US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 137

On January 13 2019 18:25 iamthedave wrote:


Which of the Republican policies does Beto back? And Clinton certainly supported some Republican stuff. Democrats usually do (to a degree)

You're right about the experience being a thing... but how much of that was because that was Clinton's only major upside?



Save now she's tried and failed, and would be running against the President who beat her. That's not a good look.

Bernie's surely the best candidate though? He doesn't have her experience at the top of the pile but he's been around the block for a looooooong time and he has a huge amount of ground support.

O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ tax agenda, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act, weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Trump’s immigration policy. Consumer, environmental, public health and civil rights organizations have cast legislation backed by O’Rourke as aiding big banks, undermining the fight against climate change and supporting Trump’s anti-immigrant program. During the previous administration, President Barack Obama’s White House issued statements slamming two GOP bills backed by the 46-year-old Democratic legislator.

O’Rourke’s votes for Republican tax, trade, health care, criminal justice and immigration-related legislation not only defied his national party, but also at times put him at odds even with a majority of Texas Democratic lawmakers in Congress.

On January 14 2019 00:52 iamthedave wrote:
Well, she didn't lose the popular vote and it might be (partially) Russia's fault. But we both know most people on this site agree she wasn't a good candidate. Just Trump was a worse one. Either way, those were definitely Clinton's strong points, it shouldn't be jarring to see people championing them. They were basically all she had.

Similarly, it seems Beto's youth and charisma are all he's really got going from him, going by that voting record, so that's probably why that's the focus :D

On January 14 2019 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not jarring if we presume them ideologically vacuous and ethically absent, perhaps I gave Hillary supporters too much credit. It's not as if she fell into the general with Trump either. She intentionally elevated Trump and her supporters pushed her over someone with better policy in no small part because they said he lacked the proper experience (passing laws he sponsored) and wonkishness (him flubbing a Q on policy).

On January 14 2019 01:50 iamthedave wrote:


Shrug. You're going past areas where I can comment. Maybe P6 can comment on the ideologically vacuous/ethically absent parts, but from your prior arguments about Hilary I just don't think Democrats see her the way you do.

But I don't see how you draw those conclusions from what you're saying. Just because Clinton's experience is held up as a positive doesn't mean that every candidate from now on must have her level of experience. Nobody's ever said that as far as I know.

In addition, you know that a lot of people don't think Bernie had better policy, just because he's too left wing.

The fact he was considered so dangerous is a damning indictment of American politics, considering that he's not that left wing. He'd fit in with the UK Labour Party and probably be mates with Jeremy Corbyn, but he wouldn't be one of the radicals in the party.

On January 13 2019 18:25 iamthedave wrote:


Which of the Republican policies does Beto back? And Clinton certainly supported some Republican stuff. Democrats usually do (to a degree)

You're right about the experience being a thing... but how much of that was because that was Clinton's only major upside?



Save now she's tried and failed, and would be running against the President who beat her. That's not a good look.

Bernie's surely the best candidate though? He doesn't have her experience at the top of the pile but he's been around the block for a looooooong time and he has a huge amount of ground support.

On January 14 2019 11:27 Doodsmack wrote:
So is there an innocent reason for which trump would seek to conceal from the rest of his administration what he discussed during his 2 hour one on one meeting with Putin in Helsinki? And is there an innocent reason for some Ukrainian oligarchs wanting to receive from Manafort polling data on random American voters?

On January 12 2019 15:11 IgnE wrote:


no one said medical malpractice. i can quite easily imagine someone declaring a state of emergency for the nation's health crisis (opioids maybe?) and instituting a variety of police measures and appropriations for health subsidies and clinics. i also don't know how you can just say "climate change" without any reference to a particular solution (emissions cutting? bans on fossil fuels? erecting a massive renewable energy grid?) and confidently proclaim that it's "very easy" to differentiate from building a wall across a desert. as if climate change wasn't an "existential threat to the nation"

On January 12 2019 19:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:


You don't see how gun control or climate change can similarly affected following either school shootings or forest fires taking lives and destroying property? Like, what's the threshold for how many lives must be killed by x or how much property must be destroyed by x during x period of time before it's okay for the president to declare it a national emergency? I absolutely do not at all buy that illegal immigration causes more 'material damage' than the various already felt consequences of climate change, and if you look over projections for the next 20 years, 'the record will be incomparable'.

On January 14 2019 14:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
Haven't you noticed that the president's power is only limited by congress in so much that they are willing to go against their constituents in order to impeach the president?

So granted there's not 67 senators willing to impeach them for it, a president can do almost whatever they want.

On January 14 2019 14:34 xDaunt wrote:

No, executive power is also limited by the courts (among other things).

On January 14 2019 14:40 GreenHorizons wrote:


Do you imagine RBG rolling herself to the border to stop the military from building shit?

On January 14 2019 15:23 xDaunt wrote:

If that's your perspective, then impeachment doesn't mean dick, either.

On January 14 2019 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Gun rights are protected by the Second Amendment. There is no chance that the president has the authority to simply eliminate the Second Amendment by executive fiat when courts won't let either state legislators or congress do the same.

California generally prohibits the average citizen from carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or concealed. With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits open carry altogether. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§25850, 26350 (West 2012). It proscribes concealed carry unless a resident obtains a license by showing “good cause,” among other criteria, §§26150, 26155, and it authorizes counties to set rules for when an applicant has shown good cause, §26160.

In the county where petitioners reside, the sheriff has interpreted “good cause” to require an applicant to show that he has a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The sheriff’s policy specifies that “concern for one’s personal safety” does not “alone” satisfy this requirement. Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144, 1148 (CA9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, an applicant must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed in harm’s way.” Id., at 1169 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “[A] typical citizen fearing for his personal safety—by definition—cannot distinguish himself from the mainstream.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). As a result, ordinary, “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008), may not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in public spaces [...]

Had the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “ ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted). The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. See Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [Heller] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court”); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).

Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively. Twenty-six States have asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, and the lower courts have fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals and three state courts of last resort have decided cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the one below) have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the issue. See Drake, 724 F. 3d 426, cert. denied sub nom. Drake v. Jerejian, 572 U. S. ___ (2014); 724 F. 3d, at 440 (Hardiman, J., dissenting); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 571 U. S. ___ (2013); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 (CA2 2012), cert. denied sub nom. Kachalsky v. Cacace, 569 U. S. ___ (2013); Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933; id., at 943 (Williams, J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 800–802, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785–786 (2012); Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011); Mack v. United States, 6 A. 3d 1224, 1236 (D. C. 2010). Hence, I do not see much value in waiting for additional courts to weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at stake.

The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6) (“The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions”); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (“ Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document”). The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.

On January 14 2019 14:18 xDaunt wrote:

Given the number of leaks in his administration, Trump has every reason to keep his conversations with Putin closely held.

As for Ukraine and Manafort, that's on Manafort. Besides, you should know that Trump/Russia collusion and Trump/Ukraine collusion are mutually exclusive given that the two nations are enemies. Pick a narrative and stick with it (though both suck).

On January 14 2019 23:07 Nouar wrote:


Calling bullshit on that. Giving the appearance that you have things to hide, while your campaign is already under investigation about Russia, is the stupidest things to do. Conversations between world leaders are usually recorded and archived, as a president is not a dictator, but acting on behalf of the people. Keeping records of what happened is important for your country (that is IF you put your country above yourself, which Trump clearly does not)
If he's clean (and he says himself that he has nothing to hide, that he is willing to disclose them -empty words-, and that he is the toughest on Russia), then WHY do that ? The only thing this achieves, is increasing the level of scrutiny on him, and his headaches. As well, it's making things difficult for his administration, that has no idea what was agreed or discussed. "Keeping them closely held" is already the case. Taking the translator notes and asking him to not talk to anyone, including your national security advisors ? Bullshit.

About Russia/Ukraine, how can you say they are mutually exclusive, since Manafort was working with the Russian-friendly government (Yanukovych) and its russia-leaning oligarchs, deeply invested in Russian intelligence, that was evicted after public outcry and a revolution (followed by an invasion of a part of Ukraine by Russia, that didn't like an anti-russia government)... That leader is currently in exile in Russia, and wanted for treason by Ukraine. Can you international relations 101 instead of looking like the average american, which you are not ?

On January 14 2019 23:07 Nouar wrote:


Calling bullshit on that. Giving the appearance that you have things to hide, while your campaign is already under investigation about Russia, is the stupidest things to do. Conversations between world leaders are usually recorded and archived, as a president is not a dictator, but acting on behalf of the people. Keeping records of what happened is important for your country (that is IF you put your country above yourself, which Trump clearly does not)
If he's clean (and he says himself that he has nothing to hide, that he is willing to disclose them -empty words-, and that he is the toughest on Russia), then WHY do that ? The only thing this achieves, is increasing the level of scrutiny on him, and his headaches. As well, it's making things difficult for his administration, that has no idea what was agreed or discussed. "Keeping them closely held" is already the case. Taking the translator notes and asking him to not talk to anyone, including your national security advisors ? Bullshit.

About Russia/Ukraine, how can you say they are mutually exclusive, since Manafort was working with the Russian-friendly government (Yanukovych) and its russia-leaning oligarchs, deeply invested in Russian intelligence, that was evicted after public outcry and a revolution (followed by an invasion of a part of Ukraine by Russia, that didn't like an anti-russia government)... That leader is currently in exile in Russia, and wanted for treason by Ukraine. Can you international relations 101 instead of looking like the average american, which you are not ?