|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 28 2017 03:05 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 02:49 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2017 02:46 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2017 02:40 Nevuk wrote:On April 28 2017 02:23 Plansix wrote:
Venue shopping is a completely valid tactic for a lawsuit. There isn't an attorney that says "any judge will do, its fine. Just pick any court that can hear the case." Trump is signing orders that impact the entire nation. It is a forgone conclusion that liberal judges will hear the cases because that is how courts work.
Second, Congress can break up the 9th Circuit any time they want. It is just that the Republicans don't have the votes. And the judges on that court don't just go away. Trump can't do shit, because that isn't how the executive branch works. Does breaking up the ninth court really help conservatives anyways? It is large enough that it probably should be broken up, but any court district with the west coast in it is going to be liberal anyways (possibly more so than it is currently) As far as I know the judges for a circuit court don't have to come from lower courts...If there are 51 conservative Senators and a conservative President, they can appoint conservative judges to any new positions. That would be challenged instantly. They can’t eliminate seat and then create new ones to fill themselves. The case load isn’t going to change, only the venue. The same number of judges will be needed and they would be expected to take them from the existing sitting judges. I was assuming the idea was 9th Circuit ->break into several circuits... then add more judges to each of those circuits (existing ones stay) In any case, 'west coast liberals' is no explanation for why the court is considered currently liberal, since they aren't selected by people/politicians from their jurisdiction, but by the full Senate+President.
Yes, but that requires that congress passes a law, which requires 60 votes. And they would need to reshape the system and the states are going to have some input into that.
And once again, the number of lawsuits being heard by the courts won’t change. There isn’t a reason to add more judges if you are just cutting up the pie. It doesn’t make more pie. It would be seen as a power grab.
There is also the other problem that once one party starts breaking up courts they don’t like, the other party goes down the same path when they have enough power. It would be a short sighted play at best.
|
On April 28 2017 03:05 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 02:49 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2017 02:46 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2017 02:40 Nevuk wrote:On April 28 2017 02:23 Plansix wrote:
Venue shopping is a completely valid tactic for a lawsuit. There isn't an attorney that says "any judge will do, its fine. Just pick any court that can hear the case." Trump is signing orders that impact the entire nation. It is a forgone conclusion that liberal judges will hear the cases because that is how courts work.
Second, Congress can break up the 9th Circuit any time they want. It is just that the Republicans don't have the votes. And the judges on that court don't just go away. Trump can't do shit, because that isn't how the executive branch works. Does breaking up the ninth court really help conservatives anyways? It is large enough that it probably should be broken up, but any court district with the west coast in it is going to be liberal anyways (possibly more so than it is currently) As far as I know the judges for a circuit court don't have to come from lower courts...If there are 51 conservative Senators and a conservative President, they can appoint conservative judges to any new positions. That would be challenged instantly. They can’t eliminate seat and then create new ones to fill themselves. The case load isn’t going to change, only the venue. The same number of judges will be needed and they would be expected to take them from the existing sitting judges. I was assuming the idea was 9th Circuit ->break into several circuits... then add more judges to each of those circuits (existing ones stay) In any case, 'west coast liberals' is no explanation for why the court is considered currently liberal, since they aren't selected by people/politicians from their jurisdiction, but by the full Senate+President.
iirc (may not as it was a long time ago), while they are selected by the full senate/president, there's an established custom that they tend to pick people from the area to serve in the area, and to get people from each state in a district to serve on the circuit courts. and that in particular, the senators from the area have an especial say/influence on who will get selected (or at least who's considered and who's rejected). part of which makes real sense, in that the local senators will have a much better knowledge of how good the various candidates are from their state.
|
You can never stop organisations from influencing the public opinion but you can stop them from doing it blatantly in the open and others getting rich by it. The news organisations reflect the population, they will simply report on what their leaders want and omit what they don't want. That does not mean they are doing a political campaign. Of course the lines get blurry some times, but the worst offenders are gone. How is giving the tobacco industry all that power over your elections better then having to watch a show of the big bang theory about the criminal justice system.
|
On April 28 2017 03:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 03:05 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2017 02:49 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2017 02:46 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2017 02:40 Nevuk wrote:On April 28 2017 02:23 Plansix wrote:
Venue shopping is a completely valid tactic for a lawsuit. There isn't an attorney that says "any judge will do, its fine. Just pick any court that can hear the case." Trump is signing orders that impact the entire nation. It is a forgone conclusion that liberal judges will hear the cases because that is how courts work.
Second, Congress can break up the 9th Circuit any time they want. It is just that the Republicans don't have the votes. And the judges on that court don't just go away. Trump can't do shit, because that isn't how the executive branch works. Does breaking up the ninth court really help conservatives anyways? It is large enough that it probably should be broken up, but any court district with the west coast in it is going to be liberal anyways (possibly more so than it is currently) As far as I know the judges for a circuit court don't have to come from lower courts...If there are 51 conservative Senators and a conservative President, they can appoint conservative judges to any new positions. That would be challenged instantly. They can’t eliminate seat and then create new ones to fill themselves. The case load isn’t going to change, only the venue. The same number of judges will be needed and they would be expected to take them from the existing sitting judges. I was assuming the idea was 9th Circuit ->break into several circuits... then add more judges to each of those circuits (existing ones stay) In any case, 'west coast liberals' is no explanation for why the court is considered currently liberal, since they aren't selected by people/politicians from their jurisdiction, but by the full Senate+President. iirc (may not as it was a long time ago), while they are selected by the full senate/president, there's an established custom that they tend to pick people from the area to serve in the area, and to get people from each state in a district to serve on the circuit courts. and that in particular, the senators from the area have an especial say/influence on who will get selected (or at least who's considered and who's rejected). part of which makes real sense, in that the local senators will have a much better knowledge of how good the various candidates are from their state.
Part of the reason for that custom is that it is a lot easier to get people to agree to serve in that capacity if they don't have to relocate across the country.
|
I see Danglars has rediscovered his concern for people's rights, at least when it's unlimited money for campaign contributions. Millions of people beaten and their constitutional rights abused habitually, but danglars has his finger on the pulse of the real civil rights fight.
I am however looking at ways to decrease the overall impact without infringing on real civil rights and producing a net increase in the kinds of corruption.
So full of shit.
|
Former President Obama's upcoming speech to Wall Streeters is putting $400,000 in his pocket - and putting longtime supporters in a difficult situation.
Democratic Party leaders and grass roots activists alike are at a loss to explain how the onetime champion of the 99 percent could cash in with a September address at a health care conference run by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
“Spiritual leader of the people’s #Resistance cashes in with $400k speech to Wall Street bankers,” read one tweet.
"[Money] is a snake that slithers through Washington.”
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
“Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street speech will cost @TheDemocrats much more than that," read another. "It reinforces everything progressives hate about Democrats.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show this morning. But she held back from criticizing the president directly while referring repeatedly to her new book, “This Fight is Our Fight,” in which she outlines her concerns about big money’s influence on American politics.
Source
Is Fox being obtuse or is there truth to this? Optics don't look fantastic.
|
They're banging the "Wall Street money bad!" drum is all. It's not surprising a famous (ex)politician would fetch a huge amount for a speech. Plus, this is popping his post-presidential speech cherry.
|
Obama being paid the average going price for such a speech seems like no surprise to me; I haven't heard anything about it, but I wouldn't be surprised at all.
I'm sure some people are upset by it. that said, obama never struck me as being a super-outsider/resistance type to me; so him doing paid speeches doesn't surprise me.
i'm sure those same people are upset by the large amounts of money lots of people make. (i.e. the millions made by executives and sports figures).
also, for /snark, if wall street is so bad, what's the problem with taking their money?
|
On April 28 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +Former President Obama's upcoming speech to Wall Streeters is putting $400,000 in his pocket - and putting longtime supporters in a difficult situation.
Democratic Party leaders and grass roots activists alike are at a loss to explain how the onetime champion of the 99 percent could cash in with a September address at a health care conference run by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
“Spiritual leader of the people’s #Resistance cashes in with $400k speech to Wall Street bankers,” read one tweet.
"[Money] is a snake that slithers through Washington.”
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
“Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street speech will cost @TheDemocrats much more than that," read another. "It reinforces everything progressives hate about Democrats.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show this morning. But she held back from criticizing the president directly while referring repeatedly to her new book, “This Fight is Our Fight,” in which she outlines her concerns about big money’s influence on American politics. SourceIs Fox being obtuse or is there truth to this? Optics don't look fantastic.
He's a retired dude with a lot of value. Its not like he's signing any bills at this point. He could take billions from big banks and I wouldn't give a shit.
|
Donna Brazile speaks her mind!
What if they gave a probe, and nobody probed?
During the 2016 elections, America was subjected to the most serious cyberattack in our nation’s history: a methodical assault by a hostile foreign power on the legitimacy of our elections, our government, our institutions and even the very concept of Western democracy.
And the attacks have continued since Election Day—both in this country and against our European allies, who are currently conducting their own elections under the constant threat of Russian meddling.
It seems like nobody is doing anything about it. Worse—they’re pretending that they are. There are currently multiple investigations into the Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible involvement by the Trump campaign. But all of them are compromised to one degree or another by incompetence, listlessness and deliberate foot-dragging. Congress is completely failing to live up to its responsibilities for oversight and to function as a separate and co-equal branch of government. Partisan politics has poisoned inquiries on both the House and Senate side.
We can only hope the FBI investigation is being conducted in a thorough manner. Unless a special prosecutor is appointed to oversee the process, we can only assume that conducting a proper investigation under those auspices may be a fraught affair despite Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusing himself from investigations involving the 2016 campaign.
We need an independent investigation. And we need it now.
Source
Not really a credible figure I want to hear anything from, that's for sure. She should go ahead and work on fixing the broken party instead. Or maybe crucifying a mayoral candidate for the Democrats for not being pro-abortion enough.
|
On April 28 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +Former President Obama's upcoming speech to Wall Streeters is putting $400,000 in his pocket - and putting longtime supporters in a difficult situation.
Democratic Party leaders and grass roots activists alike are at a loss to explain how the onetime champion of the 99 percent could cash in with a September address at a health care conference run by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
“Spiritual leader of the people’s #Resistance cashes in with $400k speech to Wall Street bankers,” read one tweet.
"[Money] is a snake that slithers through Washington.”
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
“Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street speech will cost @TheDemocrats much more than that," read another. "It reinforces everything progressives hate about Democrats.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show this morning. But she held back from criticizing the president directly while referring repeatedly to her new book, “This Fight is Our Fight,” in which she outlines her concerns about big money’s influence on American politics. SourceIs Fox being obtuse or is there truth to this? Optics don't look fantastic.
Democrats are getting just as ridiculous as the freedom caucus with this infighting nonsense. So what he got paid a ton of money to give a speech, he is a former president, his opinion carries alot of weight and the worst part is, is that he is being criticized before he actually says anything. What if his speech is about how insurance companies need to look for innovative ways to serve the low income community or some other positive message. How are you going to affect change if you cant even communicate with the people you are arguing against.....
|
On April 28 2017 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:Former President Obama's upcoming speech to Wall Streeters is putting $400,000 in his pocket - and putting longtime supporters in a difficult situation.
Democratic Party leaders and grass roots activists alike are at a loss to explain how the onetime champion of the 99 percent could cash in with a September address at a health care conference run by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
“Spiritual leader of the people’s #Resistance cashes in with $400k speech to Wall Street bankers,” read one tweet.
"[Money] is a snake that slithers through Washington.”
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
“Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street speech will cost @TheDemocrats much more than that," read another. "It reinforces everything progressives hate about Democrats.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show this morning. But she held back from criticizing the president directly while referring repeatedly to her new book, “This Fight is Our Fight,” in which she outlines her concerns about big money’s influence on American politics. SourceIs Fox being obtuse or is there truth to this? Optics don't look fantastic. He's a retired dude with a lot of value. Its not like he's signing any bills at this point. He could take billions from big banks and I wouldn't give a shit.
Retired yes, irrelevant no. In principle it's his right to go around collecting his yearly salary for single speeches just because he can, but he remains an important figure in the party: an ex-president in pretty good standing. It does give a shitty narrative, though, given how famous Clinton herself was for this thing - and it wouldn't have been a bad thing to keep it quiet for long enough to keep people from drawing the connections right now. Just until people forget there was ever a person named Hillary Clinton.
|
On April 28 2017 05:45 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:Former President Obama's upcoming speech to Wall Streeters is putting $400,000 in his pocket - and putting longtime supporters in a difficult situation.
Democratic Party leaders and grass roots activists alike are at a loss to explain how the onetime champion of the 99 percent could cash in with a September address at a health care conference run by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
“Spiritual leader of the people’s #Resistance cashes in with $400k speech to Wall Street bankers,” read one tweet.
"[Money] is a snake that slithers through Washington.”
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
“Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street speech will cost @TheDemocrats much more than that," read another. "It reinforces everything progressives hate about Democrats.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show this morning. But she held back from criticizing the president directly while referring repeatedly to her new book, “This Fight is Our Fight,” in which she outlines her concerns about big money’s influence on American politics. SourceIs Fox being obtuse or is there truth to this? Optics don't look fantastic. Democrats are getting just as ridiculous as the freedom caucus with this infighting nonsense. So what he got paid a ton of money to give a speech, he is a former president, his opinion carries alot of weight and the worst part is, is that he is being criticized before he actually says anything. What if his speech is about how insurance companies need to look for innovative ways to serve the low income community or some other positive message. How are you going to affect change if you cant even communicate with the people you are arguing against.....
It's more about thinking your speech is worth $400k an hour but someone who works their ass off isn't worth $15. I agree that it's not surprising Obama is doing it though, he made it clear long ago he was that kinda Democrat. The defenses of it have been pretty terrible though. Particularly the ones about him needing the money.
It's been funny to see some liberals attacking Obama after they had defended Hillary but they both probably should share equal influence in the party going forward, that being none. But Democrats obviously think differently.
|
It’s never easy for a new president to transition into his security bubble, but Donald Trump comes with unconventional protection challenges — including his active Twitter life — that are testing the Secret Service in unpleasant and costly ways.
Trump’s free-flowing tweets have invited more threats than his security detail can keep pace to investigate. On top of that, he’s been telegraphing his movements for the bad guys by establishing regular travel patterns in his first 100 days in office. And his very famous family is jetting around the world, draining the resources of a bureau still gasping from the frenzied pace of the 2016 campaign.
All presidents live in a target-rich environment — agents often talk of mentally-ill people approaching the White House gates making threats against long-gone leaders like Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan. But law enforcement experts say the new Republican president has particularly upped his exposure levels through Twitter, with the missives emanating from his phone giving the masses the impression they can correspond directly with Trump.
“The Twitter thing is creating a lot of hassles,” said Dan Bongino, a former protective detail agent for presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “It’s generated a tidal wave of threats that the Secret Service can’t ignore.”
Source
I thought this was interesting. On the consequences of Trump being Trump for his security detail.
|
Yes, the pay is exorbitant, but what he does with the money is another matter. Why not take Wall Street's money? He's done with government service, no one has any need to worry about conflicts of interest. That's the difference compared to Hillary (and Trump). She acted a bit like a political retiree, dipping her hand into that pot.
Not that it should have mattered. People were criticizing her largely for her charity which, unlike the Trump Foundation (or Trump University, or Trump Steaks), is a legit operation, and functions off of donations, like charities do.
|
On April 28 2017 05:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 28 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:Former President Obama's upcoming speech to Wall Streeters is putting $400,000 in his pocket - and putting longtime supporters in a difficult situation.
Democratic Party leaders and grass roots activists alike are at a loss to explain how the onetime champion of the 99 percent could cash in with a September address at a health care conference run by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
“Spiritual leader of the people’s #Resistance cashes in with $400k speech to Wall Street bankers,” read one tweet.
"[Money] is a snake that slithers through Washington.”
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
“Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street speech will cost @TheDemocrats much more than that," read another. "It reinforces everything progressives hate about Democrats.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show this morning. But she held back from criticizing the president directly while referring repeatedly to her new book, “This Fight is Our Fight,” in which she outlines her concerns about big money’s influence on American politics. SourceIs Fox being obtuse or is there truth to this? Optics don't look fantastic. He's a retired dude with a lot of value. Its not like he's signing any bills at this point. He could take billions from big banks and I wouldn't give a shit. Retired yes, irrelevant no. In principle it's his right to go around collecting his yearly salary for single speeches just because he can, but he remains an important figure in the party: an ex-president in pretty good standing. It does give a shitty narrative, though, given how famous Clinton herself was for this thing - and it wouldn't have been a bad thing to keep it quiet for long enough to keep people from drawing the connections right now. Just until people forget there was ever a person named Hillary Clinton.
Are you saying you think Obama's speeches will impact the party's policy stances?
|
On April 28 2017 06:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 05:49 LegalLord wrote:On April 28 2017 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 28 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:Former President Obama's upcoming speech to Wall Streeters is putting $400,000 in his pocket - and putting longtime supporters in a difficult situation.
Democratic Party leaders and grass roots activists alike are at a loss to explain how the onetime champion of the 99 percent could cash in with a September address at a health care conference run by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
“Spiritual leader of the people’s #Resistance cashes in with $400k speech to Wall Street bankers,” read one tweet.
"[Money] is a snake that slithers through Washington.”
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
“Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street speech will cost @TheDemocrats much more than that," read another. "It reinforces everything progressives hate about Democrats.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show this morning. But she held back from criticizing the president directly while referring repeatedly to her new book, “This Fight is Our Fight,” in which she outlines her concerns about big money’s influence on American politics. SourceIs Fox being obtuse or is there truth to this? Optics don't look fantastic. He's a retired dude with a lot of value. Its not like he's signing any bills at this point. He could take billions from big banks and I wouldn't give a shit. Retired yes, irrelevant no. In principle it's his right to go around collecting his yearly salary for single speeches just because he can, but he remains an important figure in the party: an ex-president in pretty good standing. It does give a shitty narrative, though, given how famous Clinton herself was for this thing - and it wouldn't have been a bad thing to keep it quiet for long enough to keep people from drawing the connections right now. Just until people forget there was ever a person named Hillary Clinton. Are you saying you think Obama's speeches will impact the party's policy stances?
They can and they do. Obama's word basically got Perez selected to lead the DNC boldly into the future.
|
He could become a lobbyist and pull in several million a year. Being a former president means you can make bank anywhere you want. He could also just make money and not tell anyone how much because liberals don’t own him. Don’t bitch about people making money after their time in office is over.
If they are still running for office, then the speaking circuit is a little weird. But no less weird than having a private sector job right up until you ran for office.
|
He's definitely within his right to line his pockets right now. My opinion will change if he seeks another more active role in policy making or party organization right now.
|
On April 28 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 06:09 Mohdoo wrote:On April 28 2017 05:49 LegalLord wrote:On April 28 2017 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 28 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:Former President Obama's upcoming speech to Wall Streeters is putting $400,000 in his pocket - and putting longtime supporters in a difficult situation.
Democratic Party leaders and grass roots activists alike are at a loss to explain how the onetime champion of the 99 percent could cash in with a September address at a health care conference run by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
“Spiritual leader of the people’s #Resistance cashes in with $400k speech to Wall Street bankers,” read one tweet.
"[Money] is a snake that slithers through Washington.”
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
“Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street speech will cost @TheDemocrats much more than that," read another. "It reinforces everything progressives hate about Democrats.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show this morning. But she held back from criticizing the president directly while referring repeatedly to her new book, “This Fight is Our Fight,” in which she outlines her concerns about big money’s influence on American politics. SourceIs Fox being obtuse or is there truth to this? Optics don't look fantastic. He's a retired dude with a lot of value. Its not like he's signing any bills at this point. He could take billions from big banks and I wouldn't give a shit. Retired yes, irrelevant no. In principle it's his right to go around collecting his yearly salary for single speeches just because he can, but he remains an important figure in the party: an ex-president in pretty good standing. It does give a shitty narrative, though, given how famous Clinton herself was for this thing - and it wouldn't have been a bad thing to keep it quiet for long enough to keep people from drawing the connections right now. Just until people forget there was ever a person named Hillary Clinton. Are you saying you think Obama's speeches will impact the party's policy stances? They can and they do. Obama's word basically got Perez selected to lead the DNC boldly into the future.
Through what means would these speeches change the DNC platform?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
