

    A granite monument in the US state of Georgia has been demolished for safety reasons after being damaged in a blast.

    An explosion early on Wednesday reduced one of the slabs at the Georgia Guidestones to rubble.

    CCTV footage showed a car leaving the scene and authorities are investigating.


    The Georgia Guidestones have long been a focus for conspiracy theories. Some believe the monument to be "Satanic" and a "portal to hell".


    Kandis Taylor, a losing candidate in Georgia's Republican gubernatorial primary, pledged to destroy the stones as part of her campaign.


    News of the monument's demolition has been cheered in some online circles. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones said he enjoyed the bombing of the stones "at an animal level", but added he would like them to stand as an "evil edifice" exposing depopulation plans.

    #31Verfasser traveller in time (589684) 07 Jul. 22, 17:12

    Biden hat Covid und leichte Symptome: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/...

    #32VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  21 Jul. 22, 18:07

    Kalifornien hat jetzt Texas nachgeahmt und ein Gesetz erlassen, dass es Privatbürgern ermöglicht, Hersteller und Verkäufer automatischer zu verklagen.


    Mal sehen, was die rechten Richter am SCOTUS an Verdrehungen und Verrenkungen betreiben, um das texanische Anti-Abtreibungsgesetz durchzuwinken, aber das kalifornische Anti-Waffengesetz zu kassieren ...

    #33Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 23 Jul. 22, 12:20

    Hat jetzt nicht direkt mit Biden zu tun, aber es ist halt eine Meldung aus den USA während der Präsidentschaft von Biden:



    In Kalifornien kann künftig jeder Bürger Verkäufer oder Hersteller von Sturmgewehren verklagen. Der US-Bundesstaat nimmt sich dabei das scharfe Abtreibungsrecht aus Texas zum Vorbild und sieht sich durch ein Urteil des Supreme Court bestärkt.


    Ich weiß nicht so recht, was ich davon halten soll. Grundsätzlich finde es ja gut, wenn versucht wird, die Anhänger von rigiden Abtriebungsregeln und laxen Waffengesetzen mit ihren eigenen Methoden zu bekämpfen. Ich finde aber, dass Gesetze hauptsächlich vom Staat durchgesetzt werden müssen. Natürlich sollen und müssen Bürger dabei helfen, aber soll man ihnen wirklich die Hauptaufgabe bei solch wichtigen Fragen geben? Muss das nicht die Spaltung im Land vertiefen?

    #34Verfasser harambee (91833) 23 Jul. 22, 12:20

    Wenn das keinen Synchronpunkt wert ist ... (-:

    #35Verfasser harambee (91833) 23 Jul. 22, 12:21


    #36Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 23 Jul. 22, 12:25
    # 24 die Frage ist halt, ob du etwas im Zivilrecht oder im Strafrecht ansiedeln willst - oder beides. Bei Körperverletzung u.ä. gibt es ja (im amerikanischen Recht) auch den strafrechtlichen Prozess und dann noch den zivilrechtlichen auf Schadensersatz. War das nicht OJ Simpson, der strafrechtlich von Mord freigesprochen wurde, aber zivilrechtlich trotzdem erheblich zahlen musste?

    Abtreibungen haben ja einzelne Bundesstaaten unter Strafe gestellt => Strafrecht, Staat verfolgt und verurteilt. Texas hat dem eben noch einen zivilrechtlichen „Zweig“ hinzugefügt - natürlich mit aus meiner Sicht nicht guten Absichten. Bei den Waffen das gleiche, aber gab es da nicht irgendwo ein (Bundes?)gesetz, das Waffenhersteller vor Schadensersatzforderungen schützt?
    #37Verfasser Qual der Wal (877524) 23 Jul. 22, 13:15
    Articles on the Biden presidency are generally negative, but the problems don't seem to be all his fault.

    Nevertheless, it seems only fair to ask how he's going to respond to the current economic crisis, and he doesn't seem to have an answer.

    In general, my impression is that he has been much too much a Myers-Briggs P, waiting and waiting and delaying, not taking any decisive action. Until it's too late.


    Veterans of Carter-Era Inflation Warn That Biden Has Few Tools to Tame Prices
    President Biden and Democrats face political peril as costs keep rising and midterm elections loom. ...
    When inflation surged in the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter convened his top economic advisers for weekly lunch meetings in which they tended to offer overly optimistic forecasts of how high prices would rise.
    But the political consequences of rising prices could not be escaped: By 1978, Democrats had lost seats in the House and Senate. A year later, Mr. Carter’s Treasury secretary, W. Michael Blumenthal, was ousted in a cabinet shake-up. In 1980, Mr. Carter lost his re-election bid in a landslide as the Federal Reserve, intent on bringing inflation down, raised interest rates so aggressively that it tipped the economy into a painful recession. ...
    President Biden and the Democrats in power now face a similar predicament as they scramble to tame inflation after a year of telling Americans that price gains would be short-lived. ... But to veterans of the Carter administration, the echoes of the past call for a greater sense of urgency from Mr. Biden despite his limited power to bring prices down.
    “The basic problem that this president faces is really not too dissimilar from the one that confronted Carter,” said Mr. Blumenthal, who is 96 and divides his time between Princeton, N.J., and Germany, where he was born. “President Biden faces this dilemma, and it’s certainly my hope that he will choose clearly, choose decisively and be very clear not only about the fact that he recognizes that inflation has to be dealt with, but that he is really willing to support painful steps to do that.”
    That pain could be severe if the Fed, as economists increasingly expect, is forced to tip the economy into recession in order to bring inflation to heel. The central bank has already begun raising interest rates quickly and signaled it will do whatever it takes to restore “price stability” as it tries to avoid the mistakes of the 1970s.
    Veterans of the Carter administration say Mr. Biden would be wise to also learn from the past and avoid half-measures that have popular appeal but do little to resolve the underlying problem, as well as forgo large spending initiatives. ...
    C. Fred Bergsten, the assistant secretary for international affairs at the Treasury Department from 1977 to 1981, said the United States should avoid the kind of domestic oil price controls that were in place during the 1970s and that the Carter administration eventually abandoned in 1979. Describing them as an “abysmal failure,” Mr. Bergsten said they distorted energy markets.
    “One lesson from the Carter administration is don’t do that,” Mr. Bergsten, 81, said. “Energy price controls discourage production and held down the supply side over time.”


    Democrats Are Having a Purity-Test Problem at Exactly the Wrong Time
    By Thomas B. Edsall
    There has been a burst of stories in recent weeks describing devastating internal conflicts within progressive organizations, the most conspicuous of which was Ryan Grim’s June 13 Intercept piece, “Elephant in the Zoom: Meltdowns Have Brought Progressive Advocacy Groups to a Standstill at a Critical Moment in World History.”
    Grim’s assessment resonated across the internet and was quickly followed by Molly Redden’s June 17 HuffPost account, “Inside the A.C.L.U.’s Post-Trump Reckoning”; Jon Gabriel’s article in the Arizona Republic on June 18, “Who needs a right-wing plot when progressives are busy eating themselves alive?”; Zack Colman’s June 19 Politico column, “Justice or overreach? As crucial test looms, Big Greens are under fire”; and John Harris’s June 23 Politico essay, “The Left Goes to War with Itself.”
    According to Grim (and those other reports), disputes over diversity, equity and inclusion — over doctrine, language and strategies — have paralyzed much of the left advocacy and nonprofit sector.


    Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
    Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business


    The Democrats’ New Spokesman in the Culture Wars
    The left desperately needs someone to stand up to Republicans’ rights rollback. Is Gavin Newsom up to the task?


    A multimillion-dollar campaign is pushing Dems to ditch antitrust reform
    Industry groups and allies are trying to make it an election issue ahead of the midterms.


    A Viable Third Party Is Coming, and It’s Starting with a New Jersey Lawsuit ...
    The Moderate Party is an experiment: an alliance between Democrats of all stripes, independents and moderate Republicans hoping to win an election while pursuing a reform to the election laws that could empower swing voters to save our democracy from toxic polarization. ...
    In several states, including New York and Connecticut, third parties can channel their energy into endorsing and placing on the ballot candidates who also run as Democrats or Republicans, giving their members the option to cast tactical votes for a major party candidate under a banner that better reflects their values. This is known as fusion voting, in which two parties fuse and form a coalition to support the same candidate.
    Fusion parties were common in 19th-century America.


    Keep Czars Far Away, in Moscow or Mar-a-Lago
    By Bret Stephens ...
    I thought of my forebears a few days ago while watching the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, give an interview to the BBC’s Steve Rosenberg. I thought of them again a few days later while watching scenes of a Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in the Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk, which left at least 18 people dead.
    Lavrov’s interview was a master class in what Joseph Conrad once called a Russian official’s “almost sublime contempt for truth.” The 2014 Maidan Revolution, Lavrov said, was a “neo-Nazi uprising.” The massacre in Bucha was a “staged tragedy.” ...
    The Russians deny that they struck the mall. The mendacity is as bottomless as the cruelty; each reinforces the other. ...
    My mother and grandmother came to the United States after the war, penniless, as displaced persons. With only one exception that I know of, the relatives left behind in Latvia were murdered in the Holocaust. ...
    tell these family stories not because they are unique but because they are common.
    The exhausted faces you see in the Ukrainian women and children crossing into other parts of Europe; the agonized faces of the Ukrainians recovering from injuries sustained in indiscriminate Russian fire; the sunken faces of the Ukrainians who survived Russian captivity in filthy cellars — these are not the faces of strangers. For tens of millions of Americans with relatively recent immigrant roots, they are the faces of our parents or grandparents. That’s true irrespective of whether their roots lie in Russia, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Iran or Venezuela.
    America’s concern for Ukraine is now palpably on the wane. The war is dragging on, Kyiv isn’t winning, and the United States is in an uproar over Supreme Court rulings, Jan. 6 committee hearings, inflation, a potential recession. Problems: We have them.
    But to understand the stakes in this war, it helps to personalize them. Ukraine’s fight isn’t just about its own freedom. To borrow a line from “Fiddler on the Roof,” it’s about keeping the czar “far away from us.”
    It’s also a reminder of what we are struggling to keep at home. A nation that welcomes immigrants, particularly poor ones. A nation in which it’s safe to loudly speak our minds. A nation that upholds the rule of law. A nation whose leaders — current or former — can’t just get away with an “almost sublime contempt for truth.” A nation that keeps faith with those struggling for freedom abroad. A nation that won’t sit still when freedoms slip away at home.


    The Culture War That More Christians Should Be Fighting ...
    In 2020, Pew reported that the middle class has been shrinking since the early 1970s. Since the 1980s the biggest spike in income has occurred for the top 5 percent of earners in America. The report concludes that over the past five decades — the whole course of our lives for many of us — there’s been a “long and steady rise in income inequality.” Still, despite the popularity of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 Democratic primary, a Pew report from the same year said that while a majority of Americans think there is “too much economic inequality” in the nation, fewer than half view this as a top political priority. The report also said that Republicans are likely to blame individuals rather than systemic forces for economic inequality, citing lifestyle choices or that “some people work harder than others.”
    But how would our contemporary understanding of politics change if economic justice is in fact a “traditional value”? The indifference Christians on the right often show about wealth disparity flies in the face of thousands of years of Christian teachings. While Christians throughout church history cared deeply about sexual and personal morality, the linchpin of a Christian vision of the social order was the flourishing of the economically disadvantaged. When church leaders across the ages cited evidence of social disorder, they consistently pointed to vast economic inequality.
    It’s not news that Christianity, like many other religions, values care for the poor. Throw a dart at the Bible and you are likely to hit a verse about the need to aid the vulnerable, to care for orphans and widows, to love the “least of these.” And most conservative Christians today would affirm the value of individual charity. But what strikes me as I listen to voices across history is not just that Christian leaders called for charity toward the poor but that they also emphasized economic justice. The poor were not simply those masses that we must patronizingly remember in our Christmas giving; they were entitled to material well-being. The rich were denounced as being in grave spiritual danger. Beyond that, the church proclaimed that society — including the government — had a responsibility to rein in greed and to ensure just distribution of wealth. ...
    The healing of the social order, according to these leaders, required the wealthy to change their motivations in light of Christ, to use their wealth not for private interests but for public welfare. One after another, a chorus of voices condemned usury — the lending of money at interest — except in very narrow circumstances. It makes one at least have to question what Augustine or Basil would say about student loan reform, credit card interest rates or calls to increase the minimum wage. ...
    Christian leaders continued to advocate economic reforms into the 20th century, but the fundamentalist-modernist controversy divided Protestant churches in America. Evangelicals, fundamentalists and others with more theologically conservative religious beliefs increasingly grew silent on economic justice. There are important exceptions to this. Catholic social teaching — and leaders like Dorothy Day — championed the labor movement. Black church traditions also held together convictions that white conservatives and progressives pried apart. Even among white Western evangelicals, voices like John Stott, Ron Sider and Jim Wallis called on their movement to address economic disparity. ...
    If we don’t talk about economic justice, if we aren’t passionate about curbing extreme wealth inequality, we are proffering an emaciated view of Christian political engagement, one shaped more by contemporary American discourse than the long history of the church.


    America Is in Denial
    Too many Americans are blithely dismissing threats that could prove cataclysmic. ...
    By Mitt Romney
    What accounts for the blithe dismissal of potentially cataclysmic threats? The left thinks the right is at fault for ignoring climate change and the attacks on our political system. The right thinks the left is the problem for ignoring illegal immigration and the national debt. But wishful thinking happens across the political spectrum. More and more, we are a nation in denial. ...
    Bolstering our natural inclination toward wishful thinking are the carefully constructed, prejudice-confirming arguments from the usual gang of sophists, grifters, and truth-deniers. Watching angry commentators on cable news, I’m reminded of H. L. Mencken’s observation: “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
    When entire countries fail to confront serious challenges, it doesn't end well. During the past half century, we Americans have lived in a very forgiving time, and seeing the world through rose-colored glasses had limited consequences. The climate was stable, our economy dwarfed the competition, democracy was on the rise, and our military strength made the U.S. the sole global hyperpower. Today, every one of those things has changed. If we continue to ignore the real threats we face, America will inevitably suffer serious consequences.
    What clears the scales from the eyes of a nation? Pearl Harbor did. 9/11 did. A crisis can shake the public consciousness. But a crisis may come too late for a course correction that can prevent tragedy. The only cure for wishful thinking is leadership. ...
    President Joe Biden is a genuinely good man, but he has yet been unable to break through our national malady of denial, deceit, and distrust. A return of Donald Trump would feed the sickness, probably rendering it incurable. Congress is particularly disappointing: Our elected officials put a finger in the wind more frequently than they show backbone against it. Too often, Washington demonstrates the maxim that for evil to thrive only requires good men to do nothing.
    I hope for a president who can rise above the din to unite us behind the truth. ... While we wait, leadership must come from fathers and mothers, teachers and nurses, priests and rabbis, businessmen and businesswomen, journalists and pundits. That will require us all to rise above ourselves—above our grievances and resentments—and grasp the mantle of leadership our country so badly needs.


    #38Verfasser hm -- us (236141) 23 Jul. 22, 13:45

    Vielleicht platzen ja ein paar Republikaner deswegen.
    #39Verfasser B.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 03 Aug. 22, 16:49


    Lawrence O'Donnell kommentiert.

    #40Verfasser jo-SR (238182) 31 Aug. 22, 07:22

    Joe Biden hält seine Versprechen:

    Statement by President Biden on Nord Stream 2

    President Biden on Nord Stream 2 Pipeline if Russia Invades Ukraine: "We will bring an end to it."

    Oder etwa doch nicht? Jetzt, wo es passiert ist, höre ich in den etablierten deutschsprachigen Qualitätsmedien nur, dass es a) ein Staat gewesen sein muss und b), dass ja nur Russland in Frage komme. Kein Wort darüber, dass Biden das versprochen hat. Wird mit keiner Silbe erwähnt. Gibt es etwas darüber in den englischsprachigen Medien?

    #41Verfasser mordnilap (835133) 28 Sep. 22, 15:16

    Ich bin zufällig über diesen Artikel gestolpert, in dem der Autor darlegt, warum seiner Meinung nach die USA auf einem Weg sind, die Demokratie nicht nur auszuhölen, sondern faktisch komplett zu zerstören.

    Ich finde es erschreckend.


    US supreme court

    The most terrifying case of all is about to be heard by the US supreme court

    Steven Donziger

    If the court upholds the rogue ‘Independent State Legislature’ theory, it would put the US squarely on the path to authoritarianism

    It is well-known that intense competition between democracy, authoritarianism and fascism is playing out across the globe in a variety of ways – including in the United States. This year’s US supreme court term, which started this week, is a vivid illustration of how the situation is actually worse than most people understand.

    A supermajority of six, unelected ultraconservatives justice – five of which were put on the bench by presidents who did not win the popular vote – have aggressively grabbed yet another batch of cases that will allow them to move American law to the extreme right and threaten US democracy in the process. The leading example of this disturbing shift is a little-known case called Moore v Harper, which could lock in rightwing control of the United States for generations.

    The heart of the Moore case is a formerly fringe legal notion called the Independent State Legislature (ISL) theory. This theory posits that an obscure provision in the US constitution allowing state legislatures to set “time, place, and manner” rules for federal elections should not be subject to judicial oversight. In other words, state legislatures should have the absolute power to determine how federal elections are run without court interference.

    Think about this theory in the context of the last US election. After Joseph Biden defeated Donald Trump resoundingly in both the popular vote and in the electoral college, Trump tried to organize a massive intimidation campaign to steal the election which played out in the storming of the Capitol building on 6 January. But behind the scenes, the legal core of this attempt was to convince the many Republican-controlled state legislatures (30 out of 50 states) to send slates of fake Trump electors from states like Arizona, Georgia and Michigan where Trump actually lost the popular vote.

    If Trump had succeeded, he would have “won” the election via the electoral college (itself an anti-democratic relic) and been able to stay in office another term. If the supreme court buys the theory in the Moore case, this could easily happen in 2024 and beyond. In fact, it is possible Republicans will never lose another election again if this theory is adopted as law. Or put another way, whether Republicans win or lose elections via the popular vote will not matter because they will be able to maintain power regardless.

    That’s not democracy.


    #42Verfasser Masu (613197)  07 Okt. 22, 08:17
  automatisch zu   umgewandelt