Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Great Men Master trends


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

And that prospect is scary because?

Which one? Biden dying early in his second term? Or the current Governor of California becoming POTUS?

Biden dying in his second term makes Harris president - but given issues reported thus far, I have to wonder if she is up to the job. I hope so, but...

Apart from a bit of progressive outrage, I figure the current governor of CA would be no worse than some other recent D presidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More Supreme Court woes - seems the wife of SC Justice Roberts argued cases before her husband at the SC. Conservative commenters on the article see no problems whatsoever with this (and for that matter, I have seen articles from conservatives claiming the there was nothing unethical in Thomas's actions.)

 

Whistleblower raises alarm over John Roberts' wife making $10.3 million in legal commissions: 'I knew immediately that it was wrong' (msn.com)

 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife earned $10.3 million in commissions for her work for elite law firms, one of which argued a case before her husband, Business Insider reports.

Jane Sullivan Roberts stepped away from her career as a prominent lawyer two years after her husband’s confirmation to the Supreme Court to become a legal recruiter, matching job-seeking lawyers with employers in what turned out to be a lucrative career change.

She made $10.3 million in commissions from 2007 to 2014, according to a whistleblower complaint, which cites internal records that were obtained from her employer by a disgruntled former colleague of Jane Roberts.

Kendal B. Price, the whistleblower who worked with Roberts at the firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, said as the chief justice’s wife, income Jane Roberts earns from law firms who try cases before the court should be subject to scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More bad news for the GOP, this time with their fundraising outfit. Given this situation, and the monumental GOP corruption, I have to wonder when the proverbial 'suitcase full of cash' makes an appearance (or is that 'disappearance?'

Add in their massively unpopular social war crap, and I am starting to think that the 2024 general election could be downright catastrophic for the GOP, to the point where they not only fail to take the white house, but the D's *might* manage a supermajority in the Senate and maybe the House. Real, real iffy, but not completely insane.

Republicans in war with fundraising firm over plan to 'siphon' off millions in donations (msn.com)

According to a report from the Washington Post, Republicans are in a squabble with WinRed, the private for-profit company which has been the central hub for almost all online donations flowing into the GOP.

At issue is a demand by WinRed to increase fees they had rolled back previously and now want to recoup again citing higher expenses.

That, in turn, the Post reports, could take millions in much-needed campaign dollars out of the pockets of candidates in what is expected to be a high-turnout election tied to Trump's possible candidacy and hot-button issues like the availability of abortion and the proliferation of high powered weapons being used in mass shootings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mormont said:

Ah, the whine of the powerful conservative through the ages: 'shut up and show proper deference while I fuck you over'.

ETA:

https://www.businessinsider.com/jane-roberts-chief-justice-wife-10-million-commissions-2023-4?r=US&IR=T

 

Weird how people are accusing the justices of unethical conduct.

Weird, here I was under the impression that if you're engaging in unethical/corrupt practices, the response was of the profession was meant to be disbar you not act like a fraternal order of whatever closing ranks to defend a cop that just murdered someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Weird, here I was under the impression that if you're engaging in unethical/corrupt practices, the response was of the profession was meant to be disbar you not act like a fraternal order of whatever closing ranks to defend a cop that just murdered someone.

That's what's telling about that interview: the complete lack of any introspection or self-reflection, critical qualities of any professional with a code of ethics. It simply does not occur to Alito that he or any of his colleagues might have done anything to deserve public criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it insane that other than a handful of politicians like Whitehouse or AOC, most politicians don't even try to change anything. Not just the corruption, the entitlement to be actively, publicly poloitical etc.

Then again, these are the same people who feel entitled to insider trading while in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Apart from a bit of progressive outrage, I figure the current governor of CA would be no worse than some other recent D presidents.

Wouldn't that likely be true of Harris as well?

I mean, she didn't run the best campaign, but campaigning and governing are very different things. I don't question her competence to govern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Which one? Biden dying early in his second term? Or the current Governor of California becoming POTUS?

Biden dying in his second term makes Harris president - but given issues reported thus far, I have to wonder if she is up to the job. I hope so, but...

Apart from a bit of progressive outrage, I figure the current governor of CA would be no worse than some other recent D presidents.

Harris taking over.
I can pretty much see the GOP campaign machine trying to focus on Harris. Biden is old, would you trust Kamala Harris with the country etc.

Assuming she won't fire half the cabinet and heads of departments, she'd be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be thrilled with Harris taking over as her as president means we'll likely get her as the nominee in 2028, I'd much rather a primary to bring some air into the party.

Plus Harris is a bit of a faded star, she severely bungled her 2020 campaign and hasn't been that strong in the tasks she was given as VP. Admittedly this seems to have been a poisoned chalice to keep her from being heir apparent and reducing calls for Biden to pass the torch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Harris had to play baby sitter in the senate with 50-50 split.That made it kidna more difficult to develop her own profile.

And even if he dies, who says DMC won't take sabbatical to play Weekend at Bernies. I've always said, he is most presidential man in Florida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

More Supreme Court woes - seems the wife of SC Justice Roberts argued cases before her husband at the SC. Conservative commenters on the article see no problems whatsoever with this (and for that matter, I have seen articles from conservatives claiming the there was nothing unethical in Thomas's actions.)

 

Whistleblower raises alarm over John Roberts' wife making $10.3 million in legal commissions: 'I knew immediately that it was wrong' (msn.com)

 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife earned $10.3 million in commissions for her work for elite law firms, one of which argued a case before her husband, Business Insider reports.

 

She did not argue a case before the court. She was paid $10.3 in commissions by a firm which had a case before the court. There may be ethical problems with that, but it's not the same as her actually arguing the case. If she had done that, this would have been in the news immediately instead of having to be uncovered by a whistleblower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, karaddin said:

Weird, here I was under the impression that if you're engaging in unethical/corrupt practices, the response was of the profession was meant to be disbar you not act like a fraternal order of whatever closing ranks to defend a cop that just murdered someone.

He’s also largely whined about “viewpoint diversity” not being allowed in academic circles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2023 at 10:40 AM, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Well Harris had to play baby sitter in the senate with 50-50 split.That made it kidna more difficult to develop her own profile.

And even if he dies, who says DMC won't take sabbatical to play Weekend at Bernies. I've always said, he is most presidential man in Florida.

Eh, she's just not a good politician.  Not a good public speaker, not good at building relationships, not good at building a good public profile, and not good at getting things done.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ... yet ... here she is, Vice President of the United States, and before that was elected to other offices.  Go figger, hmmmmm ...

Much the same has been repeated endlessly about Biden, and yet, here he is, the duly elected POTUS.

I remain constantly surprised at the levels of my approval of him, btw, though I don't like some what he's done, and dislike even more what he's not done, that I trusted him to do, but he didn't. His and the First Lady's relationship have a lot to do with this, as does what the First Lady herself does do, as First Lady and as herself.  This tends to say they are decent human beings, which one could never say of, well, particularly could not say of their immediate predecessors.

It's always such a relief to feel that whatever else, in our highest office we have people who do not delight in being as cruel as they can devise, just for funzies.  That these people are sane, not insane.  A low criterian, I suppose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2023 at 8:20 PM, ThinkerX said:

More Supreme Court woes - seems the wife of SC Justice Roberts argued cases before her husband at the SC. Conservative commenters on the article see no problems whatsoever with this (and for that matter, I have seen articles from conservatives claiming the there was nothing unethical in Thomas's actions.)

 

Whistleblower raises alarm over John Roberts' wife making $10.3 million in legal commissions: 'I knew immediately that it was wrong' (msn.com)

 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife earned $10.3 million in commissions for her work for elite law firms, one of which argued a case before her husband, Business Insider reports.

Jane Sullivan Roberts stepped away from her career as a prominent lawyer two years after her husband’s confirmation to the Supreme Court to become a legal recruiter, matching job-seeking lawyers with employers in what turned out to be a lucrative career change.

She made $10.3 million in commissions from 2007 to 2014, according to a whistleblower complaint, which cites internal records that were obtained from her employer by a disgruntled former colleague of Jane Roberts.

Kendal B. Price, the whistleblower who worked with Roberts at the firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, said as the chief justice’s wife, income Jane Roberts earns from law firms who try cases before the court should be subject to scrutiny.

I gotta say this is not super troubling to me on its face (and has been reported on since at least January).I would want A LOT more details than are reported here before concluding that there is any kind of issue.  (I read the guy’s redacted affidavit - seems like a bit of a case of sour grapes).  I mean on some of the logic, Ruth Ginsberg should have recused herself from any case with the law firm that her and her husband’s dear friend Jack Levin worked at because Marty and Jack wrote and published a highly successful (and lucrative) treatise on tax law together.  Maybe you conclude that is different, maybe you don’t?  I dunno, again, unless there is an express payola somewhere alleged in the redacted text, I just don’t see it.  Basically seems like there is some latent sexism - like how could she possibly be wildly successful on her own merits without leaning on her husband’s connections?  I call some BS on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Eh, she's just not a good politician.  Not a good public speaker, not good at building relationships, not good at building a good public profile, and not good at getting things done.  

This is why we need an eyeroll emoji in the reactions options.  The administration gave her a shit sandwich of a portfolio with the border and - shocker - she couldn't do anything about it and her approval suffered.  More recently she's focused on abortion rights and guns and - shocker - her approval has bounced back.  Her approval and disapproval are now about a point different than Biden's.  The GOP is going to target her, and already has, but it's not going to be particularly effective. 

And Harris is certainly good at building relationships and getting things done.  Her record in California politics clearly demonstrates that.  She may not have done anything during her four years in the Senate during Trump's presidency, but neither did Obama in his four years.  The attacks on Harris are a completely media-driven narrative (well, maybe not completely, some of Biden's people backstabbed her off the record in the press as well), she's in actuality quite popular with much of the Democratic base -- and not any more unpopular with independents than her boss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

she's just not a good politician

Have you spoken with any of the 1000's of young women on college campuses and elsewhere with whom she's spoken about abortion, women's health care, contraception, reproductive, racial gender, civil and voting rights?  Particularly during the midterms, when the votes of these women had so much to do with keeping the repressed, gerrymandered, illegal actions from those elections from being a profound bloodbath from which the Dems would not recover.

It is difficult to not think that men generally just don't see women doing any of what women do, all the time, whether at home or politics. Particular is she's not White. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Didn’t She Scream?
And Other Questions Not to
Ask a Rape Accuser

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/opinion/e-jean-carroll-trial.html
 

Quote

 

She pushed him off her.

She stomped on his foot.

She hit him with her handbag.

She kneed him.

She fought so hard that for nearly 30 years, E. Jean Carroll, the woman who has accused former President Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s, has preferred calling it a “fight” instead of a “rape” — because she fought back.

What Ms. Carroll did not do that day in the lingerie department dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, where she says Trump pinned her against a wall, pulled down her tights and shoved his fingers and then his penis into her vagina, is scream.

“I’m not a screamer,” she testified in civil court last week, when asked by an attorney for Mr. Trump why she hadn’t cried out. “I was too much in a panic to scream. I was fighting.”

Ms. Carroll was on the stand in a federal courtroom in Manhattan, where a jury will determine whether Mr. Trump is liable for causing Ms. Carroll bodily harm (using New York State’s definition of “battery”) — and defaming her by calling her a liar when she spoke about it. Mr. Trump, who has denied Ms. Carroll’s allegations and said he has never met her, has so far declined to attend the trial, though he has chosen to weigh in (to the judge’s admonition) on social media, including about the absence of a scream.

“You can’t beat up on me for not screaming,” Ms. Carroll told Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, when pressed on her silence. One of the reasons women don’t come forward, she continued, “is because they are always asked, ‘Why didn’t you scream?’”

Ms. Carroll, who had been unflappable until this point, became emotional. “I’m telling you,” she said, raising her voice, “he raped me whether I screamed or not!”

It is 2023, more than five years after #MeToo, and nearly five decades after “acquaintance rape” was coined to describe how rape doesn’t only happen with strangers in dark alleys, but with people you know. These days, our understanding of the concept has evolved enough — at least in some circles — that it took only moments between the time details of Ms. Carroll’s cross-examination began to surface online and the appearance of a hashtag in defense of her: #Ididntscream, with assault victims sharing their own stories of silence.

And yet in the court of law, where Mr. Tacopina stretched out his calves and pressed his knuckles together beginning his cross-examination of Ms. Carroll, as if preparing for a boxing match, none of that mattered. We are still cross-examining rape victims like it is 1993. ....

 

More like 1953.  Or 1923. Or 1703.  Or -- go back forever.  Yet They are always saying, "Why didn't you report it to the authorities -- if it happened at all?"


 

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...