U.S. Politics: Phantom of the Emergency

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I appreciate your point.  Nevertheless, a “living” document implies we don’t need Art. V.  If the Constitution is supposed to be that flexible why does it have an Amendment process at all?

I think you're kind of just getting hung up on semantics.  Clearly, jurists interpret the BoR, the 14th amendment, and a whole bunch of the rest of the constitution differently today than they did 70 years ago (or 100 years ago, etc.), and that's definitely a good things.  Therefore, I don't see a problem with referring to it as a "living" document.

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure suburban whites damn well better be at least a somewhat substantial portion of the Dem vote in the general, but for the primary electorate?  I think that's a little premature - those we can count on voting in the primary would probably be encapsulated by the party loyalists.  Be great if that's not the case though, of course.

Right. But its not just the suburban whites, in sense they always talked about. It's also folks like the management consultant friend of mine that always voted Republican until 2008, when he was so disgusted of McCain's pick of Palin to be VP and the anti-intellectualism it represented that he voted for Obama and has gone Democratic every election since. He still wishes the party supported more deregulation and lower taxes though.

Basically, educated white people that are more anti-Republican than pro-Democratic and potentially have been since the Bush years. There's a lot of them in the greater DC area, but this place is so unique in some ways that I don't know if its phenomenon found anywhere else.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Maybe I'm in a bubble, but I feel like a Nate's five corners is missing an corner (which is only going to grow in size if the 2018 flipped suburbs stay blue) which I guess I'd call "Moderate Whites." In terms of policy views and concerns, its sort of like Party Loyalists, but there's no particular loyalty to the party itself or party elites. And they sometimes are downright conservative on some issues, but despise Trump (and in some cases despised the GOP long before him for its anti-LGBT or anti-minority views) to the point where they willing vote Democratic. Other times they are relatively liberal, but are skeptical of full-on left-wing politicians.

 

They don't matter for shit for the primary. 

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Definitely find her relatable, which is not a critical requirement for my support of a politician, but it's a nice-to-have.

Mostly I'm just jazzed she's read something like Watchmen. That puts her at least one book ahead of our President.

*whispers*
She probably only watched the movie given her age

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Basically, educated white people that are more anti-Republican than pro-Democratic and potentially have been since the Bush years. There's a lot of them in the greater DC area, but this place is so unique in some ways that I don't know if its phenomenon found anywhere else.

I mean, I guess you could also add "and posh areas in big cities," but yeah I'm assuming most educated white people live in suburbs in the aggregate.

[Ormond]

29 minutes ago, Fez said:

Right. But its not just the suburban whites, in sense they always talked about. It's also folks like the management consultant friend of mine that always voted Republican until 2008, when he was so disgusted of McCain's pick of Palin to be VP and the anti-intellectualism it represented that he voted for Obama and has gone Democratic every election since. He still wishes the party supported more deregulation and lower taxes though.

Basically, educated white people that are more anti-Republican than pro-Democratic and potentially have been since the Bush years. There's a lot of them in the greater DC area, but this place is so unique in some ways that I don't know if its phenomenon found anywhere else.

This really fits me better than any of the five corners described in the article, but I am 67 and started getting disillusioned with the Republicans back in the late 1970s. Though I had been an alternate delegate to the Virginia state Republican convention when I was 19, Gerald Ford was the last nominated Republican I supported for President. I was a John B. Anderson voter in 1980 and have voted for the Democratic nominee since, though I did not change my registration from Republican to Democrat until sometime in the 1990s. 

I always have voted in primaries though, because I, like a lot of educated people of my age, see voting as an important civic duty. 

[ThinkerX]

not sure if the source is credible, but the story itself probably is:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/10/1825088/-Mnuchin-becomes-first-Trump-official-called-by-Democratic-House-to-answer-questions-about-Russia?detail=emaildkre

 

Not only has Mnuchin moved to remove sanctions from Deripaska’s companies, but Treasury was very, very slow to implement those sanctions in the first place. So slow that they’ve never really gone into effect. Implementation of the sanctions was delayed again and again, right up until the moment when Trump slipped a decision simply to remove the sanctions in during the dying days of the lame-duck Republican Congress. Timing that, as the New York Times reports, was intended to “reduce the likelihood that Congress might block the move.”

Now that Congress is not filled with lame Republicans, lawmakers sent Mnuchin a letter this week asking him to appear and provide an explanation for the sanction relief. Mnuchin explained that the deal with Deripaska would require that the latter reduce, though not eliminate, his ownership stake in VTB, although he would retain ownership and control of several other firms.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I appreciate your point.  Nevertheless, a “living” document implies we don’t need Art. V.  If the Constitution is supposed to be that flexible why does it have an Amendment process at all?

I see no reason why Article V would be changed. It states quite clearly what it's meant to do, say unlike the Second Amendment, which is open to interpretation. That's why it's wise to be able to interpret and reinterrupt different parts of the Constitution at different points in time. Societies change. Hell, didn't Jefferson want mini revolutions when each new generation took power from its predecessor?

 

Also, regarding the Second Amendment, how can we functionally interpret it today when its original purpose is no longer relevant (no standing armies)?Issues like this are why I think it's wrong to not see the Constitution as living in one way or another.  

[ThinkerX]

Not supposed to be legally possible these days, but since this Shutdown is (currently) tied for the longest on record - and putting hundreds of thousands of people in a serious financial bind - the question becomes worth considering:

Suppose a large minority or majority of Federal Employees affected by the Shutdown elect to go on strike?  To me, it looks like this could pretty much shut down the country. 

Not saying this will happen, or is all that likely, but the question itself is worth grappling with.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

*whispers*
She probably only watched the movie given her age

I'm just gonna come out and say it, that movie was bad.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Not supposed to be legally possible these days, but since this Shutdown is (currently) tied for the longest on record - and putting hundreds of thousands of people in a serious financial bind - the question becomes worth considering:

Suppose a large minority or majority of Federal Employees affected by the Shutdown elect to go on strike?  To me, it looks like this could pretty much shut down the country. 

Not saying this will happen, or is all that likely, but the question itself is worth grappling with.

I have to fly in a few weeks and I'm getting nervous. I know how poor a job I'd be doing if I had to work for a month without pay....

[Kalbear]

Tulsi Gabbard is going to be running. 

I really despise her bullshit. 

[Fez]

35 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Not supposed to be legally possible these days, but since this Shutdown is (currently) tied for the longest on record - and putting hundreds of thousands of people in a serious financial bind - the question becomes worth considering:

Suppose a large minority or majority of Federal Employees affected by the Shutdown elect to go on strike?  To me, it looks like this could pretty much shut down the country. 

Not saying this will happen, or is all that likely, but the question itself is worth grappling with.

I saw somewhere yesterday that at least some FBI agents were thinking of going on strike. I've no idea how credible that is, how many were considering it, and whether it would actually happen. But something like the FBI no longer functioning seems like the kind of immediate public safety crisis that would end the shutdown very quickly.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

I was a John B. Anderson voter in 1980 and have voted for the Democratic nominee since

If you've voted Dem in the last 9 (presidential) cycles, then it's pretty safe to say you'd be in the party loyalist corner.  Party loyalists can be moderates too.  This is true in general - there are plenty of voters that wouldn't identify as party loyalists, or even are registered for that party, but they're still considered "party loyalists" for the purposes of pollsters and researchers.

56 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

since this Shutdown is (currently) tied for the longest on record

Bah.  In my headcanon this is day 10-13 of the shutdown (starting either Jan 2 or also counting Dec 26-28).  This is the Barry Bonds of government shutdowns.

[Martell Spy]

Court says Ginsburg is disease-free but will miss oral arguments again next week

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/ruth-bader-ginsburg-miss-oral-arguments-1097793

Quote

 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is disease-free after cancerous nodules were removed from her left lung last month, but she will again miss oral arguments next week, the Supreme Court announced Friday.

“Post-surgery evaluation indicates no evidence of remaining disease, and no further treatment is required,” Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg said in a statement Friday, adding that Ginsberg’s recovery from surgery is “on track.”

The statement also said Ginsburg will continue to work from home next week and will make considerations and decisions using briefs and transcripts of oral arguments.

 

 

[DanteGabriel]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

*whispers*
She probably only watched the movie given her age

God damnit Kal, I can take your fatalism regarding Trump's willingness to destroy our democracy and rule of law, but not this.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah kal that was too far.

[drawkcabi]

Anyone ever notice when people try to impersonate Trump it's usually a slightly modified Carl the groundskeeper from Caddyshack?

"We're gonna build a wall, it's going to be the greatest wall..."

"What an incredible Cinderella story, this unknown, comes out to lead the pack..."

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, regarding the Second Amendment, how can we functionally interpret it today when its original purpose is no longer relevant (no standing armies)?

Its primary purpose has not changed over the centuries. Sure, the public justifications have varied from avoidance of standing armies at the beginning to protection from criminals today, but the real purpose has always been the same (though it's rarely stated outright).

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Suppose a large minority or majority of Federal Employees affected by the Shutdown elect to go on strike?  To me, it looks like this could pretty much shut down the country.

Not necessarily. There's an article in The Atlantic which describes the various actions the government can take without technically ending the shutdown. Most federal services are not all that critical in the short term and the legislative and executive branches can either agree to fund those that are selectively or use bureaucratic tricks to fund them without an agreement. That said, eventually the people who are not being paid will take to the streets and this can make life unpleasant in and near the capital.

[Jace, Extat]

32 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

Anyone ever notice when people try to impersonate Trump it's usually a slightly modified Carl the groundskeeper from Caddyshack?

"We're gonna build a wall, it's going to be the greatest wall..."

"What an incredible Cinderella story, this unknown, comes out to lead the pack..."

That's a good observation. I have to imagine it comes from a subconscious attempt to not entirely hate oneself while making sounds.