US Politics: Reaching the Tipping Point

[Ormond]

15 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If that's how things are shaking out then Democrats better hope Buttigieg wins the nomination. The country has a notorious track record of not electing Democrats over the age of 60. So IMO that makes 3 of those top 4 most likely to lose in 2020.

Personally I would prefer a younger candidate myself, but the "notorious track record" is a way overblown statement, because there are only TWO times since World War II that the Democrats have nominated someone over 60 (John Kerry age 61 and Hillary Clinton age 69). This is more of a case that Democrats don't nominate people over 60 in the first place -- and I honestly don't think the fact that Kerry was just barely over 60 was very relevant to his loss. 

I would prefer Presidents of any party to be younger than 70 when they leave office after an 8 year term. But I don't think there is nearly enough data to support the proposition that a Democratic Presidential nominee who is over 60 can't win the general election.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Apparently, forcing women to carry their rapist's child is not extreme enough for some conservatives. I shudder to think what "enjoying the spoils" entails. Franco work camps for leftists?

David French vs. Sohrab Ahmari and the battle dividing conservatives, explained
The fight isn’t about a National Review columnist. It’s about what conservatism is, and should be.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/5/18637391/david-french-sohrab-ahmari-conservatism-libertarians-divide  

 

Ahmari, like a number of other conservatives, has said that he “snapped” and changed his views because of the nomination hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and how he thought the left treated Kavanaugh amid accusations of sexual misconduct. And perhaps it’s because of that experience that Ahmari makes the argument that politics is “war and enmity,” a battle for the very souls of our nation’s inhabitants, and French, who is a very nice person, is too nice to win that battle.
In the piece, Ahmari writes that if the aim of the “culture war” is “defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good,” French’s focus on individual liberty and autonomy, and seemingly his niceness, is a problem for social conservatives who have watched their religious viewpoints on marriage equality, for example, go from being the law of the land to markedly unpopular. After arguing that Trump also saw the weaknesses of “Frenchian conservatism,” Ahmari concludes:
Progressives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. ... To recognize that enmity is real is its own kind of moral duty.”

This isn’t exactly new.  Many Conservatives as much as they’ve preached “freedom” and “individuality” and other nice words still desire for government to be moral enforcer and punish those who dare live/act in a way that offends their social sensibilities. 

Ahmari, Carlson along with (other conservatives) apparently wants to censure those who do or say things that have a socially progressive message. 

Because if you can’t throw people in cages for being gay, or saying being gay is ok are we really free?

To them hell no. 

Because freedom to them means freedom to oppress others. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The SCOTUS has upheld federal requirements for registration of silencers:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics/silencers-supreme-court/index.html

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 6/8/2019 at 1:23 PM, Triskele said:

The only thing that leads me to hesitate to co-sign this is that with this sort of thing I swear it takes months to see where things really shake out, but in the immediate term, I tend to agree.  It's total Trump person bait.   It fits the "this is all very easy, our previous leaders were just weak" narrative.

All of that being said, @Tywin et al. this is the stuff we've been thinking has to start showing up.  Even if the Mexico tariffs aren't levied as advertised there's just so much damn uncertainty that Trump in injecting into things that I just cannot imagine it's good for business.

Do any economic models have a certainty/uncertainty/volatility factor in them?  I seriously don't know.  Seems like it'a an animal spirits type of thing that most agree exist, but it's hard to measure.  

Speaking of Mexico and tariffs, it appears this was all a scam. Many of the concessions were worked out months ago. And now that a deal has been announced, Trump is “threatening” more tariffs. I wonder when the entire world will just slap us with a 100% universal tariff to put us in our place.   

[Mlle. Zabzie]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The SCOTUS has upheld federal requirements for registration of silencers:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics/silencers-supreme-court/index.html

Scot - gonna quibble here for a sec.  That's not what happened per the article.  They declined to take the case, which means that the lower court ruling stays in effect (governing only in that circuit, though, since it is a federal law, perhaps has a bit more weight).  There are all kinds of reasons that might happen, but I wouldn't say they "upheld" the requirements - just declined to take the case at this time.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

30 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Scot - gonna quibble here for a sec.  That's not what happened per the article.  They declined to take the case, which means that the lower court ruling stays in effect (governing only in that circuit, though, since it is a federal law, perhaps has a bit more weight).  There are all kinds of reasons that might happen, but I wouldn't say they "upheld" the requirements - just declined to take the case at this time.

Thank you for pointing out this distinction.  However, by declining to take the case, as you pointed out, the Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding the law stands.  It only takes 4 Justices to agree to hear a case.  If the Conservative majority wanted to make Gun Control more difficult they would have agreed to hear the case.

It suggests to me that reasonable regulation of firearm is going to be allowed.

[Jace, Extat]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

.  .

It suggests to me that reasonable regulation of firearm is going to be allowed.

What!?! Why???

We have no reasonable regulation of murder machines and they was just doing what Daddy said.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Scot - gonna quibble here for a sec.  That's not what happened per the article.  They declined to take the case, which means that the lower court ruling stays in effect (governing only in that circuit, though, since it is a federal law, perhaps has a bit more weight).  There are all kinds of reasons that might happen, but I wouldn't say they "upheld" the requirements - just declined to take the case at this time.

I guess it's fair to point out the distinction, but failing to grant cert is essentially upholding the lower court's ruling, so I think it's very close to a distinction without a difference.  Frankly I'm surprised the four most conservative justices didn't get together to hear the case, that's what's newsworthy.

ETA:  Thinking about it, I suppose perhaps the 4 conservative justices didn't grant cert because they knew Roberts was going to vote with the liberals and they didn't want to establish a precedent.  That is a significant difference.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

I guess it's fair to point out the distinction, but failing to grant cert is essentially upholding the lower court's ruling, so I think it's very close to a distinction without a difference.  Frankly I'm surprised the four most conservative justices didn't get together to hear the case, that's what's newsworthy.

ETA:  Thinking about it, I suppose perhaps the 4 conservative justices didn't grant cert because they knew Roberts was going to vote with the liberals and they didn't want to establish a precedent.  That is a significant difference.

Maybe.  But Zabzie is correct that without more we cannot know with any degree od certainty why the case was denied Cert.  Being an optimist, I’m hopeful it is because the members of the SCOTUS recognize reasonable regulation when they see it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The SCOTUS is going to take another look at the cross-border shootings from Texas and Arizona.  I sincerely hope they hold a Mexican national has the right to sue the US when a US agent kills someone not in the US:

https://www.apnews.com/f9777cccf24f4e369e0b3f4d770b66f0

[Martell Spy]

Company part-owned by Jared Kushner got $90m from unknown offshore investors since 2017
Overseas investment flowed to Cadre while Trump’s son-in-law works as US envoy, raising conflict of interest questions

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/10/jared-kushner-real-estate-cadre-goldman-sachs

Quote

 

A real estate company part-owned by Jared Kushner has received $90m in foreign funding from an opaque offshore vehicle since he entered the White House as a senior adviser to his father-in-law Donald Trump.

Investment has flowed from overseas to the company, Cadre, while Kushner works as an international envoy for the US, according to corporate filings and interviews. The money came through a vehicle run by Goldman Sachs in the Cayman Islands, a tax haven that guarantees corporate secrecy.

Kushner, who is married to Trump’s elder daughter Ivanka, kept a stake in Cadre after joining the administration, while selling other assets. His holding is now valued at up to $50m, according to his financial disclosure documents.

Cadre’s foreign funding could create hidden conflicts of interest for Kushner as he performs his work for the US government, according to some ethics experts, who raised concerns over the lack of transparency around the investments.

“It will cause people to wonder whether he is being improperly influenced,” said Jessica Tillipman, a lecturer at George Washington University law school, who teaches government ethics and anti-corruption laws.

Kushner resigned from Cadre’s board and reduced his ownership stake to less than 25% after he joined the White House, according to his attorneys. He failed to list Cadre on his first ethics disclosure, later adding the company and saying the omission was inadvertent. Cadre says he is not actively involved in the company’s operations.

The names of the foreigners investing in Cadre via Goldman Sachs are not disclosed by the companies, which are not required to make the information public. Two sources familiar with the firm said much of the money came to the Cayman Islands vehicle from a second offshore tax haven, while some came from Saudi Arabia.

 

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

59 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Maybe.  But Zabzie is correct that without more we cannot know with any degree od certainty why the case was denied Cert.  Being an optimist, I’m hopeful it is because the members of the SCOTUS recognize reasonable regulation when they see it.

Yeah - there are all kinds of reasons, including that maybe they want to see what other circuits (if any) say first (e.g., I've done no research, so have no idea if this is true, but maybe, e.g., the Fourth Circuit also has a pending case and they want to see what happens), or that they have other cases for the docket next year that they think are more important.  They take SUCH a limited number of cases each year.

[Fragile Bird]

A helicopter has crashed into a building in downtown Manhattan, 51st and 7th, near Times Square, and there is a fire.

Anyone know anything yet? Hopefully it's just a crash, it's raining heavily.

eta: the Governor was downtown and showed up to reporters to say it seems the helicopter had a problem and made a forced landing on top of a building. It started a fire, but it's under control.

Now they say 1 fatality confirmed and 1 injury.

I also heard there are no helipads on buildings in NY after a terrible accident years ago.

[Martell Spy]

A Historic Breakthrough for Sex Workers’ Rights
New York could become the first state to decriminalize prostitution. TNR got an exclusive first look at the new bill.

https://newrepublic.com/article/154111/new-york-bill-decriminalization-prostitution-sex-worker-rights

Quote

 

The New Republic has had a first look at the bill. The measure removes criminal penalties associated with adults selling and buying sex, and repeals parts of the law that have criminalized sex workers’ places of business along with “loitering for prostitution” in public. Their aim is grounded not just in criminal justice reform, but in more fundamental appeals to economic justice. “This is not just about decriminalizing workers or the absence of criminal codes. It’s about making sure people who work in the sex trades have access to making a living in the sex industry in a way that is not a crime,” said Audacia Ray, a member of the Decrim NY steering committee, a director at the New York City Anti-Violence Project, and a former sex worker.

The bill would also strike prohibitions on “promoting” prostitution, which can be used to criminalize any group of sex workers who work together, whether that is in the same workplace or remotely by helping each other advertise or screen potential clients. Compelling prostitution and promotion of prostitution involving cases of force, intimidation, or minors would remain a crime. “The things that actually protect people—it keeps those on the books,” said Jared Trujillo, a member of Decrim NY’s steering committee, the president of Legal Aid Society’s labor union, and a former sex worker. “As far as trafficking, you still can’t traffic people. As far as being able to purchase sex from someone who’s underage? All those protections [for minors] are still on the books.” This same bill also contains a critical provision permitting people with prior records for offenses decriminalized by the bill to have those convictions vacated. All together, for adults engaged in the sex trade, Trujillo said, “What it does decriminalize is really just existing.”

 

 

[Mexal]

18 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

A helicopter has crashed into a building in downtown Manhattan, 51st and 7th, near Times Square, and there is a fire.

Anyone know anything yet? Hopefully it's just a crash, it's raining heavily.

Fire out, one dead I've seen. I'm in a building not too far and can't see shit. No criminal element so far.

[ThinkerX]

took another of the MSNBC polls: 

'Do you believe that the Census should ask about citizenship?'

61% out of 87,000+ respondents said 'yes.'

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 6/6/2019 at 8:36 AM, Mexal said:

I don't think any Democrats are celebrating. They're very aware of what happened in 2016 which is why they're being passive fucks.

Late in addressing this: no, I’ve seen Democrats get excited about these polls as evidence Trump’s defeat is assured.

Honestly, I think @Jace, Basilissa level of cynicism is probably the most safe way for Democrats to go about things.The odds of Trump getting re-elected are very good. That is scary. Actually use that fear to help mobilize the base. 

 

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Maybe.  But Zabzie is correct that without more we cannot know with any degree od certainty why the case was denied Cert.  Being an optimist, I’m hopeful it is because the members of the SCOTUS recognize reasonable regulation when they see it.

I think it's reasonable to assume that if they didn't grant cert, that indicates SCOTUS is not ready to strike down any silencer laws at this point.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Late in addressing this: no, I’ve seen Democrats get excited about these polls as evidence Trump’s defeat is assured.

Honestly, I think @Jace, Basilissa level of cynicism is probably the most safe way for Democrats to go about things.The odds of Trump getting re-elected are very good. That is scary. Actually use that fear to help mobilize the base. 

 

He has the advantages that come with being an incumbent. After that he's got little to show for. He can also wave around his judicial appointments, but he has nothing to speak of legislatively. His only major bill remains rather unpopular, and I haven't seen any polling data that indicates that support is trending in the right direction for it.  

[DMC]

Considering he hasn't even hit 43% approval in 538's aggregate since his first 100 days, I would definitely not describe Trump's reelection chances as "very good."  He's the most consistently unpopular president in the history of polling, in spite of a healthy and arguably vibrant economy, at least at the macro level.  If I was on Trump's side, I'd be a lot more concerned than I am on the, ya know, sane side.