[pilowsky]

kenberg, on 2024-February-07, 11:06, said:

I no longer have confidence in anything.

There is, or was, a bi-partisan bill in the Senate to address problems at the border. The arguments now being given for blocking this bill are totally incoherent. Well, incoherent logically. But the thinking seems to be that if this bill were to become law then some border problems could be somewhat addressed, but border problems are good for Trump's run for re-election, so Republicans should block any attempt to ease these problems. So: block any action, then run on the fact that there has been no action. The truly frightening part is that this could be an effective strategy.

Not only have aliens landed, they have taken power.

Welcome back to January 2016.
It's like watching a political satire of planet of the apes where the simians are imbeciles.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2024-February-07, 11:06, said:

I no longer have confidence in anything.

There is, or was, a bi-partisan bill in the Senate to address problems at the border. The arguments now being given for blocking this bill are totally incoherent. Well, incoherent logically. But the thinking seems to be that if this bill were to become law then some border problems could be somewhat addressed, but border problems are good for Trump's run for re-election, so Republicans should block any attempt to ease these problems. So: block any action, then run on the fact that there has been no action. The truly frightening part is that this could be an effective strategy.

Not only have aliens landed, they have taken power.

Unfortunately this is an extremely effective strategy. No matter how much Congress is actually responsible, POTUS generally takes the blame.

OTOH, when things go well, practically anyone in the government can claim credit, and their constituents will believe them.

So if there's chaos at the border, it's Biden's fault, no matter how much he begged Congress to give him money to fix it, and this will hurt him in the general election. But both parties will take credit for the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

[pilowsky]

This marathon thread began with a question about the effect of a single person on the world order.
The next question the world may want to ask is has America played all its Trumps?

A possible price that advances in medical science and hair mobilisation surgery may pay is the possibility of eight more years of Trump as President.
Then what?

The tsunami of stupidity that has engulfed the Republican party may take a generation to subside into the slime.

[Winstonm]

The Republican rot began in 1994 with Newt Gingrich. It will last until it becomes detrimental to election results, providing there is still an intact democratic republic with free and fair elections by then.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2024-February-13, 18:40, said:

The Republican rot began in 1994 with Newt Gingrich. It will last until it becomes detrimental to election results, providing there is still an intact democratic republic with free and fair elections by then.

"still"? You mean we have that now?

[pilowsky]

Does anyone have any spare cash they can loan me?

NYT said:

Trump Is Ordered to Pay $355 Million and Is Barred From New York Business

[Winstonm]

Barred for only 3 years. If you have to grift daily, 3 years is a lifetime.

[Gilithin]

Winstonm, on 2024-February-17, 07:31, said:

Barred for only 3 years. If you have to grift daily, 3 years is a lifetime.

The question noone has answered yet is whether John Barron, John Miller, Carolin Gallego and David Dennison are also barred.

[hrothgar]

Couple notes about the size of the fine

1. Interest penalties look to be increasing the size of the fine to something close to $450M

2. If Trump wants to appeal, then he needs to post a bond equal to 120% of the size of the fine. This might very well require him to sell property, which in turn is going to create a major taxable event

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2024-February-17, 17:35, said:

Couple notes about the size of the fine

1. Interest penalties look to be increasing the size of the fine to something close to $450M

And another $83M on top for E. Jean. Carroll.

Quote

2. If Trump wants to appeal, then he needs to post a bond equal to 120% of the size of the fine. This might very well require him to sell property, which in turn is going to create a major taxable event

I heard there's a site where his supporters are donating to a fund to assist him. So this "great businessman" needs a GoFundMe

[Winstonm]

Welcome to Christian Sharia law.

[shyams]

Winstonm, on 2024-February-22, 23:10, said:

Welcome to Christian Sharia law.

What does this even mean? Are people who profess or practice the Sharia law being mocked here?

[Winstonm]

No. It is a comment on the overtly religious Alabama court ruling that frozen embryos are children.

[pilowsky]

52 years since the other Hunter wrote "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" and the only thing that's changed is the type of the sticks needed to whip people with.

Quote

The whole framework of the presidency is getting out of hand. It's come to the point where you almost can't run unless you can cause people to salivate and whip on each other with big sticks. You almost have to be a rock star to get the kind of fever you need to survive in American politics.

[johnu]

shyams, on 2024-February-23, 03:09, said:

What does this even mean? Are people who profess or practice the Sharia law being mocked here?

I'm surprised an "expert" on US politics doesn't understand the reference. The extreme right fringe QOP MAGAts in the US frequently denigrate Muslims in this country by falsely claiming they already have, or want to, institute Sharia law in the US. The MAGAts completely fail to see their hypocrisy since they want to institute a right fringe extremist christian "sharia" law theocracy in the US, contrary to the US Constitution.

[barmar]

johnu, on 2024-February-23, 16:59, said:

I'm surprised an "expert" on US politics doesn't understand the reference. The extreme right fringe QOP MAGAts in the US frequently denigrate Muslims in this country by falsely claiming they already have, or want to, institute Sharia law in the US. The MAGAts completely fail to see their hypocrisy since they want to institute a right fringe extremist christian "sharia" law theocracy in the US, contrary to the US Constitution.

They don't see the hypocracy because to them it's only a problem if you base your laws on the "wrong" religion.

Is the Alabama Supreme Court ruling the last word on this, or can this be appealed to SCOTUS? I haven't heard anyone talk about this possibility.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2024-March-02, 11:34, said:

They don't see the hypocracy because to them it's only a problem if you base your laws on the "wrong" religion.

Is the Alabama Supreme Court ruling the last word on this, or can this be appealed to SCOTUS? I haven't heard anyone talk about this possibility.

I don't know about SCOTUS, but the House QOP have introduced HR 431 which codifies the Alabama supreme court ruling into law. There are 124 QOP co-sponsors of the bill.

My guess is that if SCOTUS does take the case, they will uphold the Alabama ruling because that's what the 6 QOP justices do since they don't have to answer to voters.

[awm]

johnu, on 2024-March-02, 18:57, said:

I don't know about SCOTUS, but the House QOP have introduced HR 431 which codifies the Alabama supreme court ruling into law. There are 124 QOP co-sponsors of the bill.

My guess is that if SCOTUS does take the case, they will uphold the Alabama ruling because that's what the 6 QOP justices do since they don't have to answer to voters.

What's to appeal? The Alabama legislature passed a dumb law (granting embryos the rights of humans) but the state supreme court made a very logical ruling given that law. If the Alabama legislature were to pass a law granting broccoli the rights of humans, this would make anyone eating broccoli guilty of cannibalism. Again, dumb law, but I don't see why it would necessarily be unconstitutional.

In fact this ruling seems more clear than consequences regarding abortion -- even if embryos have the rights of humans, it doesn't necessarily follow that adults are obligated to involuntarily loan their organs to the embryos, or to risk their long-term health gestating them. But embryos created and stored for IVF don't incur the same potential violations of privacy and bodily autonomy or the same health risks to adult humans.

If the Alabama legislature doesn't like this ruling, they could easily repeal their foetal personhood bill or amend it to "only after six weeks gestation in a uterus" or something like that. But the fact that many Republicans are cheering this ruling (and that many Democrats have been warning about it for years) suggests that it's no surprise to anyone.

[kenberg]

awm, on 2024-March-03, 05:17, said:

What's to appeal? The Alabama legislature passed a dumb law (granting embryos the rights of humans) but the state supreme court made a very logical ruling given that law. If the Alabama legislature were to pass a law granting broccoli the rights of humans, this would make anyone eating broccoli guilty of cannibalism. Again, dumb law, but I don't see why it would necessarily be unconstitutional.

In fact this ruling seems more clear than consequences regarding abortion -- even if embryos have the rights of humans, it doesn't necessarily follow that adults are obligated to involuntarily loan their organs to the embryos, or to risk their long-term health gestating them. But embryos created and stored for IVF don't incur the same potential violations of privacy and bodily autonomy or the same health risks to adult humans.

If the Alabama legislature doesn't like this ruling, they could easily repeal their foetal personhood bill or amend it to "only after six weeks gestation in a uterus" or something like that. But the fact that many Republicans are cheering this ruling (and that many Democrats have been warning about it for years) suggests that it's no surprise to anyone.

I can't say I am sure about the celery law, one way or th other. I strongly hope we never reach the point where such a law goes to the courts to determine if it is or is not constitutional.

I think you are making another, very basic, point: Regardless of legal arguments, we really have to get a grip on reality and stop passing stupid laws. There is a limit to what even a moderate SCOTUS can do to protect us if we insist on idiocy.

[johnu]

awm, on 2024-March-03, 05:17, said:

What's to appeal?

Basically anything can be appealed. With the current extreme right fringe slant of the supreme court, they decide on the outcome their corporate sponsor want, and just make up any justification no matter how remote or unrelated to fill out their decision.

As far as an appeal being successful, I think the right fringe supremes think just like the Alabama court, so I think the Alabama decision would be upheld, but this results would be a national result.