[chucker]

Originally Posted by Bryson Essentially, what would be the chances of the population at large accepting that this crackpot scheme is a legitimate means of seizing power, rather than just a terrorist attack?

I don’t think they’re high. For one, I don’t think there’s a sizeable population that thinks our elections are rigged. And in a broader sense, I think even among the far right — or far left, for that matter — “we need to radically change the system” isn’t a common opinion. The far right thinks we should let fewer foreigners in and be less intertwined with the EU. The far left thinks we should be more intertwined with Russia and less with the US. (I’m grossly oversimplifying here. The ranges are more diverse.) But neither seems to voice “the very concept of a parliament, chancellor, etc. is bad” or “Scholz stole this election”.

But, I will say that while the current system will always try to defend against them, coups and revolutions per se don’t have to be bad. It’s how the US came to be in the first place. Germany also, in 1848, had a failed attempt to set up a republic (it already had some level of democratic reforms, but some people felt they didn’t go far enough and were an appeasement strategy); some of those ideas were eventually recycled a century later into the republic that still exists today.

So… I think what it takes is a sentiment that the very system isn’t working for the citizen any more. Instead, in Germany, it’s more like various levels of “I disagree with these policies; they are dumb/go too far/go not far enough/whatever”.

Whereas, the US increasingly seems to have “I don’t even believe the election took place in an orderly manner”.

[turtle]

U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona said on Friday she is leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an independent, in an announcement just days after Democrats won a Senate race in Georgia to secure 51 seats in the 100-member chamber.

"Like a lot of Arizonans, I have never fit perfectly in either national party," Sinema said in an article for the Arizona Republic newspaper. 

Not entirely unexpected. Manchin is the other wild card in this. Both really are Democrat leaning, just the party seems to have moved on without them.

There is a gem in this article that really fits the discussion here though:

In the Arizona Republic article, Sinema described her disillusionment with what she described as a rigid two-party system that encourages partisanship over independence. "I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington. I registered as an Arizona independent," Sinema wrote.

[PB PM]

Seems like a two faced move. You run as a party member to get elected, got to take advantage of the very thing you say you hate, and then after you get in you dump the party.

[709]

She still expects to keep her committee assignments, so she'll be caucusing with the Dems (like King and Sanders, both Independents). Meaningless, performative, attention seeking. Pure Sinema.

[turtle]

I was actually thinking it was an attempt to ensure she keeps getting votes.

Sinema on Friday said her shift came as a growing number of people in her Western U.S. state were also declaring themselves politically independent, rejecting both the Republican and Democratic political labels. "We don't line up to do what we're told, automatically subscribe to whatever positions the national political parties dictate or view every issue through labels that divide us," she wrote.

So she wants to be sure she is voted back in in 2024 is kinda how I see it.

[709]

She was already a goner in '24. Her approval rating in AZ was ~35% before this 'pay attention to meeeee!' stunt, and she has a real threat against her seat in Ruben Gallego. Now that Warnock has won the Georgia election the power she fed off of during the last 2 years is gone, so she's switching parties in the hope to remain a key player. She's toast and this is her last 2 years in Congress. 'The Tusli and Kyrsten Show' will premier on Fox News Real America's Voice in Jan 2025.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by PB PM Seems like a two faced move. You run as a party member to get elected, got to take advantage of the very thing you say you hate, and then after you get in you dump the party.

Yeah. That just screams stability doesn't it?

Originally Posted by 709 ... She's toast and this is her last 2 years in Congress. ...

So then her making the political stunt to shift makes even more sense.

Originally Posted by Bart Well, can't you see that's the last act of a desperate (wo)man?

[709]

Originally Posted by turtle So then her making the political stunt to shift makes even more sense.

To her, I guess. She really really wants to be seen as the female version of Mavericky McCain in AZ (note her cringey thumbs-down vote on the Senate floor), but she never earned it and wouldn't have the loyalty to keep it if she did. She's a habitual bridge burner. In the end though, she wants her committees so she'll vote for Schumer so all this is attention seeking bullshit.

The real fun in DC these days is predicting if Kevin McCarthy has the votes for Speaker. He needs 218, has 222 Rs so can only lose 4 votes, and reigning in the far-right Qaucus is like herding cats. We'll see.

[turtle]

Yeah, I'm keeping a (bored and tired) eye on that one. Well sort of.

Really, all this political crap us just plain getting old. At this point to read posts by you, me and others who chime in it is like watching a football game.

He made it to the 50, 40, 30, FUMBLE!!!! Holy crap that just happened... Insert another sensational article to stir up people's emotions. Anger, fear or any other will do.

I mean, we both have our personal desires for how things should be governed. In the end, we can only vote and hope it works out the way we want right? Maybe do something like try to be an activist and push for donations, canvassing or whatever. Really though we are at the mercy of others choosing like we do.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by 709 Totally agree on that. The US needs a better system to allow 3rd parties a reasonable chance.

Originally Posted by 709 Meaningless, performative, attention seeking. Pure Sinema.

I mean, you kinda need to pick a line, here. Either you support whatever needs to happen to give 3rd parties a chance, or you cut them down when they make their move. Which is it? You could say that it's just attention seeking or she's a doofus or whatever, but the "movement" has to start somewhere, doesn't it?

Also, since thinking about it, most Independents vote with Democrats, so … what even is the point?

FWIW, I have no idea who she is and don't care. But I'll support whatever action gives Republicrats the biggest headache.

[709]

Originally Posted by kscherer I mean, you kinda need to pick a line, here. Either you support whatever needs to happen to give 3rd parties a chance, or you cut them down when they make their move. Which is it?

Independent isn't a party, it's the absence of one, and the most common way to run outside of (D) and (R). My line is safe, thanks. I was thinking more along the lines of ranked choice, laws against gerrymandering, expanding the House, etc.

Originally Posted by kscherer FWIW, I have no idea who she is and don't care.

Sitting US Senator for AZ. 'Independent' thinker (until she's paid not to). Perpetual preener.

So, a non-partied politician that will be running on her character alone. Perfect, right? Toast.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer I mean, you kinda need to pick a line, here. Either you support whatever needs to happen to give 3rd parties a chance

I'd be more sympathetic if she had anything resembling a political ideology other than "whatever gets me elected".

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by 709 Independent isn't a party, it's the absence of one, and the most common way to run outside of (D) and (R).

OK, I'll accept your line … for now.

Originally Posted by chucker I'd be more sympathetic if she had anything resembling a political ideology other than "whatever gets me elected".

Since "getting elected" is the primary goal, there isn't a politician on this planet that will ever meet your standard.

Their political ideology is "whatever gets me elected".

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer Since "getting elected" is the primary goal, there isn't a politician on this planet that will ever meet your standard. Their political ideology is "whatever gets me elected".

I don't buy that at all. Yes, politicians will fine-tune their message to appeal to the electorate. But most won't swing between wildly different takes based on what they currently think is popular.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by chucker I don't buy that at all. Yes, politicians will fine-tune their message to appeal to the electorate. But most won't swing between wildly different takes based on what they currently think is popular.

Not many of them, that’s for sure. Some of the younger ones seem a little more, let’s say adaptable.

[drewprops]

The majority of effective legislators who provide a genuine service to the people they represent probably come in as firebrands set on changing the system.

Most of them do not know how the system works.

Some of them bang their head against the wall until they give up and leave or are voted out.

Others are shaped by the system and learn how to work within it, some faster than others.

If they survive the political tides they master the system and are able to legislate at a master level.

I have never seen immediate success from sharp ideological changes in direction, because a population needs time to ingest new ideas into the general culture.

This small but well known group of swing legislators command attention by being iconoclasts, but they play a dangerous game when it comes time to be reelected because populations are lazy and do not understand complex positions.

She could make this work for her, if she makes it clear to voters that she is "not one of the regular legislators who always vote down party lines".

In Georgia, Governor Brian Kemp managed to walk a line that allowed him to stand clear of Trump without disavowing Trump.

It's weird math.

[kieran]

I'm not surprised at all about Sinema switching. She lost some of her power since she's not entirely needed for a tie breaker.

There are a lot of downfalls to a two party system and I completely get being underwhelmed and disappointed in each of the major US parties.

I think if we got rid or separate primaries and just wen two straight ranked choice voting across the board and didn't list political parties on the ballot, things would be a lot more true to life, without all of this gerrymandered bullshit People just vote for party lines no matter who the candidate is. latest example being the worst senate candidate in history with Herschel Walker. Still got almost half of the votes...

[drewprops]

I have been fairly wigged out about the recent power station attacks but only started looking for news articles this morning. This one from ABC News came out in early December *before* the latest attacks, but it provides a lot of context.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/attacks-pl...ry?id=94574765

Their desire to foment carnage inside our own country seems like a hanging offense to me.

...

[drewprops]

Furniture restorer cracks Ice Age code of cave paintings.

Not just art, but a tool.

...

[turtle]

That is kinda cool to read. Someone not from the typical academia helping to solve the puzzle.

[PB PM]

Just goes to show that a fresh set of eyes can see something others can miss. Great story.

[Frank777]

I hope you guys enjoyed the first six days of the new year, brimming with promise and possibility. It's all downhill from here.

[Frank777]

Hmmm. Maybe things are looking up. We've finally figured out how we used to do things 2,000 years ago.

[Frank777]

The world is in the very best of hands.

[PB PM]

^ This is why outsourcing is bad. They should have at least used duct tape for goodness sake.

[Frank777]

It's also why Canada must never buy nuclear subs. Given how the military maintains our tanks, superglue is likely a best-case scenario for fixing subs.

[PB PM]

The super glue was all we could afford in the late 1980's, guess it's only gotten worse from there.

[turtle]

That is pretty wild. I mean, it is a huge deal to do anything out of the norm in the nuke world. Tools are regulated to the point that it is a "nuclear incident" if a socket is missing from the tool drawer. The fact that the contractors were able to break the bolts and then glue them back on as though they were good is just wild!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it isn't that strict for all tools associated with the operation of a nuclear power plant. Specifically, it is any tool that has detectable radiation or has potentially been exposed to radioactive contamination, and those tools are (supposed to be) limited to use on specific systems. The tools are controlled by an inventory list, but not to the point of using serial numbers on tools that do not already have a serial number.

Also, the comment on duct tape is appropriate, because there are anecdotal stories (not documented anywhere that I know of, but regarded as common knowledge in shipyards) that at least one submarine has gone to test depth during sea trials (testing following an overhaul or new construction) with duct tape covering hull openings, and it was not discovered until the ship was back in port.

[kscherer]

I don't think it's possible for duct tape to hold up at "test depth" (likely below 500 feet), so I think the anecdotal bit must be taken with a large sprinkling of salt. I could see it being used for some other purpose where there is no place for water to enter the pressurized portion of the hull.

But at depth? 500 feet is 216psi, and water under that pressure is going through duct tape.

Although I could see that being tried in Russia …