US Politics: all the progressive's fault

[ants]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

To be fair this does not seem to be @mcbigski's argument.  His was that "0%" of Alabama's seats should be majority black because they account for only around a quarter of the state's population.  Entertaining this absurd position, this would mean that there should be no majority-minority districts in all but the six states that are themselves majority-minority - California, Texas, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, and Hawaii. 

BTW, based on this logic it also follows that none of the districts in those six states should be majority white either.  That's quite the extraordinary position considering states like Georgia, Florida, Arizona, New York, Virginia, New Jersey, and Illinois all promise to become majority-minority in the next decade or so as well - but we'll leave that cognitive dissonance to mcbigski's liquor cabinet.

So, functionally this would mean that minority representation in the House would be subject to the same parameters as minority representation in the Senate.  And after all, that looks great!  Here's the full list of minority US Senators in the chamber's entire history.  Ok, perhaps that list is a bit short, but wanting seats to have racial proportionality when redistricting is "evil."

I think there can be a debate about what is best. The problem is the more you dig into it, the more you realise the flaws of direct representation and why proportional allocation is much better (for fair representation across an area. Obviously it weakens the bonds to small constituencies). 

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, ants said:

The problem is the more you dig into it, the more you realise the flaws of direct representation and why proportional allocation is much better (for fair representation across an area. Obviously it weakens the bonds to small constituencies). 

Well yeah if you mean each state should be a multimember district, sure.  That's a great argument in theory for yielding both greater racial and partisan proportionality as it most certainly would.  But, of course, it's almost entirely theoretical when it comes to redistricting in the US.

[ants]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well yeah if you mean each state should be a multimember district, sure.  That's a great argument in theory for yielding both greater racial and partisan proportionality as it most certainly would.  But, of course, it's almost entirely theoretical when it comes to redistricting in the US.

Yep, definitely theoretical. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, ants said:

Yep, definitely theoretical. 

Another reason new Zealand rules tho

[DMC]

Quite the flurry of activity on the Hill this week.  Well, kind of. 

First and foremost, The Ancient Ones agreed to "a framework" on an omnibus budget deal - something I whined about the Dems possibly failing to do just the other day.  Still, they are not revealing any of the details on what the new spending levels will be, which means it very much remains to be seen if this framework becomes a reality.

Then there was the passage of two bipartisan bills - first, the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.  Unfortunately they had to drop efforts to close "the boyfriend loophole" to obtain the necessary GOP votes, but still it's something.  Second, the metoo bill banning forced arbitration just passed via voice vote in the Senate after already passing the House.

Finally, the push to ban MCs from trading stocks is gaining steam, although opposition from (some of) the Senate GOP remains an obstacle.  For once, though, the Senate GOP's objections do have merit:

Quote

Senate Republicans are also voicing concerns that restricting stock ownership will put the most burden on colleagues with less money and could dissuade otherwise well-qualified candidates from running for office. [...]

Grassley, who is up for reelection this year, noted that lawmakers are already required to publicly report their stock trades and face prosecution or censure if they break insider-trading law.  

“Transparency brings accountability,” he said.

One important note there is Pelosi, while dropping her opposition, is maintaining that the law should apply to the judiciary too.  Right on.

[Jaxom 1974]

But her e-mails!!!

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Quite the flurry of activity on the Hill this week.  Well, kind of. 

First and foremost, The Ancient Ones agreed to "a framework" on an omnibus budget deal - something I whined about the Dems possibly failing to do just the other day.  Still, they are not revealing any of the details on what the new spending levels will be, which means it very much remains to be seen if this framework becomes a reality.

Then there was the passage of two bipartisan bills - first, the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.  Unfortunately they had to drop efforts to close "the boyfriend loophole" to obtain the necessary GOP votes, but still it's something.  Second, the metoo bill banning forced arbitration just passed via voice vote in the Senate after already passing the House.

Finally, the push to ban MCs from trading stocks is gaining steam, although opposition from (some of) the Senate GOP remains an obstacle.  For once, though, the Senate GOP's objections do have merit:

One important note there is Pelosi, while dropping her opposition, is maintaining that the law should apply to the judiciary too.  Right on.

I'm trying to imagine what well qualified candidate who is enthusiastic about legislating but isn't a millionaire is going to decide not to run for office because they can't own individual stocks.  

Grassley's point is specious- MOCs already beat the market, but insider trading isn't the only benefit of limiting stock ownership.  Being invested in industries that you are nominally supposed to be regulating is a clear conflict of interest.

Transparency hasn't stopped Joe Manchin from protecting his coal $.  

If not being allowed to own stock stops someone from running for Congress, they probably weren't "well qualified" to begin with. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I'm trying to imagine what well qualified candidate who is enthusiastic about legislating but isn't a millionaire is going to decide not to run for office because they can't own individual stocks.  

I have absolutely no trouble imagining this.

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Being invested in industries that you are nominally supposed to be regulating is a clear conflict of interest.

This is why I'm fine with the proposal, but that doesn't make Grassley's point specious.

6 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

If not being allowed to own stock stops someone from running for Congress, they probably weren't "well qualified" to begin with. 

This is rather silly.  It's rather inarguable that not owning stocks isn't going to be much of a deterrent for the super-wealthy but may deter someone trying to raise a family and establish their own wealth from spending their career/peak earning years without that ability.  

[ants]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

I have absolutely no trouble imagining this.

This is why I'm fine with the proposal, but that doesn't make Grassley's point specious.

This is rather silly.  It's rather inarguable that not owning stocks isn't going to be much of a deterrent for the super-wealthy but may deter someone trying to raise a family and establish their own wealth from spending their career/peak earning years without that ability.  

But can’t they still invest in market eaters or through government organised investment managers so they don’t know what they’re stocks are in?

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, ants said:

But can’t they still invest in market eaters or through government organised investment managers so they don’t know what they’re stocks are in?

It depends, there are multiple proposals on the table.  One offered by Ossoff and Kelly would essentially be what you're saying - requiring MCs to create a qualified blind trust.  But the Warren/Daines proposal is more stringent:

Quote

Several of the bills proposed so far would require incoming members of Congress to place their stock portfolios in a traditional blind trust, where it would be managed by an independent trustee who could buy and sell the stocks without the member’s knowledge.

But the bill that Daines and Warren plan to introduce goes significantly further, and prohibits members from even owning stocks. That means newly elected members of Congress would be required to actually sell their stock holdings, regardless of whether or not such a sale would be financially advantageous.

To be clear, I'm not against the Warren/Daines proposal.  Blind trusts sound great, but as larry alluded to this is often exploited by, for example, Manchin bullshitting about putting his money in a blind trust when actually the dividends he receives from his family (coal) business aren't in his trust.  Even if they were, it wouldn't really be "blind" in terms of mitigating the conflict of interest unless such assets were liquidated (which, btw, is exactly what Hillary did to avoid the appearance of impropriety - fat lot a good that did for her). 

All I was saying is that the objections I highlighted are valid.  Grassley's point about transparency isn't specious - it's how we know plenty of MCs already violate the 2012 STOCK Act.  It's just it isn't enforced and the penalties are laughable anyway.  If they weren't, there wouldn't be this push in the first place.

[Zorral]

"AOC. Adrift, Broke, and Disillusioned How a struggling bartender became the face of a resurgent left."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/aoc-biography-book-excerpt.html

As to be expected, the comments section is brutal this woman who had the temerity to run for office and get elected, who was a specific target on January 6th, exultantly threatened by male republican 'legislators'.  Men really REALLY hate her.  I knew all this, but even so I am shaken by what I've read.  She's the target of that kind of murderous hate all day every day and she knows it.  What it takes not to break, run and hide, after years of it -- well whatever it takes, she's got it. 

[Ormond]

It's Trump Cash Blitz Day!

In those Trump emails I sadly somehow got on the list for, there was one a couple of days ago that said Trump was going to make an amazingly important announcement soon.

The announcement turned out to be today's email:

Quote

 

I told you I had a BIG LEAGUE announcement for you and I was NOT lying.

We are SO CLOSE to OUTRAISING the dirty Democrats and CRUSHING them in fundraising, so I wanted to do a little something to put us OVER THE TOP.

But, I am only cluing in my TOP supporters, like YOU, on this, so I need you to promise me that you WILL NOT share this with ANYONE.
 

IT’S TRUMP CASH BLITZ DAY AND I’VE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO GIVE YOU A 10X-IMPACT FOR TODAY ONLY.

All you have to do is donate ANY AMOUNT and you’ll automatically receive a 10X-IMPACT on your gift.

Please contribute $5 or more IMMEDIATELY to stand with me and claim your Trump Cash Blitz 10X-IMPACT. >>
I am ONLY doing this for my very best supporters, so please do not forward this email.

My team is letting me know who claimed their offer and who didn’t. Make sure you take action before it’s too late.

Contribute IMMEDIATELY to claim your Trump Cash Blitz 10X-IMPACT and get on the donor list.

 

And of course precisely because they asked me to promise not to share the above, I am sharing it with all of you lucky people on this thread!

Given Trump's personality the line about his team letting him know who claimed the offer sounds rather ominous. But of course it's really part of their attempt to make Trump's supporters who are getting these things feel "special". 

[horangi]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

All I was saying is that the objections I highlighted are valid.  Grassley's point about transparency isn't specious - it's how we know plenty of MCs already violate the 2012 STOCK Act.  It's just it isn't enforced and the penalties are laughable anyway.  If they weren't, there wouldn't be this push in the first place.

It is amazing how much the rules of the game differ from us Feds and the elected officials.  We are already prohibited from owning stocks and focused funds in any area related to the work we do, which given the integrated nature of the economy, might as well be stocks in general.  Somehow, we still manage to survive on the meager returns of index funds (S&P 500 has about a %10 return annually).  I get that some restrictions wouldnt make sense for elected officials (Hatch Act etc), but, as a branch manager, its always fun trying to explain ethics rules to new employees when our purported bosses are not just violating the same tenets but vociferously stating that those rules shouldn't exist/apply.  

[sologdin]

10X-IMPACT

five times worse than an extinction level event.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

That’s some lazy grifting there. I’ve heard from Nigerian princes that were more convincing.

[Martell Spy]

Florida Supreme Court rejects DeSantis' redistricting push
State legislators had halted all work on a new congressional map as they waited for the court to act.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/10/desantis-redistricting-florida-supreme-court-00007799

Quote

 

Lawson’s district stretches from downtown Jacksonville all the way across the northern end of the state to Tallahassee and neighboring Gadsden County. While it does not have a Black majority, nearly 44 percent of those who are old enough to vote in the district are Black. The current configuration was approved by the state Supreme Court in 2015 amid lawsuits surrounding the last round of redistricting.

DeSantis had proposed dismantling the seat in a map that his general counsel submitted to legislators last month. That map would likely result in the number of seats held by Black lawmakers going from four on current proposed congressional maps to two, while boosting the number of seats Donald Trump would have won in 2020 to 18 from the 16 on the map already passed by the Florida Senate. Florida gained one congressional seat in 2022 due to population growth for a total of 28.

In his request, DeSantis had asked whether or not redrawing the district would run afoul of Fair Districts anti-gerrymandering standards approved by voters in 2010. He also noted Lawson’s district was approved prior to a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which two North Carolina congressional districts were thrown out because state legislators relied too heavily on race when drawing them.

 

 

[ThinkerX]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

"AOC. Adrift, Broke, and Disillusioned How a struggling bartender became the face of a resurgent left."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/aoc-biography-book-excerpt.html

As to be expected, the comments section is brutal this woman who had the temerity to run for office and get elected, who was a specific target on January 6th, exultantly threatened by male republican 'legislators'.  Men really REALLY hate her.  I knew all this, but even so I am shaken by what I've read.  She's the target of that kind of murderous hate all day every day and she knows it.  What it takes not to break, run and hide, after years of it -- well whatever it takes, she's got it. 

compared to other comment sections I've plowed through, those are fairly mild.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

"AOC. Adrift, Broke, and Disillusioned How a struggling bartender became the face of a resurgent left."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/aoc-biography-book-excerpt.html

As to be expected, the comments section is brutal this woman who had the temerity to run for office and get elected, who was a specific target on January 6th, exultantly threatened by male republican 'legislators'.  Men really REALLY hate her.  I knew all this, but even so I am shaken by what I've read.  She's the target of that kind of murderous hate all day every day and she knows it.  What it takes not to break, run and hide, after years of it -- well whatever it takes, she's got it. 

Yeah, Jimmy Dore and Brianna Joy Gray have really put a hit out on her. They're fucking morons--as are those who think AOC's a democrat insider or whatever. I'd say whatever side these "leftists" actually exist on, they're as bad as the right wingers who are obsessed with her.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Waiting for your Business News thread, @Fragile Bird:
 

 

[Fragile Bird]

No wonder he ran away from California!