U.S. Politics: Great Men Master trends

[Jace, Extat]

Wait a minute... what in god's name costs 10 million monies to run a group jerkoff session? Seriously, not a joke? 

Like, I understand they have some clerks or interns or whatever. There's salaries around a judge. But 10 MILLION??? Do they need a cheaper paper company?? Are they signed up for too many streaming services? That happens with older people. In a better state of the union they'd feel comfortable sharing passwords, liberals and conservatives both... but that's not the world we have.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Jesus fucking christ.  Are they actually saying that you can buy 5 supreme court votes for 2 million each?  Because that looks the implication to me.

If a supreme court judge has broken the law, go ahead and charge them with something specific.  Not sure where they have immunity or not, but they are subject to impeachment.  Go for it.  Everyone claims to want to have justices above reproach.  Let's apply that all the way down the line.

Existing Judicial Canons state Judges should avoid even “the appearance of impropriety”.  When my wife worked for a Court of Appeals Judge as a Law Clerk she resigned a local volunteer board at her Judge’s request because her Judge takes that duty seriously.

This rule applies to lower Court Judges with less power all over the United States.  

Please, as though we are three year olds, explain why this provision… shouldn’t… apply to the nine most powerful Judical offices in the United States and, perhaps, the world.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Ran]

48 minutes ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

Wait a minute... what in god's name costs 10 million monies to run a group jerkoff session? Seriously, not a joke? 

 

You can see a budget here. The total SC budget is around $150 million. This includes:

~$3 million for salaries and expenses of the justices.

~$127 million is for salaries, benefits, and expenses of the court personnel

~$20 million is care and upkeep of the court building and grounds.

Back in March they asked for an additional appropriation of $5.9 million for increased security and some $6 million to physically improve security of the building and grounds.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Ran

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

Ethics. Ethics is the issue. Not lawbreaking.

Why not both? He's destroyed the entire concept of ethical behavior on the bench, but he's also broken the law himself and I think one can fairly assume that he's been actively working with his wife to aid her seditious activities. 

So if the conservative court won't do anything about it, defund them completely until they're brought to heel. It might be the only way to save the institution from itself. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 5/4/2023 at 5:11 AM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I'm hoping you realize that your comment here has a strong whiff of "I don't really give a shit, but I'll shoot off an opinion if you present it to me.

I can’t read the transcript or listen to the thing you sent me since it has a paywall.

On 5/4/2023 at 5:11 AM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Pretty much all of the articles I've read tackling this problem among progressive political organizations have acknowledged that there are valid complaints about ossification, unfairness, and mistreatment present in the mix as well as the more illiberal stuff. And even the people proving to be the most toxic can sometimes have valid concerns, they're just taking courses of action that do more harm to the cause than good.

Sounds reasonable.

On 5/4/2023 at 5:11 AM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

For most of history, the word "alliance" did not mean a union of perfectly worthy souls; it meant a temporary staying of conflict for the sake of specific practical action. Hopefully you can acknowledge how far that word has drifted in terms of a standard for working with people.

I think I need to clarify—my grievance isn’t with the notion of forming an alliance with bad people for a practical goal.

My issue is treating such creating such “alliances” as if they don’t carry their own risk.

It’s not only hardcore zealots who’d be uncomfortable loaning support to a movement who may have a goal they may be open to sympathy to under the right circumstance but are repelled by who they see representing it and it’s response.

The anti-war movement in the 1930s was made obsolete for decades partially because it got riddled with and co-opted by fascists.

On 5/4/2023 at 5:11 AM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

And hopefully you can also acknowledge that fellow members of a progressive organization, and people elsewhere on the left, are nowhere near anything like a fascist.

The way you’ve typed this I’d have to say no.  People with strong reactionary sentiments can be drawn to progressive organizations centered around one topic because of a practical understanding the organization may be the best way to preserve x thing they like or attack x thing they hate.

An anti-Semite may join a organization trying to encourage boycotting Israel because they hate Jews—to which zionists in Israel are eager to point to.

There are women who may join feminist organizations who are heavily sexist themselves.

In terms of the broader left? People can have left wing economic positions and ultra reactionary 

I’d see more value with forming an alliance right-wing libertarian in a heavily republican controlled state to get them elected than someone whose Matt Walsh but open to expanding the social safety nets—least to white nuclear families.

On 5/4/2023 at 5:11 AM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/

Reading the intercept article I found it had mostly valid criticisms—and at least one really frustrating one lacking merit and the type of expressed settlement that alienates the left from democrats and liberals.

 

Quote

OR PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT organizations, 2021 promised to be the year they turned power into policy, with a Democratic trifecta and the Biden administration broadcasting a bold vision of “transformational change.” Out of the gate, Democrats pushed ahead with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, funding everything from expanded health care to a new monthly child tax credit. Republican efforts to slow-walk the process with disingenuous counteroffers were simply dismissed.

And then, sometime in the summer, the forward momentum stalled, and many of the progressive gains lapsed or were reversed. Instead of fueling a groundswell of public support to reinvigorate the party’s ambitious agenda, 

The biggest roadblock of the Democratic Party’s National agenda wasn’t progressives slacking off or not unifying at this point, it was ‘moderates’(for a lack of a better word)who refused to show some unity themselves and use their power to open more pathways for the democrats to do good things.

Like you know not nuking the filibuster to be able to accept  Puerto Rico and DC as states, expanding the courts.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I can’t read the transcript or listen to the thing you sent me since it has a paywall.

On 5/4/2023 at 8:11 AM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Sorry about that. The guy interviewed there is Maurice Mitchell, and I linked to one of his own articles in my last comment. The article is less about his own experiences and more about possible ways forward, but you can get an idea of where he's coming from.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The way you’ve typed this I’d have to say no.  People with strong reactionary sentiments can be drawn to progressive organizations centered around one topic because of a practical understanding the organization may be the best way to preserve x thing they like or attack x thing they hate.

An anti-Semite may join a organization trying to encourage boycotting Israel because they hate Jews—to which zionists in Israel are eager to point to.

There are women who may join feminist organizations who are heavily sexist themselves.

In terms of the broader left? People can have left wing economic positions and ultra reactionary 

All of this is this is true enough, but generally the threshold for collaboration, or even association, is so high these days that we're instead talking about whether we should simply shun someone who was somewhat dismissive of nonbinary identities or also whoever associates with them. Or shutting people down ostensibly based on some demographic indicator, but really because they happen to disagree with you. As I implied before, too many people these days are so far up their own asses in righteous orthodoxy that they will equate a large portion of people on their own side as no different from Nazis. And that's not only a problem for people who adhere to liberal values, it's a problem of organizational efficacy.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The biggest roadblock of the Democratic Party’s National agenda wasn’t progressives slacking off or not unifying at this point, it was ‘moderates’(for a lack of a better word)who refused to show some unity themselves and use their power to open more pathways for the democrats to do good things.

Like you know not nuking the filibuster to be able to accept  Puerto Rico and DC as states, expanding the courts.

That's fair. I think he was not really covering that angle of the story, but it's probably the case that our okay-but-not-that-great situation in Congress was a factor that dampened enthusiasm and sowed frustration throughout progressive organizations. 

I should say, that in terms of recent electoral politics and Congressional maneuvering, I think the left has been doing fairly well playing the cards they were dealt. We've had consistently strong voting turnout, which is essential. Given the razor thin majority in House and Senate, and given the prima donna conservative Dems having leverage, everyone got together and did the most they could do.

What I worry about, and you alluded to this earlier to some extent, is that it's mostly the hyper-crazy MAGA presence that's keeping people engaged and cooperative. Say Biden defeats Trump in 2024, people write off MAGA as no longer a threat, and then people go back to bickering, low vote turnout, low political engagement beyond Twitter unless things are perfect. Hopefully some substantial portion of young voters will remain active, and steadily force the change they want through constant engagement. Only then can things get better.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Altherion]

It seems that unlike the CEO of Apple (who at least took a pay cut), the CEO of Google will be getting $226M this year despite mass layoffs and cost cutting at Google. This got me thinking: why have the more liberal politicians not said anything about creating more tax brackets? Unlike with the wealth tax, there are no constitutional issues here: as recently as the 1960s, we had a tax table with many gradations where the top rate was 91%. The numbers in that link are not adjusted for inflation so they'd need to be multiplied by 10 to 20, but we could totally do something like this.

Obviously, this idea would not go anywhere in today's Congress, but why does Sen. Sanders or Rep. Ocasio-Cortez at least bring up very high (90%+) marginal tax rates on people making, say, more than $10M per year?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

It seems that unlike the CEO of Apple (who at least took a pay cut), the CEO of Google will be getting $226M this year despite mass layoffs and cost cutting at Google. This got me thinking: why have the more liberal politicians not said anything about creating more tax brackets? Unlike with the wealth tax, there are no constitutional issues here: as recently as the 1960s, we had a tax table with many gradations where the top rate was 91%. The numbers in that link are not adjusted for inflation so they'd need to be multiplied by 10 to 20, but we could totally do something like this.

Obviously, this idea would not go anywhere in today's Congress, but why does Sen. Sanders or Rep. Ocasio-Cortez at least bring up very high (90%+) marginal tax rates on people making, say, more than $10M per year?

They do this all the time. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-s-70-percent-tax-rich-isn-t-ncna963146
https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/#:~:text=The tax rate would increase,on wealth over %2410 billion.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Peanuts.

If you truely want the rich to pay their share, tax capital income at least as high as actual labour.

K.-M. Kühne major bellend and one of the richest folks in Germany. He among other things holds a ~30% share of Hapag-Lloyd (major player in cargo shipping). The dividends of that earnt him around 3bn €.

I am not sure, which I find more galling about that tosser. His refusal to pay compensation for forced labor during the NS era for the comapny he inherited (Kühne+Nagel logistics), or that he moved his residence to Switzerland for tax purposes, while playing the big local patriot and donor in his (and more importantly my) hometown. I hope he chokes on his dentals one day. In the meantime tax the shit out of those motherfuckers. Sorry for the rant.

Edited May 5, 2023 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

If you truely want the rich to pay their share,

If only I could convert @Mlle. Zabzie, then there'd be a tax code that would pay off the entire US debt in 10-15 years.

Phase one, take everything from those who have intentionally hurt everyday people to get wealthy. Zuckerberg gets sacrificed to the hogs as an opening shot. Not because he's rich but because the real harm he's done to children and the general public. 

Phase two will look a lot worse, but is entirely necessary. 

[DMC]

On 5/4/2023 at 1:48 PM, Gaston de Foix said:

A bit rude, DMC, and I don't really understand why we are fighting pretty self-evident facts. 

Kamala Harris was chosen as Biden's VP nominee in 2020 because she was thought to be an electoral asset and a responsible choice if something happened to Biden.  Today, during the re-elect, Harris is widely seen a political liability, Republicans are definitely going to make her replacing Biden one of their headline arguments in 2024, and Biden's team is working hard to defend her.  However we got from point A to point B, this is where we are. 

Sorry, it is blunt that to say your arguments are dumb and unfounded, but that's because I'm frustrated you're regurgitating horseshit arguments that are not only dumb and unfounded but derived from racial and gender biases.  And, no, I do not agree with your "facts."  Harris WAS an electoral asset in 2020, and promises to be in 2024.  Are Republicans going to go after her in the campaign - and already have?  Of course.  But as I said in my first response on this topic, it is not going to be effective.

On 5/4/2023 at 1:48 PM, Gaston de Foix said:

Most VPs go on to at least win their party's nomination and have a decent shot of becoming president themselves.  Whether it's holding the office doing the work, or group-think, or their performance in office or whatever, is largely irrelevant.  Some succeed and become President, some crash and burn.  But few become a liability.   

And who's to say Harris won't?  Also, again, Mondale barely won his nomination four years later and then got wiped out in the general.  Biden had to step aside for Hillary.  Cheney didn't even bother running.  Quayle couldn't get his campaign off the ground.  Humphrey would have lost in 68 if RFK wasn't assassinated.  Pence doesn't have a chance to win the nomination.  Rockefeller died before he could have run in 80 - but if he had Reagan still would have beat him.  Ford inherited the presidency - and the vice presidency - without being elected either.  LBJ, obviously, also inherited the presidency.  And Agnew resigned after pleading no contest to felony tax evasion. 

That's 10 of the last 12 VPs that don't really meet the standard you're suggesting, so I don't really know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Week]

Hmmm...

It absolutely astounds me that people have any affinity, let alone the cultish worship, of this pitiful buffoon.

 

[DMC]

On 5/4/2023 at 1:15 PM, Mindwalker said:

I wonder if KBJ is the only non-corrupt (I hope) member of SCOTUS?

I'm unaware of any reason to suspect Kagan nor Sotomayor are corrupt.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Week said:

Hmmm...

It absolutely astounds me that people have any affinity, let alone the cultish worship, of this pitiful buffoon.

 

Reminds me of when his supporters celebrated that he passed some kind of mental health test that included showing him pictures of animals and being asked what they were called. 

Sometimes you're in so deep that it can be too painful to admit how wrong you are. Cults thrive on that. 

[Zorral]

Holy -- the Mississippi governor's re-election campaign video has pasted HIS face on top of Clint Eastwood's in one his Dollar flix, minus all the reds, swellings, blemishes, etc. It's 15 minutes non-stop of him killing Mexicans.  And he released it on Cinco de Mayo.

I am NOT linking to this.

He should be taken to court for stealing and defamation of the film and the actor.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Zorral

[mormont]

 

That was definitely the reason, I'm sure.

ETA link to original article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/05/04/leonard-leo-clarence-ginni-thomas-conway/

Edited May 5, 2023 by mormont

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

They do this all the time. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-s-70-percent-tax-rich-isn-t-ncna963146
https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/#:~:text=The tax rate would increase,on wealth over %2410 billion.

The second link is about a wealth tax, but thank you for the first one -- I did not realize AOC actually said something of the sort (although her plan is much more modest). It's good that at least the left-most politicians are for this.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The second link is about a wealth tax, but thank you for the first one -- I did not realize AOC actually said something of the sort (although her plan is much more modest). It's good that at least the left-most politicians are for this.

Uh, nearly the entire Democratic party-in-government tried to modestly raise the top tax rate from 37 to 39.6% less than two years ago.  Sinema killed it.  Just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

44 minutes ago, mormont said:

ETA link to original article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/05/04/leonard-leo-clarence-ginni-thomas-conway/

I need an angry emoji...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

 

That was definitely the reason, I'm sure.

ETA link to original article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/05/04/leonard-leo-clarence-ginni-thomas-conway/

Hmm, guess I was just being a bit crazy to claim that people at the highest levels of the legal profession are a bit...criminal in nature?

Also, every member of the Federalist Society should be banned from holding any office or judicial seat of any kind for the rest of their lives. And that would be too kind for what they really deserve.