Thought for the Day

[Stavros]

It seems almost forms of social media have become weaponized and designed to fractionalize us beyond recognition. (I’m in the middle of reading Neil Stephenson’s “Fall: or, Dodge in Hell” which develops a extreme variation of this issue).

Or,
It seems almost forms of social media have become weaponized and designed to fictionalize us beyond recognition...

[broncofan]

-New Trump rape allegation by E. Jean Carroll that is both believable and describes repulsive behavior. I would love to hear Trump'ers explain why Trump cannot at least informally be considered a predator but that Weinstein, Spacey, and other serial abusers can be. Would also love to hear what they think due process is again.

Should he be criminally charged and then get the full panoply of constitutional protections? Should Congress investigate the allegations to make sure he is not being unjustly accused? If due process refers to the institution of procedures to prevent an unjust deprivation of liberty or property, then maybe it's time he faces the consequences that necessitate those protections.

[Stavros]

On the one hand, I can understand why there is a convention that prohibits the prosecution of the President -it could be used by opponents to bring case after case that interferes with the job. On the other hand, this President has made it clear that he knows -because the lawyers have told him it is so -that Executive Privilege allows him to do many things which are not illegal but violate an established 'standard of behaviour' -standards he does not adhere to because he chooses not to- but which also includes illegal actions, on which the President is clear: I am breaking the law, what are you going to do about it?

Violating the Atomic Energy Act to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia; by-passing Congress on issues that relate to a 'national emergency' where there is none or is contested; employing people who break the law (Conway and the Hatch Act); ordering present and former employees of the White House to refuse to answer questions posed by Congressional committees. At what point does the term Executive Privilege become Executive Dictatorship?

The question is can the relationship be changed in law, can Congress impose legal limits on the Presidency that enable the Justice Department, when the evidence is there, to proseute the President where impeachment is not the relevant course of action? And yet it seems to me the President is deliberately breaking the law to prove he can do it with impunity, it is his way of taking revenge on all those political and public figures who have ridiculed him over the years: 'Yes, I am a schmuck, but I am the schmuck in the White House and you are nothing'.

Change the rules, and while you're at it, change the President.

[buttslinger]

The Mueller Report proved Trump was guilty of obstruction, and that alone is enough to impeach him, but doing the right thing would destroy the Republican Party as we know it, and Mitch McConnell will block the Democrats until the Supreme Court says he can't. That's why he's packed the courts with Federalist Society Judges.
I don't think we're quite at the point to shred the Constitution, I think as soon as Trump is out of the White House the Insanity stops.
I don't think anything is more important than showing Trump's base that their Idol laundered millions of Oligarch dollars, and Putin did indeed command Donald Trump, not them. Let them chew on that for a while.
I'm afraid that as far as the Hung Angels Politics and Religion section goes, it went. To twitter. As an old geezer, I have a hard time keeping up, but the comedy over there can be as good as it gets. And you get a good feel of what's really going on with the Trump Base. Yech.
I know that Putin messed with the election and Brexit, but goddam it I want details. There was a recent article about the Pentagon setting up a way to zap the entire Russian power grid (just in case) and they didn't tell Trump. I forget the details. I sincerely believe there are Americans 100 times smarter and more powerful than me who know exactly what's going on and aren't allowed to poke their nose into politics.
Don't forget, we are the Nation that melted 100,000 Japanese civilians with one B-29.

[broncofan]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/27/18761166/supreme-court-gerrymandering-republicans-democracy

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

The second link is to the actual case of Rucho v. Common Cause. The Supreme Court has decided that partisan gerrymandering is not unconstitutional and that the drawing of districts in Congressional elections is a political question left to other coordinate branches of government, namely state legislatures.

I haven't read the case but I did skim the synopsis at the beginning and what stands out to me is this quote from a previous gerrymandering case: "The question is one of degree: how to provide a standard for deciding how much partisan dominance is too much." Huh? If it can be inferred that the districts in a state were drawn a particular way to entrench one party in power, that should violate equal protection. How much partisan gerrymandering is too much? Any. How do you prove an impermissible motive? The same way you would in any other case, through statistical inference, statements by people involved in the process etc.

The Court seems to rely on precedent to say that some partisan gerrymandering is permissible. I cannot imagine that there is a rational or legitimate government objective to create rules that make it easier for the party in power to maintain power.

The Court goes on to say that it is difficult to come up with standards for how districts should be drawn since the choices are varied and it is beyond the ken of the judiciary to engage in such an exercise. They are not being tasked with devising a method for drawing districts. They are only tasked with determining whether partisanship was a factor in the way they were drawn. The legislatures would have full leeway to draw districts how they please unless they engage in racial or partisan gerrymandering, in which case it should be struck down as unconstitutional. Any choice they make might fall within some range of discretion; unless they provably drew districts based on racial demographics or to ensure a political outcome, the courts would not constrain their choices.

Anyhow, I probably will read the dissent...

[broncofan]

Didn't see the debates. Saw this exchange and agree with Harris.

[buttslinger]

They say after Angela Merkel shook hands with Obama the last time a little tear went down her face, I look at the 20 Democrats and just see the problems. I knew this was a racist country, but I don't think even Atticus Finch could sway Fox Nation. Free Racism is a better sell than free healthcare.

[broncofan]

I look at the 20 Democrats and just see the problems.

With all of them? Preliminarily I like Harris and Buttigieg. Biden has always seemed like a nice enough guy. I watch him and get the feeling he wants to be liked. I've always thought Bernie wants to be idolized and now sees it as his chance to be an important figure after a lifetime as an outsider. I should probably watch the debates but I've always been impressed by Harris. She's prepared and on message.

[buttslinger]

With all of them? ...

I liked maybe half, but I don't see any of them on Mt Rushmore. I thought your boy Hickenlooper did well. Following Donald Trump is going to be a hard act to follow. Maybe when it gets down to eight we'll have something to chew on. While I thought either Hillary or Bernie would be a great choice in 2016, for reasons I can't explain, they seem like aliens now. Seems like a long time ago.

[broncofan]

i thought your boy hickenlooper did well.

i'm nowhere near colorado!! :d