Jump to content

US Politics: Sorry, we do make the rules.


LongRider

Recommended Posts

Iceland is a better place than the US.  Or the UK, for that matter.

https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/north-dakota/north-dakota-transgender-women-to-flee-us-form-group-to-help-others-do-the-same

North Dakota transgender women to flee US, form group to help others do the same
Rynn Willgohs and Zara Crystal, both transgender women who live in Fargo, are working to set up TRANSport, a nonprofit group that Willgohs envisioned to help other trans people in the U.S. emigrate to more hospitable countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There's sex in it.  Case closed. 

Is there? Iirc Sadie just says she's finally comfortable having sex again and it's off page after her and Jake begin to start hooking up. Maybe the crime is her saying that she likes it?

Anyways, it's so fucking tame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There's sex in it.  Case closed. 

I was thinking it might actually be a QAnon thing. There was that whole thing about them gathering in Dallas in November 2021 because they thought JFK Jr was going to reveal himself to be alive or something. I don't really understand the details, but maybe the idea of someone time traveling to save JFK's life interferes with their prophecies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone buying this?

Santos denies having been a drag performer
Hours later, video surfaced showing a person in a dress, who appears to be the first-term New York congressman, talking about performing in drag.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/19/santos-denies-having-been-a-drag-performer-00078515

Quote

“The most recent obsession from the media claiming that I am a drag Queen or ‘performed’ as a drag Queen is categorically false,” Santos said in a tweet on Thursday morning. “The media continues to make outrageous claims about my life while I am working to deliver results. I will not be distracted nor fazed by this.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple items that apparently got overlooked here:

First up, we have a constitutional amendment with 80 D signatories to reform campaign finance law, effectively overturning 'Citizens United.' I put this one down as 'political theater.' Might be interesting to see how far it gets - maybe the D's can demand a vote on it in exchange for something else. 

Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to overturn corporate campaign finance laws (msn.com)

 

The "Democracy For All" amendment would allow Congress and states to "regulate and impose reasonable viewpoint-neutral limitations on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections."

HOUSE OVERSIGHT CHAIRMAN JAMES COMER ANNOUNCES HEARING ON SOUTHERN BORDER

The effort is spearheaded by Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Dean Phillips (D-MN), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), and Jim McGovern (D-MA). The bill also has more than 80 Democratic representatives co-signing the proposed amendment.

In Citizens United, a 5-4 majority decision held that Congress and states cannot make laws restricting how companies may donate to political campaigns. It ruled that limitations would violate their free speech rights protected under the First Amendment.

 

 

Next, we have 'tax the rich' proposals being floated in eight states to fund things like affordable housing and childcare. Maybe some of these will pass?

Lawmakers call on 8 states to pass wealth taxes to help pay for childcare, affordable housing, and ending homelessness (msn.com)

 
  • Lawmakers and advocates are pushing to pass wealth taxes in eight states, after a federal plan failed to pass.
  • The taxes would target both realized and unrealized capital gains, assets like stocks and bonds.
  • Lawmakers say that the taxes would pay for childcare and housing — and are ready for pushback.

As the world's wealthiest sit on increasingly larger fortunes  in the form of assets that are often taxed at lower rates paychecks — lawmakers are calling for taxes that would get at that wealth.

Across eight states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and Washington — legislators and advocates are pushing for a suite of tax measures aimed at taxing the assets of the ultra-wealthy, and increasing the amount of tax they pay when selling off those assets.

"It's more important than ever that we use our state legislatures to showcase the incredible opportunity to really skew the scales again, towards working people, not against them," Pramila Jayapal, a Democratic representative from Washington and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in a press conference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Surely any state that passes laws to “tax the rich” will simply see “the rich” move to other states, won’t they? Think of Elon Musk moving Tesla to Texas.

It’s a little bit more complicated than that, but the “race to the bottom” is of course a real thing. Despite the views of this board, the ultra wealthy will in fact move and that will in fact negatively impact state and local collections.  You will generally keep the generally well-off who are less mobile.  But the amount collected from the very top few people is bit enough to make a difference in those budgets.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump and his attorneys on the hook for nearly $1 million in sanctions for Clinton lawsuit, judge says

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/politics/trump-sanctions-clinton-lawsuit/index.html

Quote

 

A federal judge said Thursday that former President Donald Trump and his attorneys are liable for nearly $1 million in sanctions for a lawsuit Trump brought against Hillary Clinton, ex-top Justice Department officials and several others alleging they conspired against him in the 2016 campaign.

“This case should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start,” US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the Southern District of Florida wrote. “No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

It’s a little bit more complicated than that, but the “race to the bottom” is of course a real thing. Despite the views of this board, the ultra wealthy will in fact move and that will in fact negatively impact state and local collections.  You will generally keep the generally well-off who are less mobile.  But the amount collected from the very top few people is bit enough to make a difference in those budgets.  

How would you design a system to prevent this then? Because there is a very clear race to the bottom and enough affluent people are happy to hop on that highway, even if it may be very shortsighted for them and also in the long run decrease their earnings?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...