domain:betonit.substack.com
quiet_NaN
8hr ago
A large number of parties making coalitions more difficult in Weimar was at least the excuse the Grundgesetz used to impose a 5% limit on votes. And I think that argument has a bit of a point. I mean, in the 1928 elections in Germany.
Percentage of Reichstag seats:
- Far-Left:
- KPD (Communists): 11%
- Democratic:
- SPD (Social democrats): 31.2%
- Zentrum (Catholics): 12.4%
- DVP (Right liberal): 9.1%
- DDP (Left liberal): 5.1% (but below 5% of the popular vote!)
- BVP (Bavarians): 3.4%
- Far Right:
- DNVP (Monarchists): 14.8%
- NSDAP (Nazis): 2.4%
- Others (some probably also democratic):
- WP (middle class Saxons?): 4.6%
- Smaller parties: 5.7%
Here, the five parties under the heading democratic formed a coalition with had a whopping 61.2% majority. I am not sure why they did it that way. They obviously needed SPD and Zentrum. Perhaps a coalition with the DVP only would have resulted in the them being more vulnerable to threats of the DVP to walk out. Instead with the five party coalition, none of the three junior partners could threaten to break the government by walking out. Or they wanted to share power among the democratic parties to ensure that none of them would profit more by defecting to the anti-democrats. From a modern German perspective, this seems weird. Top politicians generally want to become ministers. Anyone suggesting that a coalition should give up 19% of the minister posts to parties which they don't require to form a majority to be more inclusive towards fellow democratic-minded parties would be laughed out of the room.
Did I have a point to make? Hm... if the Reichstag had a 5% barrier to entry, then 21.2% of the seats would not have gone to smaller parties. But 8.5% of them would just have been shuffled around among the coalition (BVP going to Zentrum, DDP perhaps forming a general liberal party with DVP). At the the ~10% of seats of the Others might have bolstered the ranks of the bigger democratic parties.
For democracy to thrive, you need both a viable coalition of democratic parties and a credible opposition of democratic parties offering another option. If 11% of the seats are taken by people who want to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and some 17% are by people who want to restore the monarchy or establish a Fuehrerstaat, then you are in trouble perhaps not immediately but in the next elections, as people disillusioned with the previous government end decide to vote them out, and will likely turn to the extremist parties.
It is a bit of a catch-22: if the democrats don't form coalitions with the toxic extremist parties, the extremist parties won't get blamed for bad outcomes while the democrats will, and if they form coalitions with them they might just enable a Machtergreifung.
Having ten or percent of the seats occupied by sub-5% small parties which can not form stable coalitions due to scaling issues is making the problem a bit worse, but the main problem is the extremist parties.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
12hr ago
afaik, the only effect of getting consistently downvoted here is that the poster will keep winding up in the new user filter, which means we mods have to manually approve their posts. This happened to @guesswho, despite his having been a regular poster for months, and now it's happening to @AhhhTheFrench.
Goodguy
4hr ago
There are some similarities, but unlike /r/redscarepod rDrama is not left-wing on economics or heavily anti-Israel.
AvocadoPanic
2hr ago
Was the Jedward coverage unique out of recent eurovision coverage?
theory
13hr ago
There was American Song Contest on NBC in 2022 and hosted by Snoop Dogg and Kelly Clarkson, but mixed reception meant it had no 2023 and beyond editions.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
6hr ago
I always assumed that putting the Presidential security detail in the Treasury Department (where the Secret Service sat until it was moved into DHS in 2003) was a coup-proofing measure - you wanted the detail to have a totally different reporting line to the military or federal law enforcement. But checking dates suggests that the story might be simpler - the Secret Service took over Presidential security in 1901 (after the McKinley assassination) and the FBI wasn't established until 1908. So at the time they put the detail in the Secret Service, the only civilian alternatives were a new agency, the Marshalls Service, or the Postal Inspectorate. I suspect the Postal Inspectorate would have done a better job.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11hr ago
The New York courts get to decide the law. They're not impartial. Any appeals would have to go all the way through the New York system (with Trump potentially imprisoned the whole time) before reaching the Supreme Court. Which would most probably simply reject any appeal on the grounds that there is no substantial Federal question.
zeke5123a
14hr ago
Well, the answer is he hasn’t.
-
The NY case (that appears to again be coordinated with the WH) is a joke. First, it is very unclear whether Trump committed the book keeping record violation. Second, it is pretty clear that Trump did not as a matter of law commit the predicate crime (Campaign Finance law violation) that enables the SOL to run. The prosecution would need to argue that Trump was mistaken about campaign finance law and thought notwithstanding the actual law the law was different. That is a tough hill to climb. Next the prosecution needs to prove that Trump made the book keeping error (which might not be an error) to cover up the non crime Trump thought was a crime despite Trump likely not even being involved with classifying the small claim on the books (ie he wouldn’t be looking at the books item by item). Then, there is a question of whether the NY law can even use federal law as the predicate crime. Andy McCarthy wrote about this. Finally, the prosecution is based entirely on the word of serial perjurer Michael Cohen. In a fair trial with a fair jury pool, this case is never brought because it’s absurd. The prosecution is relying on a politically motivated judge and jury pool. Keep in mind Manhattan went about 90% for Biden. With a good jury selection there were probably no Trump voters on this jury.
-
The documents case is legit (albeit some of the info coming out suggests the government may have been trying to set Trump up and he fell for it). But Biden then has to answer “why Trump and not Biden” since Biden has his own documents violation. There is also the Clinton precedent (remember she unilaterally deleted evidence under subpoena).
-
The Jan 6 case was a case of protected speech. Trump didn’t do anything that was illegal. Moreover, there is an arguable double jeopardy question. Finally, it seems likely that some of the indictments will be mooted by the SCoTUS (not on immunity claim but in a collateral challenge by J6 defendants). Again here the prosecution is primarily relying on judge and jury pool (DC went 95% for Biden; Haley won the Republican primary).
-
The Georgia case is an absolute mess. If you read the entire context of the call, it is clear that Trump believes there was massive fraud (which given what is happening in Fulton inquiry looks more likely by the day) and wasn’t asking to manufacture fake voters; instead, he was making the point the margin of victory was so small and the fraudulent votes (in his mind) was so many that it wouldn’t take much to flip the state. That again is protected speech and isn’t illegal. Turning that into a RICO is just insane. Add in Fani’s unprofessional behavior where she has committed forensic misconduct and appears to have engaged in a kick back scheme also calls into question the soundness of the prosecution.
I say none of this as a Trump guy. I wish RDS had won.
at some point, 'oopsies, we made yet another misleading statement totally accidentally and also fought to avoid admitting it for months and also here are better, more innocent explanations for why evidence has been tampered with' should adjust your priors in meaningful ways as opposed to handwaving "reduced credibility" which doesn't actually affect the way you evaluate any of this
...You appear to be making the above argument about "oopsies" in this case. But of course, the agency in question has an absolutely horrifying history of previous "oopsies". @gattsuru covers a small selection of recent cases, and as he mentions, those aren't even top-ten contenders.
The FBI has been a deeply corrupt institution since the day of its founding. We actually know quite a few details about the sort of leader Hoover was, and the sort of organization he built. We know how that organization operated six decades ago, five, four, three. And then, somehow, the magical trustworthiness always appears for the current agency whose behavior we can only incompletely analyze, so they always get the benefit not only of the doubt, but of willful ignorance.
zeke5123a
14hr ago
Well, it is now looking like Trump may have been right. We know Wisconsin election was illegally ran in a way that probably tilt the balance from Trump to a Biden. The recent Georgia inquiry likewise shows different shenanigans in favor of Biden.
Add to it the hunter Biden false prebunking annd the interesting J6 revelations …are we sure Trump wasn’t the legit winner and Bisen is the one who ended democracy?
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
3hr ago
I always see these reading threads and think y'all read such heavy stuff. I read for fun. Not a serious book in sight.
Not to be too cynical, and I'm sure people here do routinely read some dense texts, but there's definitely an incentive here to selectively post about things that make you look smart. I'm sure the majority of people read their pulpy scifi and trashy fantasy alongside The Rise and Fall but just don't discuss it.
AvocadoPanic
5hr ago
Baby Lasagna was robbed.
Felagund
20hr ago
Sorry, I kind of have to agree with ArjinFerman—at least, it would be disastrous for the forum if everyone started adopting your tone and habits of response. You're consistently above-average in antagonism and dismissiveness. And this definitely is one of the factors in you drawing more downvotes—it's often the reason if ever I downvote you. That of course doesn't address the overall problem of voting based on whether people like it driving dissenting views away, but it could make a meaningful difference in your particular case.
So I guess, two.
2rafa
7hr ago
I’d guess the kind of people who liked baseball (coastal white ethnics) are now the dominant soccer audience in the US. Baseball seems to have completely died in terms of younger audience.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
22hr ago
Judging by precedent, studiously ignoring them seems to be a popular option.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
17hr ago
Confusingly.
Basically, Eurovision has two separate votes: televote (ie. conducted among viewers) and jury vote. Both are organized country by country, with both the televotes and the juries awarding a maximum of twelve points to the top-voted country, 10 points to the second most voted, and then 8, 7, 6, 5 etc. to the next ones.
The implicit purpose of the jury vote can often specifically negate the televote when there's a feeling a "non-preferred" song (typically one that seems too much like a comedy entry and not like a traditional Eurovision winner ballad) might win (like last year...), so it's possible that Israel might, for instance, win the televote and not the jury vote. Then again it might also do quite well in the jury vote, Israel has not been a particularly bad performer there either in the previous contests, from what I've understood.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9hr ago
I always deeply resented the sort of "wisdom" you're describing, and that hasn't really changed. I resent the fact that our political establishment has insulated itself from any form of legal accountability, and one of the reasons I continue to support Trump is because I want the contrast as stark as possible. Prior to Trump, one could claim that the insulation from legal consequences was at least impartial, because both sides enjoyed it. Now we see that both sides enjoyed it because they were part of the establishment, not because the system was actually impartial. The common knowledge is useful for coordinating defiance to that establishment.
Bleep
9hr ago
government admission that evidence has been tampered with post seizure is a serious issue; you want to give the government the benefit of the doubt in all places we don't have "actual evidence" their conduct was below the standard we should expect, but that isn't a fair assessment given the history of these prosecutors not only in this case but others
we're talking about an extreme standard to prove criminal guilt; reasonable doubt inhabits these hidden areas of government conduct
at some point, 'oopsies, we made yet another misleading statement totally accidentally and also fought to avoid admitting it for months and also here are better, more innocent explanations for why evidence has been tampered with' should adjust your priors in meaningful ways as opposed to handwaving "reduced credibility" which doesn't actually affect the way you evaluate any of this
for these prosecutors, bridging the gap from this admission to concluding they're likely lying is justifiable
There should be a requirement that people who act as if the ruling class is only a useful category when it is legible explain what they think people ought to do in political regimes where the ruling class is incentivized to be as illegible as possible.
Because I don't really see "not talk about the ruling class" as an acceptable answer to that question. And we happen to live in one such illegible regime.
These demands for specificity displace the object level debate into another debate about the true nature of the ruling class, in which dissidents usually disagree with each other, and thus serves the interests of the ruling class by keeping opponents divided. Since that rhetoric serves an interest, I find it suspect.
In a sense it is in effect completely irrelevant what the nature of the ruling class is, what matters is who is their friend, and who is their enemy. And that can be easily divined without needing to elucidate the specifics of who they are down to a list of names.
Today is Eurovision! For you Americans this is like the Super Bowl, only with power ballads, ABBA nostalgia, residuals of nationalism and flamboyant glittery gayness. The European song contest is often watched ironically in a party setting with family or friends, we print out sheets of the participants and give them points and have a competition who can make the most snarky comment, but deep down under the snark, irony and sarcasm we love it!
This year it is sadly very very political, because of the participation of Israel. The songs name was named „October rain“ but had to be changed, together with lyrics, to remove references of the Hamas attack. So there isn’t plausible deniability that it is an unpolitical love song.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/eurovision-israel-eden-golan-protests-gaza-palestine-072826896.html
He said the majority of the crowd were booing and shouting 'free Palestine' with very few people cheering for her. Mina said: "I could see people arguing in the standing section, and people were shouting at others that were booing to shut up."
For television the sound engineers did amplify applause and mute the boos which also gives a nice discussion about truth and Orwell etc. It will be very interesting what sound from the audience will be broadcast at the final show today.
Surprisingly (or not) Israel doesn’t have only haters, their betting odds improved massively, they actually have a chance to win the contest!
https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1788690154133012637
Italian TV accidentally revealed their televoting percentages during tonight's #Eurovision semi-final, according to which the Israeli 🇮🇱 song is leading by 40%, with a huge margin ahead of all others.
hydroacetylene
11hr ago
Well yes, college ball is too much like the pros these days. Need something lighthearted and trashy, for to let the chainsmoking wives of America fly their regional prejudices proudly over the most trivial excuses.
BahRamYou
17hr ago
I'm sure some of that is just "what decade did you grow up in" but yeah, 2000s had some great advantages for the artistic potential of video games:
- advanced enough to handle 3d graphics easily
- still small enough to be done with a reasonably small team
- broadband internet available, but not required
- enough time to learn from past video games, but not locked in on DLC and other marketing addiction crap
- big-budget games were still willing to experiment and try new stuff
- mostly not concerned about wokeness
What's particularly funny is how even defense lawyers get into it. Cfe when themotte's own notice that an FBI agent perjured herself at length during a criminal trial; he was genuinely curious how the FBI agent would weasel out of it (spoiler: easily!), and even entertained the possibility "whether the prosecutors will bother" to bring perjury charges (spoiler: no).
More options
Context Copy link