Political Point and Counterpoint

[ktchong]

The so-called "White Genocide" is actually committed by White people on themselves. 

 

[Guard Dog]

Remember when Barack Obama turned the IRS into his own personal secret police for political dissent? He was far from the only one: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/22/mccains-office-urged-irs-use-audits-weapons-destro/?fbclid=IwAR16A_EeqbGnfVnNRjDkgW3vysMLjHB2QDtnIxuBf7OoIRAwISb3CNj135w

 

It's not Democrats vs Republicans. It's both of them vs you. 

[Guard Dog]

[injurai]

Susie: "Can I dad?"

Dad: "No."

Susie: "Mommy said it was fine if it was okay with you!"

 

Susie: "Can I mom?"

Mom: "No."

Susie: "Daddy said it was fine if it was okay with you!"

 

Mom: "Yeah so I guess I'm fine with that."

Dad: "Oh okay, I'm fine too, Susie I just have some ground rules."

Mom: "And call to check in around lunch, I want to know how things are going."

 

...

 

Dad: "Hey, I had a crisp Benjamin in here!!!!"

[Guard Dog]

I want this person, exactly like this, to be the President:

 

Seriously? He looks like the politically correct non-offensive euro-billionaire "terrorist" villain from a Vin Diesel or Bruce Willis movie. 

[Gromnir]

Remember when Barack Obama turned the IRS into his own personal secret police for political dissent? He was far from the only one: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/22/mccains-office-urged-irs-use-audits-weapons-destro/?fbclid=IwAR16A_EeqbGnfVnNRjDkgW3vysMLjHB2QDtnIxuBf7OoIRAwISb3CNj135w

 

It's not Democrats vs Republicans. It's both of them vs you. 

 

am thinking gd might be overreacting based on headlines.  as stated near end, there is nothing in the quoted material which identifies any kinda targeting o' specific groups.  the problem being discussed were how many new political organizations were exploiting the system and how to end such excesses.  in the wake o' the numerous FEC cases, there were an explosion o' groups claiming tax-exempt status from irs, spending large 'mounts o' soft money, w/o actual registering as political committees as required by FEC. 

 

"Even though the IRS/Tea Party scandal was an outrage, there are definitely non-profits that abuse their status as supposedly apolitical outfits (can you say ACORN?) and a new staffer asking questions about what to do about such abusive groups is hardly evidence of targeting groups for improper reasons."

 

sure, obama were being sneaky 'bout trying to dismantle conservative political organizations, but the bcra/mccain-feingold folks had been fighting bipartisan for common sense limits on campaign funding since before obama were elected.  in fact, one reason obama got elected over mccain is 'cause he out-spent the arizona senator (and refused to debate him) by a massive dollar amount, while mccain voluntarily adhered to baca provisions even though the Court had already invalidated much o' the act. 

 

might laugh at mccain folks for continuing to fight a lost battle, but the actual attributed comments, given the context, is innocuous and arguable laudable.  fact so many groups continue to use irs designation for political groups to avoid taxes while simultaneous avoiding political committee designation to avoid fec reporting is arguable criminal as well as a violation o' basic democratic principles. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[smjjames]

 

I want this person, exactly like this, to be the President:

 

Seriously? He looks like the politically correct non-offensive euro-billionaire "terrorist" villain from a Vin Diesel or Bruce Willis movie. 

 

 

Who exactly is that anyway? Or did ktchong pick some random old guy pic?

[Boeroer]

That's Bernie Sanders with a beard.

[smjjames]

That's what I thought too, that it looked like Bernie Sanders with a beard, but wasn't sure if it was supposed to be someone else.

[Guard Dog]

@Gromnir: I know it's been discussed in the past but I don't recall ever hearing your opinion outright. Do you think Citizens United was correctly decided? The reason I ask is this one is right in your wheelhouse.

 

You already know my opinion. I tend to think phrases like "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" lend themselves to a very broad, you might even say absolutist, application and interpretation. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

One of the safer promotions I've seen in a while:

 

[Gromnir]

@Gromnir: I know it's been discussed in the past but I don't recall ever hearing your opinion outright. Do you think Citizens United was correctly decided? The reason I ask is this one is right in your wheelhouse.

 

You already know my opinion. I tend to think phrases like "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" lend themselves to a very broad, you might even say absolutist, application and interpretation. 

if Gromnir had been asked to write the opinion for the Court, we woulda' come to similar conclusions as kennedy even if we got there a bit different. that said, justice stevens dissent were not wrong.  

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX

 

the first amendment ain't the absolute prohibition 'gainst government interference one might believe from reading text o' the amendment.  a few such restrictions is curiously ad hoc, such as with george carlin's seven words.  kids get special consideration when deciding First Amendment cases, w/o any specific guide as to what is the limits o' the special consideration. 'course most constitutional limits on speech is based on common sense, such as with time, place and manner restrictions.  sure, nurses should be allowed to picket if they believe they is being treated unfair by hospitals, but when patient health and welfare is put at risk by such demonstrations, the government may place reasonable restrictions on nurse speech. can't prevent from picketing, but cannot block ambulance ingress/egress or exceed certain volume limits. no real argument, yes?  incidental regulation o' speech also gets a reduced standard o' review.  if burning the flag is protected by the first amendment, then why isn't burning your draft card? law which requires a young man to keep his draft card were not designed to limit political speech but did so incidental.  (things is looking a bit less clear and absolute, yes?) the Court has also been somewhat dismissive o' money as it relates to the first amendment.  so-called commercial speech, which is most often associated with advertising, does not get full protection o' the First Amendment. 

 

there is a kinda integrity in unwavering absolutism.  unfortunate, citizens united is one o' those cases which makes the absolutes appear foolish and even downright dangerous. simplicity and elegance in legal writing is admirable, but there are times when common sense must be considered. expenditures supporting speech is not same as speech and corporations is not same as persons.  a corporation, for example may not run for elected office, but the reasoning o' the Court would have us wondering why such is not possible.  and like it or not, but unlimited spending by special interests and thinly disguised foreign actors is a practical handicap on the democratic process.  the absolute prohibition o' government to limit speech is appealing, but we cannot let such pure and simple beauty blind us from the need for practical limits on speech. 

 

and yeah, is no good litmus test for identifying which speech restrictions is necessary, which is why we would likely decide as Kennedy.  even so, am recognizing, as a matter o' pragmatism, that J. Stevens were correct.  sound legal reasoning may lead one to an unreasonable and even harmful conclusion. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Wonder if Trump can get the whole cabinet to be filled with acting members

[ktchong]

Edited April 9, 2019 by ktchong

[Gromnir]

Wonder if Trump can get the whole cabinet to be filled with acting members

trump has never come to grips with the co-equal branch of government thing. there isn't even a constitutional provision for acting cabinet members, but as long as senate republicans enable trump, am doubting we see a change in the over reliance on acting _________. 

 

the only reason why trump gets away with this silliness is 'cause mcconnell is more concerned with legacy than he is with the next two years. seems all mcconnell's efforts is directed at filling as many fed court positions as possible-- aiming to get as many judges appointed in four years as obama did in eight.  those judges will be around long after trump is out of office.  mitch already won his SCOTUS gamble, and now he is stacking lower federal courts for the next decade, or more. 

 

this administration has been a freaking dumpster fire o' executive incompetence and legislative appeasement, and is no reason to believe anything is gonna change 'til at least 2021. as much as am bothered by everyday trump bumbling and mendacity, am even more concerned with mitch, 'cause mitch knows exact what he is doing.  mcconnell understands his place in history and he is willing to play fast and loose senate rules if it will secure legacy. when harry reid reflexive turned to nuclear option to achieve legislative and executive goals, mitch were vocal and justified in criticism.  the thing is, mitch is out nuking reid by a significant degree. am not certain if senate will ever complete recover from this nonsense.

 

 

 

would be nice if senate went back to playing chess.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ktchong]

[BruceVC]

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Netanyahu-Likud-is-losing-election-Left-is-going-to-win-586264

 

As most of you are probably aware Israel is voting today and its very close between Likud and the Blue and White party which is more centrist and wants to take Israel in a different political direction than Netanyahu ....he has predicted Likud may even lose but this could just be fear mongering 

 

Interesting election to observe for the region 

Edited April 9, 2019 by BruceVC

[Amentep]

New thread - https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/109120-politics-and-statesmenship-a-forum-special-report/