Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ormond

US Politics: Biden our time while Trump's on the stump

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Fez said:

The school situation is tricky. They really should be open. The lifetime impact of a lost or delayed year of education, especially early on, is enormous. Beyond education, schools are a huge source of social services for kids; meals, medical care, even a place to sleep. They were absolutely the first thing we should've been trying to figure out how to open, not bars and restaurants. 

Problem is, the situation is so fucked up right now, I don't see a way to safely have them up at all. I'm hopeful that most people will realize this, and realize that this problem is entirely the fault of this administration and the governors it enabled.

None of this had to be like this.

I'm working up a slow-boiling but towering rage at the incompetent greedhead chucklefucks that have screwed up the US government response to this. I don't think it will be safe for my son to start kindergarten in the fall. It is driving me slowly crazy to have him home all day while I try to work. I can't imagine another year of this, and the socialization and skill-building he'll miss out on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm working up a slow-boiling but towering rage at the incompetent greedhead chucklefucks that have screwed up the US government response to this. I don't think it will be safe for my son to start kindergarten in the fall. It is driving me slowly crazy to have him home all day while I try to work. I can't imagine another year of this, and the socialization and skill-building he'll miss out on.

It’s definitely a towering rage situation - the incompetent response at the highest levels, followed by a “We are now mandating you deal with this shit situation we were responsible to prevent, at which we failed miserably and are now trying to ignore - over the top of the trench, for jobs and for the children!“

My youngest was in kindergarten this year and has been having a god-awful time with missing friends and her great teacher.  Tears every other day for wanting to see someone - we gave messenger kids and she calls and does play dates and reads virtually with all of her friends that have the app.  I do not know what will happen in the fall, sounds like they are planning a mix of in-person and virtual - it’s such a formative time and i mourn to think what might have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sounds like a punt from the initial reports.

ETA: YES! Called it, 7-2. Give me Roberts and Gorsuch for 1000.

ETA2: And another punt. Cowards. Nothing will be resolved before the elections.

ETA3: Now that's interesting. Kavanaugh was the seventh vote. I guess that's the most logic one. You just knew it wouldn't be Thomas on either.

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

EDIT: Nope, I was wrong.  You need to hit 50% of both senate races in Georgia, not just the special election.

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My parents voted for Trump and I’ve been trying to chip away at them for four years.  They usually accept my point and complain that they think he’s a jackass on a personal level but I don’t think I’ve changed their minds about voting for him again.  I think this is a combination of them getting off the phone with me and turning Fox back on for reassurance, and the fact that there really haven’t been any direct negative consequences of Trumps leadership in their personal lives.  

That is about to change with the birth of their first grandkid in December.  They are extremely excited about this as you might imagine, but we’ve been told by our doctors that we have to quarantine for 2 weeks before the birth and that anyone who plans to see the baby has to quarantine for 2 weeks before handling the baby.  That means that my parents cannot be at the hospital for the birth and that they cannot see the baby for, honestly, probably an indefinite amount of time - both my parents still work and I don’t know when they’ll be able to quarantine for 2 weeks.  

If you look at the US virus trajectory vs Canada or places in Europe, it clearly shows that places where scientific expertise was respected and the response was taken seriously at the highest levels have had far superior outcomes.  If the US had even remotely competent leadership at the top there is a very good chance that this would be well under control by December and we could all have a normal birth experience, shared as a family, instead of whatever the hell it is we are actually going to get.  
 

This is directly Trump’s fault.  He consistently contradicts his own administrations experts, actively touts terrible advice, pushes activities he knows to be dangerous (rallies) to stroke his own ego, and resolutely refuses to lead by example by taking the simple step of wearing a mask - and in fact has turned the wearing or not wearing of a mask into a political statement. It is hard to imagine how his leadership on this could have been worse.  I’m hoping that experiencing a real world consequence of Trump’s ‘leadership’ might finally be the thing I can use to convince them that this guy is utterly unfit for the job and needs to go.

Edited by S John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Important Supreme Court decision today, and its not about Trump tax returns (which are mostly punts, though would be very relevant in the nightmare scenario of him winning re-election). Gorsuch wrote a 5-4 decision with the liberals declaring that most of eastern Oklahoma is in fact Creek tribal lands and the state does not have authority there. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf

Quote

On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding “all their land, East of the Mississippi river,” the U. S. government agreed by treaty that “[t]he Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians.” Treaty With the Creeks, Arts. I, XIV, Mar. 24, 1832, 7 Stat. 366, 368 (1832 Treaty). Both parties settled on boundary lines for a new and “permanent home to the whole Creek nation,” located in what is now Oklahoma. Treaty With the Creeks, preamble, Feb. 14, 1833, 7 Stat. 418 (1833 Treaty). The government further promised that “[no] State or Territory [shall] ever have a right to pass laws for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves.” 1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat. 368. Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.

ETA: And in the end of the decision:

Quote

The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma is Reversed

He's made rulings before that already made it clear; but its kind of amazing that Gorsuch is the strongest champion of Native rights that the Supreme Court has ever had.

Edited by Fez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you all wondering what was happening in Alaska?  Well, a GoFundMe campaign got enough money to hire PPP to poll the state!

President - Trump +3 (48/45)

Senate - Sullivan (R) +5 (34/39)

House - Galvin (D) +2 (43/41)

 

I am really surprised that Sullivan is only at 39%.  I think pouring money into that race would make a lot more sense than trying to flip Kentucky (AK media market is not exactly expensive).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Were you all wondering what was happening in Alaska?  Well, a GoFundMe campaign got enough money to hire PPP to poll the state!

President - Trump +3 (48/45)

Senate - Sullivan (R) +5 (34/39)

House - Galvin (D) +2 (43/41)

 

I am really surprised that Sullivan is only at 39%.  I think pouring money into that race would make a lot more sense than trying to flip Kentucky (AK media market is not exactly expensive).

 

Another thing that stands out to me is Murkowski's numbers. She's at 29% approve, 55% disapprove. Only 17% of Republicans approve, compared to 33% of independents and 41% of Democrats.

If there's any statewide Democratic wins there this year, I think there's a very strong chance she becomes an independent who caucuses with Democrats before she's up for re-election in 2022. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, has just issued a statement saying that they will use every method possible to continue to block any information about Trump's finances being turned over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Another thing that stands out to me is Murkowski's numbers. She's at 29% approve, 55% disapprove. Only 17% of Republicans approve, compared to 33% of independents and 41% of Democrats.

If there's any statewide Democratic wins there this year, I think there's a very strong chance she becomes an independent who caucuses with Democrats before she's up for re-election in 2022. 

2022 is going to be tough for Murkowski regardless.  But what is the best move for her political survival and independence will be strongly influenced by 2020.  If Biden wins in a landslide in 2020, good chance that 2022 has a backlash against him, and running as an independent/democrat in Alaska wouldn't be a smart move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

2022 is going to be tough for Murkowski regardless.  But what is the best move for her political survival and independence will be strongly influenced by 2020.  If Biden wins in a landslide in 2020, good chance that 2022 has a backlash against him, and running as an independent/democrat in Alaska wouldn't be a smart move. 

Yeah it's a tough path, but she's losing a primary for sure. And, unlike 2010, I don't see her threading the needle as a write-in candidate again. Running against a Republican would be real tricky too, but I think its an easier path for her to cast herself as a true independent (who caucuses with Democrats because they're the majority and she can do more for the state this way) and try to win with consolidated Democratic support+the vestigial Republican support she still has that comes from family and personal loyalty to her rather than the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fez said:

Yeah it's a tough path, but she's losing a primary for sure. And, unlike 2010, I don't see her threading the needle as a write-in candidate again. Running against a Republican would be real tricky too, but I think its an easier path for her to cast herself as a true independent (who caucuses with Democrats because they're the majority and she can do more for the state this way) and try to win with consolidated Democratic support+the vestigial Republican support she still has that comes from family and personal loyalty to her rather than the party.

I think that her standing with Republicans will improve dramatically between now and 2022 if Trump is out of office. Not that the primary would be easy, but it's definitely possible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I think that her standing with Republicans will improve dramatically between now and 2022 if Trump is out of office. Not that the primary would be easy, but it's definitely possible.  

If Trump gets crushed, maybe. But if it's close I doubt it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Handling the pandemic and the economy. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/09/joe-biden-flips-script-trump/

It looks very much as though the death rate from the virus will be back in the + zone by tomorrow, while the cases of infection get higher every day, wildfiring through the 'Young', who increasingly are showing long term or permanent serious medical issues even after recovering from their 'mild' bouts.  This is going to change a very great deal. one might think.

I am fervently hoping that Biden is huddling via Zoom etc. with Warren, AOC (from whose green platform he's incorporating elements, such as replacing school buses with green energy instead of carbon emission energy), and many others, getting their plans, strategies and people in place to hit the ground running.  That's what FDR did, and o I hope they are too. Since the virus is here to stay, let it do the campaigning for Biden and against deathcultchief.

This determination of his and of schools, at least the universities,  to have teachers -- and probably students -- get sick and maybe die -- for the sake of his election and for the sake of their real estate investments, that is not a winning combo.

As for the media who so much delighted in his roiling up the nation at all times -- such a good way to get eyeballs -- now that so much of it has been confined to home for months with their children 24/7, these antics perhaps don't seem as newsworthy and delightful.  O wow, looky, behaviors and words actually have real world consequences that affect me too!  Who knew?

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S John said:

snip

Where are you located?  We're due in November and haven't gotten any direction about how this is all going to work from our Dr.  We are trying to be extra cautious, but my in-laws play victim and tell us we're trying to "punish" them when we tell them we're not comfortable with them staying with us after traveling through 4 states to get to us.  If we followed this they'd basically not be able to see the baby until next year, likely, which would end up with them blaming us for preventing them from seeing their baby (their words...).  My mother in law is kind of insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fez said:

The school situation is tricky. They really should be open. The lifetime impact of a lost or delayed year of education, especially early on, is enormous. Beyond education, schools are a huge source of social services for kids; meals, medical care, even a place to sleep. They were absolutely the first thing we should've been trying to figure out how to open, not bars and restaurants. 

The problem is that they're intrinsically one of the worst -- if not the worst -- possible places as far as spreading diseases go. It's not reasonable to expect children to consistently socially distance and it's also impossible to separate children from their families so unless the virus is well and truly gone, reopening schools will spread it. There's nothing clever one can do here except teach over the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can any of you lawdogs parse out the implications of the Court's ruling about the Creek nation in Eastern Oklahoma? I absolutely agree with the decision, but I'm also dealing with a lawsuit situated in the eastern half of the state and I'm wondering if there will be any implications. My lawyer is already at a loss lol.

ETA: I'm trying to figure out the border of the land under dispute to see if this even affects me.

ETA 2: Oh, it's in relation to criminal cases only. He doesn't do criminal law, so that tracks. That doesn't seem quite right though. It seems like civil law should apply as well under tribal jurisdiction.

Edited by The Great Unwashed

Share this post


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

Were you all wondering what was happening in Alaska?  Well, a GoFundMe campaign got enough money to hire PPP to poll the state!

President - Trump +3 (48/45)

Senate - Sullivan (R) +5 (34/39)

House - Galvin (D) +2 (43/41)

 

I am really surprised that Sullivan is only at 39%.  I think pouring money into that race would make a lot more sense than trying to flip Kentucky (AK media market is not exactly expensive).

 

Fuck McGrath, lost cause anyway. I too say go for Alaska.

30 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The problem is that they're intrinsically one of the worst -- if not the worst -- possible places as far as spreading diseases go. It's not reasonable to expect children to consistently socially distance and it's also impossible to separate children from their families so unless the virus is well and truly gone, reopening schools will spread it. There's nothing clever one can do here except teach over the internet.

It's a real shame that America was put on Europe's Republican Ban (it's not a ban on Republicans, just their country) because late September is going to be a great time for me to not be here. You're exactly right about the attempt to resume school. A lot of children are going to kill a parent or grandparent because they couldn't help touching their face in the lunch line. To say nothing of their own lives.

Maybe I'll go back to Hawaii. If I get lucky I can miss the utterly unpredictable tidal wave of emergency cases that starts 17 days after schools open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Can any of you lawdogs parse out the implications of the Court's ruling about the Creek nation in Eastern Oklahoma? I absolutely agree with the decision, but I'm also dealing with a lawsuit situated in the eastern half of the state and I'm wondering if there will be any implications. My lawyer is already at a loss lol.

ETA: I'm trying to figure out the border of the land under dispute to see if this even affects me.

ETA 2: Oh, it's in relation to criminal cases only. He doesn't do criminal law, so that tracks. That doesn't seem quite right though. It seems like civil law should apply as well under tribal jurisdiction.

I'm no lawyer. But the way I understand it, while the immediate issue is of criminal law only, there is a strong likelihood that there will be civil law impacts. That was actually one of the state's arguments against the case, and Gorsuch replied with a massive shoulder shrug in his decision:

Quote

 

Finally, the State worries that our decision will have significant consequences for civil and regulatory law. The only question before us, however, concerns the statutory definition of “Indian country” as it applies in federal criminal law under the MCA, and often nothing requires other civil statutes or regulations to rely on definitions found in the criminal law. Of course, many federal civil laws and regulations do currently borrow from §1151 when defining the scope of Indian country. But it is far from obvious why this collateral drafting choice should be allowed to skew our interpretation of the MCA, or deny its promised benefits of a federal criminal forum to tribal members.

It isn’t even clear what the real upshot of this borrowing into civil law may be. Oklahoma reports that recognizing the existence of the Creek Reservation for purposes of the MCA might potentially trigger a variety of federal civil statutes and rules, including ones making the region eligible for assistance with homeland security, 6 U. S. C. §§601, 606, historical preservation, 54 U. S. C. §302704, schools, 20 U. S. C. §1443, highways, 23 U. S. C. §120, roads, §202, primary care clinics, 25 U. S. C. §1616e–1, housing assistance, §4131, nutritional programs, 7 U. S. C. §§2012, 2013, disability programs, 20 U. S. C. §1411, and more. But what are we to make of this? Some may find developments like these unwelcome, but from what we are told others may celebrate them.

 

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...