The All Things Political Topic - A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen

[alanschu]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Sorry Alan, I can only imagine how disappointed you must be

I honestly do not give a ****. It seems entirely reasonable that the level of support he has is closely mirrored by the fellow MPs of his own party.

Edited June 27, 2022 by alanschu

[Agiel]

On 6/24/2022 at 4:03 PM, Gromnir said:

 

that said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is specific enumerated in the Constitution. you are gonna have difficulty finding abortion or privacy anywhere in the Constitution. Alito, thomas, Gorsuch ACB and Kavanaugh says non-enumerated rights may exist, but only if history and tradition circa 1789 and 1868 supports such a finding. republicans should be no less incensed as democrats by the manner in which roe were overturned 'cause is now a whole bunch o' rights important to conservatives on the proverbial chopping block, though as previous stated, women and minorities is the most obvious losers from the move away from Scalia's brand o' textualism to the history and tradition focused originalism o' the current conservative (but curious activist) Justices.

 

If history and tradition was a guide for textualism Old Scratch might have a case for the out and out Satanists to have pentagrams painted with blood and women dancing naked in the forest as protected forms of worship:

Quote

Finally, the stranger yawned a little. "Your spirited efforts on behalf of your client do you credit, Mr. Webster," he said, "but if you have no more arguments to adduce, I'm rather pressed for time—" and Jabez Stone shuddered.

Dan'l Webster's brow looked dark as a thundercloud. "Pressed or not, you shall not have this man," he thundered. "Mr. Stone is an American citizen, and no American citizen may be forced into the service of a foreign prince. We fought England for that in '12 and we'll fight all hell for it again!"

"Foreign?" said the stranger. "And who calls me a foreigner?"

"Well, I never yet heard of the dev—of your claiming American citizenship," said Dan'l Webster with surprise.

"And who with better right?" said the stranger, with one of his terrible smiles. "When the first wrong was done to the first Indian, I was there. When the first slaver put out for the Congo, I stood on her deck. Am I not in your books and stories and beliefs, from the first settlements on? Am I not spoken of, still, in every church in New England? 'Tis true the North claims me for a Southerner, and the South for a Northerner, but I am neither. I am merely an honest American like yourself—and of the best descent—for, to tell the truth, Mr. Webster, though I don't like to boast of it, my name is older in this country than yours."

Edited June 27, 2022 by Agiel

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Agiel said:

If history and tradition was a guide for textualism Old Scratch might have a case for the out and out Satanists to have pentagrams painted with blood and women dancing naked in the forest as protected forms of worship:

Alito is selective with his history analysis. is the legal history and traditions o' common law and US at and previous to 1789 and 1868 which matter for dobbs v. jackson, but to allow a giant cross on public land, community history and traditions o' the last few decades is dipositive, 'cause the legal traditions woulda' made clear the cross were verboten. when Alito's draft o' dobbs were leaked, historians pounced on the Justice's bad analysis, chastising Alito for misrepresenting individuals and events. nevertheless, when the full and final opinion were released, Alito made no effort to correct his history missteps. 

the problem we got with the current approach advocated most dramatic by thomas and Alito is that history and traditions is being used as an excuse for reaching predetermined conclusions as 'posed to a guide for arriving at decisions. admitted, such a criticism has always dogged the textualists, but were only a couple years ago when Scalia's analytical scheme were lauded even by those who disagreed with him. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps

these kinda theatrics tend to leave us flaccid, but am gonna admit our curiosity is peaked.

edit:

Former Meadows aide to testify in surprise Jan. 6 committee hearing

hmm.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 28, 2022 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, alanschu said:

I honestly do not give a ****. It seems entirely reasonable that the level of support he has is closely mirrored by the fellow MPs of his own party.

Why you shouting and using bad language? You made two posts  on this polling  and we have discussed the reality of Johnson resigning in a previous debate. So its a very normal assumption to make that you are interested in this topic, people generally dont make posts unless they have some interest?

 

 

[Chairchucker]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Why you shouting and using bad language? You made two posts  on this polling  and we have discussed the reality of Johnson resigning in a previous debate. So its a very normal assumption to make that you are interested in this topic, people generally dont make posts unless they have some interest?

Thought the main point was to criticise the graph and its labels.

[alanschu]

1 hour ago, Chairchucker said:

Thought the main point was to criticise the graph and its labels.

Yup. It was because I thought it was funny. And then I learned more information and posted a correction about it while sharing that I learned that the process is likely more manual, and prone to the mistakes associated with that, than I realized. A sort of "ah, okay I see how that happened" sort of thing.

The second post was literally an elaboration on the first post to help provide correct context to the original mistake and that maybe I was being too harsh on The Times in this particular circumstance.

(I also feel I shouldn't need to clarify that it's entirely possible to use a swear without shouting, but here we are)

 

EDIT: And in some news that absolutely does not surprise me, people that are very sure they can tell when people are trans are doing a wonderful job of assuming that the best women's swimmer in the world, Katie Ledecky, is also a trans woman

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by alanschu

[HoonDing]

Good thing the funding fathers thought of the really important stuff: guns and slavery.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, alanschu said:

Yup. It was because I thought it was funny. And then I learned more information and posted a correction about it while sharing that I learned that the process is likely more manual, and prone to the mistakes associated with that, than I realized. A sort of "ah, okay I see how that happened" sort of thing.

The second post was literally an elaboration on the first post to help provide correct context to the original mistake and that maybe I was being too harsh on The Times in this particular circumstance.

(I also feel I shouldn't need to clarify that it's entirely possible to use a swear without shouting, but here we are)

 

EDIT: And in some news that absolutely does not surprise me, people that are very sure they can tell when people are trans are doing a wonderful job of assuming that the best women's swimmer in the world, Katie Ledecky, is also a trans woman

 

I saw that this morning and spent a good 30 seconds laughing. But I suppose it brings up a consequence of this sport panic, namely that any (cis)woman who is too good or doesn't conform to certain standards is going to be hounded by some of the dumbest people in the world.

[alanschu]

16 minutes ago, KP wants Blue Velvet said:

I saw that this morning and spent a good 30 seconds laughing. But I suppose it brings up a consequence of this sport panic, namely that any (cis)woman who is too good or doesn't conform to certain standards is going to be hounded by some of the dumbest people in the world.

Oh yes. You saw it with people like Caster Semenya. It's supremely messed up that one state passed a law that girls are to be "internally examined" and 100% it's going to happen in the case of women that don't conform to certain aesthetics (which is ironic given a lot of gender critical types ostensibly claim to support gender non-conforming women).

Also just saw this. I imagine that part of this (I also saw stuff like "I don't care if they have weapons. They aren't a threat to me" (paraphrased) comments as well IIRC. Suspect this was part of the motivation for short notice hearing.

 

[Malcador]

 

Trump WH sounds like a great workplace.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/28/us/jan-6-hearing-today/3f4b0783-257a-5fd7-9fc7-315dc657f23c?smid=url-share

Ms. Hutchinson said Mr. Trump demanded that his supporters be able to move around freely even though they were armed, testifying that she was “in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, ‘You know, I don’t f-ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f-ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the f-ing mags away.’”

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Malcador

[HoonDing]

Nah, he's too much of a sniveling coward for all that.

Edited June 28, 2022 by HoonDing

[BruceVC]

Very interesting testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson, very damaging to Trump and some of his aides

She is very brave and young, only 26/27 ?

[Chilloutman]

1 hour ago, HoonDing said:

Good thing the funding fathers thought of the really important stuff: guns and slavery.

didn't guns also ended slavery? 

[Malcador]

2 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

didn't guns also ended slavery? 

It's like booze. It's the solution to life's problems until you overdo it.

[ShadySands]

5 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

didn't guns also ended slavery? 

No, prisoners can still be slaves. We only limited it.

Quote

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

[Chilloutman]

You are loosing me there, I am not considering involuntary servitude for criminals as slavery, but to each his own

[ShadySands]

That's a wide brush to paint with but okay 

It's an important loophole because what do you think came next after they said no more chattel slavery but you can use prisoners as slaves

[alanschu]

The 13th Amendment explicitly states it as an exception (EDIT: As @ShadySandsalso quotes)
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

IMO it's one thing to consider it acceptable (to be clear, I don't. They should be opt in and they should be paid if you wish to use prison labour), but I feel it should definitely be considered slavery.

Edited June 28, 2022 by alanschu

[Gromnir]

35 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

You are loosing me there, I am not considering involuntary servitude for criminals as slavery, but to each his own

unfortunately you would remain mistaken. courts and legislatures were still referencing prisoners as "slaves of the state" in multiple jurisdictions decades following the 13th amendment. the slavery/involuntary servitude distinction is a bit more fuzzy than you might believe, but regardless, weren't 'til the 20th century when SCOTUS closed the slavery loophole specific (kinda tangential related to 1930s tariff act as a matter o' fact) and the involuntary servitude bit remains. so guns didn't actual end the practice but were the Court which final eliminated the remaining vestiges o' a national sin... or perhaps senators wyden and brown as well as the obama administration by a surprising not unanimous vote to codify in 2015(?). not absolute positive o' the year.

and yeah, involuntary servitudes for prisoners remain in most/many (not certain of numbers actually) states as o' 2022, and the courts has made clear there is little to distinguish the two practices in any meaningful sense. at least a few state courts still use the terms interchangeable in spite o' the 1930s SCOTUS case we reference 'bove. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

16 minutes ago, alanschu said:

The 13th Amendment explicitly states it as an exception (EDIT: As @ShadySandsalso quotes)
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

IMO it's one thing to consider it acceptable (to be clear, I don't. They should be opt in and they should be paid if you wish to use prison labour), but I feel it should definitely be considered slavery.

I dont think prisoners can expect money because working outside has its advantages to being incarcerated 

But it should be optional for low risk prisoners 

 

[Gromnir]

Turkey drops opposition to Finland, Sweden joining NATO

HA! Good Fun!

[alanschu]

5 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

Turkey drops opposition to Finland, Sweden joining NATO

HA! Good Fun!

Huh that IS pretty interesting...

[HoonDing]

How many Kurdish heads will be sent to Sultan Erdogan on a silver platter?

[Sarex]

2 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

How many Kurdish heads will be sent to Sultan Erdogan on a silver platter?

That's what I'm wondering too. I don't see the rest of the members pressuring Turkey to do anything.

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

That's a wide brush to paint with but okay 

It's an important loophole because what do you think came next after they said no more chattel slavery but you can use prisoners as slaves

Not really. They get paid and it's voluntary. They are not compelled to work. Slaves don't get that choice.