US Politics: Time to Stock Up

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Triskele said:

I occasionally go to the right wing sites out of curiosity.  Townhall right now has multiple headlines referring to it as the "Wuhan virus."  I wonder why.  

Right wing babies aren't comfortable unless there is a foreigner to blame for their troubles?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

I occasionally go to the right wing sites out of curiosity.  Townhall right now has multiple headlines referring to it as the "Wuhan virus."  I wonder why.  

This is pervasive along all right-wing media, afaict.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If Senators lose office because their terms expire without election it would mean those States without Senators are being denied equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent, therefore, they should be able to appoint Senators.

Right, but how each state fills such vacancies would still have to be based on how "such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies," per the 17th amendment.  In which case, I don't think any of those various laws account for how a vacancy should be filled in the occurrence of a canceled election/expired term.  In which case the legal justification for relying on such procedures - the governor appointing an interim Senator - doesn't seem to have a legitimate basis to me.

ETA:  Of course, there's also the fact that certain governors' terms will have expired as well, and how each state deals with that succession, to consider.  This is getting too complicated for a pure hypothetical.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right, but how each state fills such vacancies would still have to be based on how "such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies," per the 17th amendment.  In which case, I don't think any of those various laws account for how a vacancy should be filled in the occurrence of a canceled election/expired term.  In which case the legal justification for relying on such procedures - the governor appointing an interim Senator - doesn't seem to have a legitimate basis to me.

If they cannot hold elections due to a state of emergency preventing a General election how else can the Sentatorial offices be filled but by appointment?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If they cannot hold elections due to a state of emergency preventing a General election how else can the Sentatorial offices be filled but by appointment?

I agree they should, but the state should have to pass a law clarifying what to do in such a situation considering (again, I think, not sure) none of the vacancy laws on the books account for canceled elections/expired terms.  Then that gets into, well, how many of each state's legislators also have expired terms, and their governors?  Again, this is why going down this rabbit hole too much is not only pointless but annoying to think about.

[Fragile Bird]

With so many coronavirus cases at Mar-a-Lago, shouldn’t the health department shut it down?

[Durckad]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

With so many coronavirus cases at Mar-a-Lago, shouldn’t the health department shut it down?

But then where would Trump conduct his foreign policy?

[DanteGabriel]

5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

With so many coronavirus cases at Mar-a-Lago, shouldn’t the health department shut it down?

Better yet, make it a leper colony for Trump's diseased minions.

 

1 minute ago, Durckad said:

But then where would Trump conduct his foreign policy?

I guess they'd have to use videoconferencing like everyone else. I'm sure Putin has Zoom or WebEx.

[DanteGabriel]

I know it'll just vanish in all the Covid-19 news, and even in a normal news environment I doubt it would move the needle -- but this is worth a read. It's a letter from a former judge who was enrolled on the Supreme Court bar (lawyers who are elite enough to argue before the Supreme Court), resigning his position, and tearing John Roberts a new asshole. Roberts has been described as being very conscious of his place in history and in the legitimacy and standing of SCOTUS. To the extent that he has any soul left, I hope this hurts him there.

An excerpt:

Quote

The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.

Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.

Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.

It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.

I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/judge-james-dannenberg-supreme-court-bar-roberts-letter.html

[Pecan]

I read this article a few minutes ago and I'm wondering if someone can help me understand why AOC is so concerned about Joe Rogan's opinion on these two particular points of trans rights. Specifically, Rogan has stated publicly on his show that he is opposed to puberty blockers for younger kids and that he doesn't think that biological males should be able to compete in sports as women. On the puberty blockers, it seems reasonable to me to at least be skeptical if this is a good idea. On the second point, competing in sports as women, I completely agree with Rogan but I also think it's kind of a edge case. But why are these two issues such a litmus test for the far left and the trans rights movement? 

 

[Fragile Bird]

That doctor’s letter Trump had issued last night, saying it wasn’t necessary for him to be tested for the coronavirus?

The WH has a whole team of experts gathered right now. Did an expert write the letter?

No. Trump found an osteopath to write the letter. 

[Fragile Bird]

Now the osteopath has issued a report that Trump’s test was negative.

Once again, why an osteopath?

[Jace, Extat]

14 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Now the osteopath has issued a report that Trump’s test was negative.

Once again, why an osteopath?

Because real doctors can get in trouble for making shit up.

[Larry of the Lawn]

57 minutes ago, Pecan said:

I read this article a few minutes ago and I'm wondering if someone can help me understand why AOC is so concerned about Joe Rogan's opinion on these two particular points of trans rights. Specifically, Rogan has stated publicly on his show that he is opposed to puberty blockers for younger kids and that he doesn't think that biological males should be able to compete in sports as women. On the puberty blockers, it seems reasonable to me to at least be skeptical if this is a good idea. On the second point, competing in sports as women, I completely agree with Rogan but I also think it's kind of a edge case. But why are these two issues such a litmus test for the far left and the trans rights movement? 

 

First off that article you quoted is a right wing puff piece using dehumanizing language like "illegal aliens".  Take that as you will.  Second, if you believe that trans people are people and should have the same rights and access as everyone else it's pretty tough to see why Rogan's positions aren't terrible.  

I know that a whole bunch of different types of people love to hate on AOC, but she consistently defends unpopular positions especially when she's speaking up for others that don't have the voice that she does.  If she wants to separate herself from the Sanders campaign that's fine with me.  But, I'm pretty sure she did a Sanders rally in either SC or Nevada.  Which that article seems to didn't happen.  So I'm wondering if this while narrative it's presenting isn't somewhat suspect. 

That being said if everything in there is accurate I'd totally understand why she wants to do that.

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Biden adopting a Warren bankruptcy plan?

 

I just heard a interesting line on Axios where one of their people was saying the VP pick will be whoever Jim Clyburn wants it to be but didn't elaborate much.  

Yeah, the Warren Bankruptcy thing is a lot bigger than I think it sounds, because this is something Biden feuded with Warren over since, like, 2005. If he's coming around to her ideas, this is a big win for Warren's policies and a good sign that he wants her onboard somehow. 

[Pecan]

16 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

First off that article you quoted is a right wing puff piece using dehumanizing language like "illegal aliens".  Take that as you will.  Second, if you believe that trans people are people and should have the same rights and access as everyone else it's pretty tough to see why Rogan's positions aren't terrible.  

I know that a whole bunch of different types of people love to hate on AOC, but she consistently defends unpopular positions especially when she's speaking up for others that don't have the voice that she does.  If she wants to separate herself from the Sanders campaign that's fine with me.  But, I'm pretty sure she did a Sanders rally in either SC or Nevada.  Which that article seems to didn't happen.  So I'm wondering if this while narrative it's presenting isn't somewhat suspect. 

That being said if everything in there is accurate I'd totally understand why she wants to do that.

 

But why is it unreasonable for someone to be skeptical about the use of puberty blockers? And why is it okay for biological males to compete in women's sports? Right wing puff piece or not, I don't get these positions. And it isn't just this article. I've heard this on lefty YouTube as well.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Pecan said:

I read this article a few minutes ago and I'm wondering if someone can help me understand why AOC is so concerned about Joe Rogan's opinion on these two particular points of trans rights. Specifically, Rogan has stated publicly on his show that he is opposed to puberty blockers for younger kids and that he doesn't think that biological males should be able to compete in sports as women.

Well, first of all I disagree with your assessment of opposing puberty blockers, that is infringing on the liberties of parents and their children (unless the parent is forcing the child, in which case of course that should not be condoned and addressed legally).  Second, Rogan's offensive statements on the trans community - as well as a host of other groups - goes far further than just the two issues you and the article identified.  That's why AOC is so concerned about Joe Rogan's "opinions."  Plus, not only is she right to do so, politically it is good to distance herself from Sanders' embracement of Rogan's endorsement because a significant part of her reelection constituency cares very much about the issue, and pretty much all of her reelection constituency would agree to objecting with Rogan's association based on his offensive comments.  

So, it's always good to be both normatively right and on the correct side politically.  I suspect the latter had more to do with her lack of full effort campaigning for Sanders than that article portrays - or this one that it's based off of.  But that simply reflects the fact AOC has far better political instincts and wisdom than Sanders ever has. 

[Pecan]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, first of all I disagree with your assessment of opposing puberty blockers, that is infringing on the liberties of parents and their children (unless the parent is forcing the child, in which case of course that should not be condoned and addressed legally).  Second, Rogan's offensive statements on the trans community - as well as a host of other groups - goes far further than just the two issues you and the article identified.  That's why AOC is so concerned about Joe Rogan's "opinions."  Plus, not only is she right to do so, politically it is good to distance herself from Sanders' embracement of Rogan's endorsement because a significant part of her reelection constituency cares very much about the issue, and pretty much all of her reelection constituency would agree to objecting with Rogan's association based on his offensive comments.  

So, it's always good to be both normatively right and on the correct side politically.  I suspect the latter had more to do with her lack of full effort campaigning for Sanders than that article portrays - or this one that it's based off of.  But that simply reflects the fact AOC has far better political instincts and wisdom than Sanders ever has. 

Can you point me to something that covers the entirety of what he has said on the trans community? I listen to him from time to time, and I'm familiar with what he's said on those two main issues, but I don't know what else he has said.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Can you point me to something that covers the entirety of what he has said on the trans community?

Some other examples beyond the two issues identified are mentioned here.  I don't want to post them.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I think its safe to assume that Trump didnt take the test, and even if he did take the test, it wasn't negative.

Believe nothing these fascists say.