Phylum of Alexandria Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 minute ago, Larry of the Lawn said: Sure, but my original contention was with Ty making a bunch of assumptions from the fact that x percent of people cannot tell you on the spot the three branches of government. I'm guessing that a much larger value than x actually have a functional understanding of them. That's why I think that honing in on what is essentially trivia is a poor example of how "stupid" or "uniformed" or "not bright" or "ignorant" the general populace is or isn't. And his use of those terms more or less interchangeably, which we've been over. I see what you're saying. I guess I can't say for sure, but I lean toward much more education needed based on what I see of people's expectations for government from focus groups and surveys, and from the more politically disengaged people I know. Not at all stupid, but painfully ignorant about a lot more than simple trivia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Florida ready to follow Ohio and secure abortion rights A measure has reached the threshold to qualify for this year’s ballot. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/05/florida-abortion-rights-amendment-00133938 Quote TALLAHASSEE, Florida — Florida abortion rights advocates, who have seen access to the procedure erode in the state and nationally in recent years, reached a major milestone that could shape abortion access throughout the south. Groups seeking a constitutional amendment protecting abortion on Friday secured enough state-certified signatures by the Feb. 1 deadline to put a referendum on the 2024 ballot. If successful, voters in the country’s third-most populous state could undo Florida’s abortion bans, keeping access open to thousands of patients throughout the South who travel to Florida from neighboring states — and from as far away as Texas — to avoid more restrictive prohibitions. Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 minute ago, Martell Spy said: Florida ready to follow Ohio and secure abortion rights A measure has reached the threshold to qualify for this year’s ballot. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/05/florida-abortion-rights-amendment-00133938 Unfortunately it needs 60 percent approval to pass, which might be a tough hurdle. Will be a real tough day if it gets 58% approval and thus fails. That 60% threshold only exists because Florida voters are the only ones dumb enough to vote for something which further transferred power from voters to legislators. When Republicans have tried that in other states, even Republican voters knew better than to go along with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hauberk Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 hour ago, Larry of the Lawn said: Sure, but my original contention was with Ty making a bunch of assumptions from the fact that x percent of people cannot tell you on the spot the three branches of government. I'm guessing that a much larger value than x actually have a functional understanding of them. That's why I think that honing in on what is essentially trivia is a poor example of how "stupid" or "uniformed" or "not bright" or "ignorant" the general populace is or isn't. And his use of those terms more or less interchangeably, which we've been over. Offering my two bits, I suspect that part of the issue is the number of this same group being discussed that also would refer to themselves as "constitutionalists" or have "We the people" applied to their social media / car /.... Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 2 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: Kind of prefer this from Tool: And they gave 10 seconds of attention to it. Like I said, spending many years as a field organizer it was shocking how little people knew made even worse by how even more little they cared, but they were really confident in their opinions. Dunning Kruger… the downfall of us all… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorn Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 3 hours ago, Maithanet said: Unfortunately it needs 60 percent approval to pass, which might be a tough hurdle. Will be a real tough day if it gets 58% approval and thus fails. That 60% threshold only exists because Florida voters are the only ones dumb enough to vote for something which further transferred power from voters to legislators. When Republicans have tried that in other states, even Republican voters knew better than to go along with that. Public polling is currently at 62% support for "yes", which includes a slight majority of Republicans. Support for recreational marijuana is at 67%. https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/poll-over-60-of-florida-voters-support-proposed-abortion-marijuana-amendments/ Florida is a fairly libertarian-ish state, in the sense of "keep my taxes low and let me do what I want". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Jill Lapore discusses "insurrection" and the history of the word and what it has covered in the past. Like Jamell Bouie in the NY Times, she also comes down unavoidably on the conviction that insurrection is exactly what tRump is guilty of -- not to mention the hundreds of other crimes, many of them well evidenced and proofed by now -- even some indictments and even some convictions! She concludes as well, that Jan 6 was a race riot. What Should We Call the Sixth of January? By Jill Lepore January 8, 2021 https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-should-we-call-the-sixth-of-january Quote Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,” Donald Trump tweeted before Christmas. “Be there, will be wild!” On New Year’s Day, he tweeted again: “The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C. will take place at 11:00 A.M. on January 6th.” On January 5th: “I will be speaking at the SAVE AMERICA RALLY tomorrow on the Ellipse at 11AM Eastern. Arrive early—doors open at 7AM Eastern. BIG CROWDS!” The posters called it the “Save America March.” What happened that day was big, and it was wild. If it began as a protest and a rally and a march, it ended as something altogether different. But what? Sedition, treason, a failed revolution, an attempted coup? And what will it be called, looking back? A day of anarchy? The end of America? Trump called the people who violently attacked and briefly seized the U.S. Capitol building in order to overturn a Presidential election “patriots”; President-elect Joe Biden called them “terrorists.” In a section of “Leviathan” called “Inconstant Names,” Thomas Hobbes, in 1651, remarked that the names of things are variable, “For one man calleth Wisdome, what another calleth Feare; and one Cruelty, what another Justice.” On the other hand, sometimes one man is right (those people were terrorists). And, sometimes, what to call a thing seems plain. “This is what the President has caused today, this insurrection,” Mitt Romney, fleeing the Senate chamber, told a Times reporter. By any reasonable definition of the word (including the Oxford English Dictionary’s: “The action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority”), what happened on January 6th was an insurrection. An insurrection is, generally, damnable: calling a political action an insurrection is a way of denouncing what its participants mean to be a revolution. “There hath been in Rome strange insurrections,” Shakespeare wrote, in “Coriolanus.” “The people against the senators, patricians, and nobles.” Insurrection, in Shakespeare, is “foul,” “base and bloody.” In the United States, the language of insurrection has a vexed racial history. “Insurrection” was the term favored by slaveowners for the political actions taken by people held in human bondage seeking their freedom. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, charged the king with having “excited domestic insurrections amongst us.” The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson, an opponent of slavery, once offered a toast “To the next insurrection of the negroes in the West Indies.” And Benjamin Franklin, wryly objecting to Southern politicians’ conception of human beings as animals, offered this rule to tell the difference between them: “sheep will never make any insurrections.” The term’s racial inflection lasted well beyond the end of slavery. In the nineteen-sixties, law-and-order Republicans used that language to demean civil-rights protests, to describe a political movement as rampant criminality. “We have seen the gathering hate, we have heard the threats to burn and bomb and destroy,” Richard Nixon said, in 1968. “In Watts and Harlem and Detroit and Newark, we have had a foretaste of what the organizations of insurrection are planning for the summer ahead.” In that era, though, “riot” replaced “insurrection” as the go-to racial code word: “riots” were Black, “protests” were white, as Elizabeth Hinton argues in an essential, forthcoming book, “America on Fire: The Untold History of Police Violence and Black Rebellion Since the 1960s.” “Yet historically,” Hinton observes, “most instances of mass criminality have been perpetrated by white vigilantes hostile to integration and who joined together into roving mobs that took ‘justice’ in their own hands.” This remains an apt description of what happened on January 6th. One possibility, then, is to call the Sixth of January a “race riot.” Its participants were overwhelmingly white; many were avowedly white supremacists. A lot of journalists described the attack on the legislature as a “storming” of the Capitol, language that white-supremacist groups must have found thrilling. Hitler’s paramilitary called itself the Sturmabteilung, the Storm detachment; Nazis published a newspaper called Der Stürmer, the stormer. QAnon awaits a “Storm” in which the satanic cabal that controls the United States will be finally defeated. So one good idea would be never, ever to call the Sixth of January “the Storming of the Capitol.” What words will historians use in textbooks? Any formulation is a non-starter if it diminishes the culpability of people in positions of power who perpetrated the lie that the election was stolen. It’s not a coup d’etat because it didn’t succeed. It’s not even a failed coup, because a coup involves the military. And, as Naunihal Singh, the author of “Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups,” told Foreign Policy, the word “coup” lets too many people off the hook. “The people who you want to point fingers at are the president, the party leaders, and the street thugs,” Singh said. “And we lose that if we start talking about a coup; it gives a pass to all of the Republican politicians who have been endorsing what Trump’s saying.” .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horangi Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) 5 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: Kind of prefer this from Tool: Now you are talking- top ten song ever in my book. Though these days, I think I'd rather be on whats left of the California side of Arizona Lake. As for our current citizenry predicament. I am thinking surreptitious technology transfer to the Whales so we can welcome the Serene Benevolent Dictatorship of the Cetaceans. While admittedly the odds of things going south for Japan are a bit higher than I like, blaming the Pod for things isn't anything new around here. Edited January 5 by horangi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Here we go: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phylum of Alexandria Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 hour ago, horangi said: Now you are talking- top ten song ever in my book. 46 + 2 = #1 horangi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 I could see them actually all ruling that keeping Trump off the ballot stands, might be an opportunity for Thomas to cut some kind of bargain to stop investigating him or to stave off any ethics review until he retires under a GOP prez. Then they can get back to gutting abortion protections and dismantling the administrative agencies and all the other heinous shit they've got on the docket and still have some kind of plausible deniability that they aren't partisan shills. kissdbyfire and Kalbear 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 35 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said: 46 + 2 = #1 It's 46 & 2. And Hooker With A Penis is my fav. horangi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phylum of Alexandria Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 23 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: It's 46 & 2. I was giving a math lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 6 Author Share Posted January 6 I also think the Supremes will find a way to get the orange doofus back on the ballots. However, I don't think it will be 6-3. Gorsuch himself has previously ruled, that election (suitability) are a states right issue (I think that was about some birther nutjob wanting to kick off Obama from the ballots). So if he is consistent, he would rule in favour of keeping the orange one out. It's gonna be quite fun to watch how the "originalists and textualists" are trying to flip this. Ser Scot A Ellison and Prince of the North 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fionwe1987 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 I'm honestly curious on what made up grounds they'll give Trump a pass. There seems very little legal grounds, honestly. The best case I've seen is about the law barring holding office, not running for it, but even that seems like a ludicrous distinction. If you're barred from holding office, you can't run for it, otherwise, foreign nationals barred from holding office could run for them all the time. Prince of the North and Ser Scot A Ellison 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 6 Author Share Posted January 6 I think they will ride out the due process argument. Not that it is a strong argument, but it's pretty much the only thing they have. Prince of the North 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Kavanaugh will ‘step up’ to keep Trump on ballots, ex-president’s lawyer says Trump lawyer ‘has faith’ in US supreme court justice appointed by the former president, though the court hasn’t said if it will weigh in https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/05/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-justice-trump-lawyer-ballot-election Quote Brett Kavanaugh, the US supreme court justice, will “step up” for Donald Trump and help defeat attempts to remove the former president from the ballots in Colorado and Maine for inciting an insurrection, a Trump lawyer said. “I think it should be a slam dunk in the supreme court,” Alina Habba told Fox News on Thursday night. “I have faith in them. The supreme court said Friday it will consider the Colorado matter. “You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he’ll step up. Those people will step up. Not because they’re pro-Trump but because they’re pro-law, because they’re pro-fairness. And the law on this is very clear.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fionwe1987 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 21 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: I think they will ride out the due process argument. Not that it is a strong argument, but it's pretty much the only thing they have. What due process argument? That he got a bench trial for the insurrection claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 6 Author Share Posted January 6 Just now, fionwe1987 said: What due process argument? That he got a bench trial for the insurrection claim? But he wasn't convicted for insurrection (he isn't even charged with that count, because Smith has built his trial for speed, and the insurrection count wouldn't have added that much on top of the disruption of an official proceeding charge). I think that's what they will argue in some shape or form. Not a lawyer, so I might be wrong. Prince of the North 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 6 Author Share Posted January 6 Anyway, talking about J6. Harry Dunn is running for congress (well the Democrat's Primary). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts