Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: A Feast for Crows

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Fez said:

Yeah, the previous case on this topic, though not a direct analog, was Lozman v. Rivera Beach; which was an 8-1 decision with only Thomas dissenting. Kennedy being replaced by Kavanaugh is the only change the bench since then.

Thomas has very peculiar and specific legal opinions, and Kavanaugh may very well be a purely political creature, but Roberts/Alito/Gorsuch aren't hacks; especially Roberts. They are extremely conservative on many issues and want to eventually overturn Lockner, but there's a reason over 40% of cases last year were still decided 9-0 or 8-1 and another 30% were 7-2 or 6-3. 

Exactly.  People have a right to speak to police and being irritated is not grounds for arrest.  People who believe in limited government should be disturbed by Police (the literal tooth and claws of Government) abusing their authority.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m deeply skeptical that $25b will cover even half the costs. And then there’s the annual upkeep…..

But it's a great windfall of theft for the orange nazi and his ilks-cronies of OUR money that should be going for something essential such as bridges and tunnels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Exactly.  People have a right to speak to police and being irritated is not grounds for arrest.  People who believe in limited government should be disturbed by Police (the literal tooth and claws of Government) abusing their authority.

Should be, but the reality is that many conservatives reflexively support the police, even when it is not justified. And  many police are themselves conservative and there is a long history of police bias against black men, the homeless, and leftist activists.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Should be, but the reality is that many conservatives reflexively support the police, even when it is not justified. And  many police are themselves conservative and there is a long history of police bias against black men, the homeless, and leftist activists.

 

I have long puzzled over that clear contradiction in policy postions.  Why would someone who fears government abusing its power not be frightened of clear examples of government abusing its power?  Yet “conservatives” go out of their way to defend and offer apologia for law enforcement abusing its power over the public...

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something strange is going to down in the NC-9 congressional district, the board of elections voted 9-0 (5 Dems and 4 Reps) to refuse to certify the election result, which had been the incumbent Republican (Harris) winning the race by just 905 votes. Its unclear what the exact reason is, but one board member publicly mentioned something about "unfortunate activities" and an elections investigator seized some number of absentee ballots the week of the election from Bladen County, which Harris won by 1,557 votes. The Board has the authority to order a new election, so things are getting pretty heated in the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

A great critique of how garbage civility is, and how fucking clueless Dems are.
 

Have you never, civily, told someone to fuck off?  I’d rather have heated discussions than blood in the streets.  But that’s my take.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I have long puzzled over that clear contradiction in policy postions.  Why would someone who fears government abusing its power not be frightened of clear examples of government abusing its power?  Yet “conservatives” go out of their way to defend and offer apologia for law enforcement abusing its power over the public...

it's because the use of power is almost always directed at an other out group that is not part of thine own in group. This is the proper use of power for most people, "my privilege as a member of the in group protects me and I support policies that enforce the high status of my privilege" thus police/government abuse of power, for many/most people is NOT abuse of power but is representative of the proper use of power for many/most people.

They want it that way and they like it that way. They freak the fuck out at the prospect of their own strategies being implemented upon themselves and they believe any implementation that DOES NOT create privilege and status for themselves in the use of power is in fact an abuse of power against them. Thus blind justice or neutral justice is inherently abusive to them if implemented, by their rationale, because they are no longer getting special treatment.

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Assuming Trump doesn't pardon him, which, given the loyalty he's shown, is likely.  He still has state crimes to worry about, but this isn't one of them.

We'll see on the state crimes. Gamble v United States could end that threat though there is some dispute on that given State crimes might be "different" enough to avoid that. I think Manafort gets pardoned. Trump has been laying the groundwork for it the last few weeks by saying he's been really unfairly treated, that Mueller's group is forcing him to lie and that he won't rule out pardoning him. 

Edited by Mexal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

it's because the use of power is almost always directed at an other out group that is not part of thine own in group. This is the proper use of power for most people, "my privilege as a member of the in group protects me and I support policies that enforce the high status of my privilege" thus police/government abuse of power, for many/most people is NOT abuse of power but is representative of the proper use of power for many/most people.

They want it that way and they like it that way. They freak the fuck out at the prospect of their own strategies being implemented upon themselves and they believe any implementation that DOES NOT create privilege and status for themselves in the use of power is in fact an abuse of power against them. Thus blind justice or neutral justice is inherently abusive to them if implemented, by their rationale, because they are no longer getting special treatment.

And that point of view is incredibly short sighted.  It assumes that “privilege” will always exist.  I’m concerned about my son, who’s never seen an argument he can avoid, is going to get shot by an irritated police officer and the officer will claim “subjective fear” to justify his or her actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And that point of view is incredibly short sighted.  It assumes that “privilege” will always exist.  I’m concerned about my son, who’s never seen an argument he can avoid, is going to get shot by an irritated police officer and the officer will claim “subjective fear” to justify his or her actions.

Privilege always exists. It has already always existed. It will always exist in the future. This is a very good and well founded assumption for people to make, its not short sighted, its about as long sighted as it’s possible to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Privilege always exists. It has already always existed. It will always exist in the future. This is a very good and well founded assumption for people to make, its not short sighted, its about as long sighted as it’s possible to get.

Until they or their child is killed.  This is not only a racial issue.  It is law enforcement holding itself to a different standard of behavior than that which applies to the rest of us.  That’s never proper.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelosi easily became the nominee for Speaker, however more than 30 blue dog Democrats voted against her, and a few more abstained. If that result repeats during the official vote and Republicans don’t cross the line to vote for her (a pretty safe assumption) she’d fall short of becoming Speaker, and the ensuing turmoil would probably lead Republicans to laugh all the way to the bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Pelosi easily became the nominee for Speaker, however more than 30 blue dog Democrats voted against her, and a few more abstained. If that result repeats during the official vote and Republicans don’t cross the line to vote for her (a pretty safe assumption) she’d fall short of becoming Speaker, and the ensuing turmoil would probably lead Republicans to laugh all the way to the bank.

She's probably safe, though its not a guarantee yet. In 2016 (when the stakes were admittedly lower because she had zero chance of actually becoming Speaker), there were 63 defections in the caucus vote but only 4 in the floor vote.

She can probably strong-arm and negotiate most of those 30 (who aren't all Blue Dogs, though most do come from the moderate wing of the party). She doesn't need them to become yes votes either, she only needs them to vote present, which lowers the threshold of the floor vote. She needs an absolute majority only among members who actually vote for a candidate and she already has more votes than McCarthy even if she couldn't get any of the 30 to flip to yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Pelosi easily became the nominee for Speaker, however more than 30 blue dog Democrats voted against her, and a few more abstained. If that result repeats during the official vote and Republicans don’t cross the line to vote for her (a pretty safe assumption) she’d fall short of becoming Speaker, and the ensuing turmoil would probably lead Republicans to laugh all the way to the bank.

Some of the no votes had explicit clearance to vote against her to show off for their swing districts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelosi is fine. Most of those votes are to fulfill campaign promises, and they can just turn around and say they voted for her on the floor because there's no way in hell they'd allow a Republican to be Speaker with a Democratic majority. She won't get the full caucus, and she may very well get by with the bare minimum, but she's all but a lock now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking News: Water is wet and Trump is losing his mind.

This interview he gave to WaPo is insane. Here's a funny highlight list:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/donald-trump-washington-post/index.html

My favorite is this one:

Quote
7. "You look at our air and our water, and it's right now at a record clean."
 
First off, "record clean." Second, we do not have "record clean."
 
8. "And when you're talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over."
 
This is not The Onion. This is a real quote. On the "oceans are very small" point: Oceans cover roughly 70% of the Earth's surface.

I thought we couldn't  do a better job of helping Puerto Rico because we had to over come that "big water, ocean water."

In all seriousness though, I can't imagine anyone else saying some of the things on the list. I still have no idea how his supporters can think he's a smart guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Breaking News: Water is wet and Trump is losing his mind.

This interview he gave to WaPo is insane. Here's a funny highlight list:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/donald-trump-washington-post/index.html

My favorite is this one:

I thought we couldn't  do a better job of helping Puerto Rico because we had to over come that "big water, ocean water."

In all seriousness though, I can't imagine anyone else saying some of the things on the list. I still have no idea how his supporters can think he's a smart guy.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone so proud of his ignorance as Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone so proud of his ignorance as Trump.

Millions of his supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The letter, obtained last week by The Atlantic, was sent to Democratic Representative Adam Schiff’s office on November 19 by an individual who claims to have been close to Papadopoulos in late 2016 and early 2017. The letter was brought to the attention of Schiff and House Intelligence Committee staff, according to an aide who requested anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. The letter was also obtained by federal authorities, who are taking its claims “very seriously,” said two U.S. officials who also requested anonymity due to the sensitivities of the probe.

The statement makes a series of explosive but uncorroborated claims about Papadopoulos’s alleged coordination with Russians in the weeks following Trump’s election in November 2016, including that Papadopoulos said he was “doing a business deal with Russians which would result in large financial gains for himself and Mr. Trump.” The confidant—whose name The Atlantic is withholding at their request but whose identity is known to congressional and federal investigators—said they were willing to take a polygraph test “to prove that I am being truthful” and had come forward now after seeing Papadopoulos “become increasingly hostile towards those who are investigating him and his associates.”  A lawyer for Papadopoulos declined to comment.

 

Papadopoulos’s Russia Ties Continue to Intrigue
The former foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign boasted of a Russia business deal even after the election, according to a new letter under review.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/papadopouloss-russia-ties-still-interest-fbi-schiff/576895/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×