Jump to content

US politics: Red Tide Rising


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Obamacare back in court as Texans challenge coverage for STDs and HIV care
The GOP’s decade-plus war against the health law continues with lawsuit over coverage requirement for testing, vaccines and PrEP.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/26/texas-obamacare-std-hiv-00047724

 

Although I could see them finding a legal argument that would make it past the current SC makeup, this legal argument seems like a particularly poor route to take and I'd be willing to go out on a limb and predict it wont be upheld.  Generally the employees of a given department are empowered by congress to act on behalf of the Secretary/Administrator of the agency within a scope of activities.  I would be very surprised if the ACA, HHS enabling Act, or other myriad of health care laws lacked language about delegating what can and cannot be required in a health plan to HHS.  If in the slight chance there isnt any law out there granting that power to HHS, then, as odious as the intent of this challenge is, it probably should be upheld.   Even then, based on the way the challenge reads in that article, it sounds like a work around would be for the Secretary to do a periodic blanket approval of the list of mandatory covered procedures.

Not to give any ideas, but I'd think if they really want to swing for a libertarian hellhole, they'd try and make the argument that Congress cant delegate those decisions to the Executive Branch at all to wedge open even further the recent EPA decision.  (I dont think they'd win their either, but it would be more appealing to an ideological originalist choice rather than an administrative red tape issue.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the detail on independent truckers blockading California ports? An article I read provided a bit of detail regarding a new California regulation regarding trucker employment status, being employees rather than independent contractors. But it didn't go into much detail on the actual regulation. Sounds like the intent of the regulation is to prevent abusive practices by haulage companies. But perhaps it has stopped truckers from being able to operate as independent small businesses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drivers don't get paid for their idle time, only time after they have been hooked up.

Because the ports are overwhelmed with IMCUs, the wait in the neighborhoods outside the port can be hours and hours.  The truckers want to be paid for this time, reasonably enough, or else have the shippers get their act together so that the traffic flow is corrected.

One helpful action most Americans can take to help solve the problem is to stop buying "cheap, disposable crap from China", since a lot of those intermodal container units are full of inexpensive, low-quality items bought from Amazon, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do people think about the decision by the DCCC to spend money to sorta support the far right candidate in MI-3?  For those who aren't aware, MI-3 is a Biden +9 district that is held by Republican Peter Meijer.  Meijer is moderate by Republican standards, but hardly anyone's idea of a moderate.  However, he was one of only 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after the insurrection. 

Meijer is one of the most valuable Republicans in Congress because he can win in his relatively blue district.  But of course Trump hates him and is trying to get him replaced by John Gibbs, a sufficiently Trumpist candidate.  The DCCC thinks, reasonably, that Gibbs would be easier to defeat than Meijer, and thus are spending money on ads that Gibbs is "too conservative for Michigan".  This serves the double purpose of boosting Gibbs in the Republican primary, and hopefully poisoning the well against him in the general. 

But some people question whether Democrats should be interfering against someone who is pro-democracy and to support someone who is anti-democracy.  Democrats pulled a similar trick in Arizona and Pennsylvania governor's races, and in both cases the theoretically more beatable, but clearly anti-democratic candidates won.  This is a pretty questionable choice given that an anti-democratic governor in Arizona could cause a ton of chaos in 2024. 

Personally, I think that the Democrats should be doing what they can to defeat Meijer and his ilk, but supporting anti-democratic candidates is the wrong call.  2016 demonstrated clearly that bad candidates win sometimes and when they do, it is way worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

So what do people think about the decision by the DCCC to spend money to sorta support the far right candidate in MI-3?  For those who aren't aware, MI-3 is a Biden +9 district that is held by Republican Peter Meijer.  Meijer is moderate by Republican standards, but hardly anyone's idea of a moderate.  However, he was one of only 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after the insurrection. 

Meijer is one of the most valuable Republicans in Congress because he can win in his relatively blue district.  But of course Trump hates him and is trying to get him replaced by John Gibbs, a sufficiently Trumpist candidate.  The DCCC thinks, reasonably, that Gibbs would be easier to defeat than Meijer, and thus are spending money on ads that Gibbs is "too conservative for Michigan".  This serves the double purpose of boosting Gibbs in the Republican primary, and hopefully poisoning the well against him in the general. 

But some people question whether Democrats should be interfering against someone who is pro-democracy and to support someone who is anti-democracy.  Democrats pulled a similar trick in Arizona and Pennsylvania governor's races, and in both cases the theoretically more beatable, but clearly anti-democratic candidates won.  This is a pretty questionable choice given that an anti-democratic governor in Arizona could cause a ton of chaos in 2024. 

Personally, I think that the Democrats should be doing what they can to defeat Meijer and his ilk, but supporting anti-democratic candidates is the wrong call.  2016 demonstrated clearly that bad candidates win sometimes and when they do, it is way worse. 

Terrible idea.  I always hate strategic support for awful candidates.  When people gloated that HRC was a lock here in 2016 because of Trump’s nomination… I warned it could bite us all in the ass…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Dept. investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe

Trump conduct, conversations part of Justice Dept. investigation - The Washington Post

Quote

 

The Justice Department is investigating President Donald Trump’s actions as part of its criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, according to four people familiar with the matter.

Prosecutors who are questioning witnesses before a grand jury — including two top aides to Vice President Mike Pence — have asked in recent days about conversations with Trump, his lawyers, and others in his inner circle who sought to substitute Trump allies for certified electors from some states Joe Biden won, according to two people familiar with the matter. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

 

It's happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

So what do people think about the decision by the DCCC to spend money to sorta support the far right candidate in MI-3? 

One of the most idiotic things the Dems could do.  Whose incredibly brain dead idea was this for winning elections strategy, rather than sending those dollars to advertising actual, you know, Democratic candidates in those districts?  Disbar the jerkwaddy(ies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LongRider said:

It's happening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/us/politics/trump-jan-6-justice-department.html

Quote

.... If a decision were made to open a criminal investigation into Mr. Trump after he announced his intention to run in the 2024 election, as he continues to hint he might do, the department’s leadership would be required to undertake a formal consultation process, then sign a formal approval of the department’s intentions under an internal rule created by former Attorney General William P. Barr and endorsed by Mr. Garland. ....

We'll see . . . . :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, its a terrible idea. I might actually do the opposite, which is to support a Republican moderate for the Michigan state House in the upcoming primary, mostly because this district is solidly Republican and whoever wins the primary will most likely win the general. She happens to be pro-choice, or I would never even have considered the possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yes, its a terrible idea. I might actually do the opposite, which is to support a Republican moderate for the Michigan state House in the upcoming primary, mostly because this district is solidly Republican and whoever wins the primary will most likely win the general. She happens to be pro-choice, or I would never even have considered the possibility.

The case I was talking about was in the MI-3 congressional district, which with the new lines is a Biden +8.5 district.  Meijer won with the old lines, which Biden also won, but less comfortably.  This district was already seen as a toss up, but Republicans are much more likely to hold it with Meijer than with Gibbs. 

I would also note that it is pretty ridiculous that we are in a position where running attack ads against Gibbs is something that helps him win the primary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand all that, I was just mentioning that I was also strategically interjecting myself in the Republican race by promoting the moderate, the exact opposite of what the Democrats were doing..

If MI-3 is a tossup, you'd probably get more traction from Republicans staying home or not voting for Meijer for his heresy, rather than some nebulous appeal to 'persuadable voters'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

If MI-3 is a tossup, you'd probably get more traction from Republicans staying home or not voting for Meijer for his heresy, rather than some nebulous appeal to 'persuadable voters'

...maybe.  I think it's more just that incumbents have name recognition and better funding, which is why they're harder to beat than challengers.  Even if Democrats have a mediocre environment in 2022, you would expect them to win a Biden +8.5 seat against a non-incumbent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

...maybe.  I think it's more just that incumbents have name recognition and better funding, which is why they're harder to beat than challengers.  Even if Democrats have a mediocre environment in 2022, you would expect them to win a Biden +8.5 seat against a non-incumbent. 

I don't know why the Democrats would want to change their brand from pro-democracy to win-at-all-costs for a single measly House seat.  There's already a political party making a fetish of ruthlessness, and see what it's turned them into.  Control of the House won't come down to this one seat the way, say, control of the Senate might.  

Edited by Gaston de Foix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

So what do people think about the decision by the DCCC to spend money to sorta support the far right candidate in MI-3?  For those who aren't aware, MI-3 is a Biden +9 district that is held by Republican Peter Meijer.

First of all, I don't know where you're getting your data from.  Trump won the district 50.6 to 47.4 in 2020 (and both Trump and Romney won by larger margins in 2016 and 2012), and according to Cook PVI, redistricting changed it from R+4 to D+1.

Anyway, I almost posted about this general topic after seeing this article the other day.  Thing is, this strategy famously "worked" in 2012 in both the Indiana and Missouri Senate elections when Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin won their primaries leading to Democratic victories.  It appears to have "worked" in the Maryland gubernatorial race this cycle too - where Dan Cox won the primary over Larry Hogan's candidate and Hogan subsequently said he wouldn't support Cox.  That basically ensures a Dem victory..but on the other hand a Dem victory would have been pretty assured regardless.

The other thing about this "strategy" is I'm very skeptical it has an effect.  Mastriano was going to with the PA primary anyway - and moreover, at least in that case, his closest rival wasn't any better at all (he was endorsed by Steve Bannon and Bill Stepien).  On the flip side, as the article notes, this "strategy" often fails:

Quote

Democrats similarly tried to boost Chris Mathys in California’s newly drawn 22nd District, spending $110,000 on ads playing up his support for Trump, but his opponent Rep. David Valadao, who voted to impeach Trump following the Capitol insurrection, pulled through.

Generally, I've always said I'm pretty ambivalent about this over the years because I don't think it has much of an impact.  Especially if, say, Pritzker in Illinois wants to spend his fortune trying to get his preferred candidate, I really don't give a shit.  I'd prefer the DCCC (or DSCC) not invest in this shit, but it's usually pretty negligible in the aggregate.  You're right that the "pro vs. anti democracy" aspect is an unfortunate new spin on it, but if Meijer gets taken down by the likes of John Gibbs that probably was going to happen regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

First of all, I don't know where you're getting your data from.  Trump won the district 50.6 to 47.4 in 2020 (and both Trump and Romney won by larger margins in 2016 and 2012), and according to Cook PVI, redistricting changed it from R+4 to D+1.

The D+9 thing came from Dave Wasserman.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The D+9 thing came from Dave Wasserman

Hmm...so since Biden won nationally by 4.4, that would make the new district a D+4.6 based solely on the 2020 results.  When Trump won the old district by three points in 2020.  That's a very significant shift.  Considering Wasserman is primarily responsible for calculating the Cook PVI scores, something is off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Drivers don't get paid for their idle time, only time after they have been hooked up.

Because the ports are overwhelmed with IMCUs, the wait in the neighborhoods outside the port can be hours and hours.  The truckers want to be paid for this time, reasonably enough, or else have the shippers get their act together so that the traffic flow is corrected.

One helpful action most Americans can take to help solve the problem is to stop buying "cheap, disposable crap from China", since a lot of those intermodal container units are full of inexpensive, low-quality items bought from Amazon, etc.

People need to stop being such damn Amazon junkies.

Piles and piles of cheap trinkets, people think it's happiness in a box they are having shipped to the doorstep.

They are addicted to a behavior that increases their carbon footprint. Want to help ease global warming, stop having all this junk shipped to your house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/an-antidemocratic-philosophy-called-neoreaction-is-creeping-into-gop-politics

I think it's been there strongly for a long time, the push to chaos to achieve power and wipe out democracy, tolerance, liberties, rights and egalitarianism, -- the accelerant was romperisto.

Quote

 

.... Another important neoreactionary figure is Nick Land, whose main contribution to the philosophy is the concept of accelerationism. In essence, accelerationism is based on Vladimir Lenin’s notion that “worse is better.” The Russian revolutionary maintained that the more chaotic conditions became, the greater the likelihood that his Bolshevik party could accomplish its goals.

Analogously, right-wing accelerationists believe that they can hasten the demise of liberal democratic governments by stoking political tension.

Both Yarvin and Land believe that gradual, incremental reforms to democracy will not save Western society; instead, a “hard reset” or “reboot” is necessary. To that end, Yarvin has coined the acronym “RAGE” – Retire All Government Employees – as a crucial step toward that goal. The acronym is reminiscent of former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon’s vow to deconstruct the administrative state.

Yarvin advocates for an entirely new system of government – what he calls “neocameralism.” He advocates for a centrally managed economy led by a monarch – perhaps modeled after a corporate CEO – who wouldn’t need to adhere to plodding liberal-democratic procedures. Yarvin has written approvingly of the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping for his pragmatic and market-oriented authoritarianism.

While not explicitly fascist, Yarvin’s worldview does, at times, appear to have a fascistic bent. As the historian Roger Griffin once argued, the essence of fascism was a nationwide process of death and rebirth. Yarvin’s rhetoric of “reboots” and “hard resets” evokes the imagery of national renewal.

Moreover, though he maintains that he is not a white nationalist, he has echoed racist views like the belief that white people, on average, have higher IQs than Black people.

Follow the money
Though neoreaction has long eschewed involvement in electoral politics, it seems to be be gradually penetrating mainstream right-wing spaces.

Yarvin is said to have helped popularize the “red pill” meme in alt-right subcultures. Pulled from the 1999 film “The Matrix,” to take the red pill is to no longer live under the spell of delusion. In the context of politics, it means breaking free from the spell of liberal orthodoxy. ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...