Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 229 - Swalwell that ends well

(+) Yeah! (+)

Swalwell dropped out.

Also, to nobodys surprise, Russia may have started the rumor that Seth Rich was murdered for leaking:

https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-the-true-origins-of-the-seth-rich-conspiracy-a-yahoo-news-investigation-100000831.html
---

finally the new topic is up geez

I'm not letting my last post stay at the 500

GuessMyUserName posted [p:924408544] in Politics C... [t:77826040]...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BzpsvEehosZ/

marianne i love your crazy ass

*edit* excellent lfq quoting working well
---

Thanks, I was trying and failing to come up with a pun

What a ratio:
https://twitter.com/secretaryacosta/status/1148618145671917571?s=21
---

https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/1148644555962535938

Why does anyone defend this utterly useless speaker, who only serves the purpose of preemptively surrendering to the GOP and fighting the left?

I'm pretty sure Donald Trump could be found on tape raping a child in the Epstein mansion and she would say it would be too divisive to impeach.

I think people have been growing more and more tired of Pelosi's do-nothing leadership these last few months, it'd be cool if people are pissed off enough to notice her primary challenger. Under the recent midterms, the understandable issue was that there's nobody better vying for her position, and hopefully her shitty display this year starts bringing people forward.

It's fucked up how restrained and supportive AOC & co have been to her yet Pelosi can never resist tossing them under every bus she sees. Meanwhile progressives always take the brunt of the blame for divisiveness or being too angry.
---

lol swawelll why were you there in the first place
---

Go ahead and impeach. Republicans would be very happy to have that trial. Complete and total exoneration and reelection coming up.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

lol swawelll why were you there in the first place

taking a shot at biden then bowing out is a more respectable reason than 95% of candidates pretending their existence means anything!
---

I'll defend Pelosi on most stuff (she is very good at getting shit done that she wants to get done), but I definitely disagree with her handling of impeachment/other oversight. It's pretty clear that she's doing so because she thinks it'll backfire politically, but I think the case that there would be backlash is extremely weak.

CelesMyUserName posted...

I think people have been growing more and more tired of Pelosi's do-nothing leadership these last few months, it'd be cool if people are pissed off enough to notice her primary challenger. Under the recent midterms, the understandable issue was that there's nobody better vying for her position, and hopefully her shitty display this year starts bringing people forward.

Primarying Pelosi would be super dumb though. As I said, she is very good as executing on her goals (way better than other Dem leadership).
---

Exoneration in a trial is a very powerful thing. Look at the Revolutionary Tribunal in France - its first major trial resulted in an acquittal (of a radical leftist). That gave the tribunal legitimacy and a political boost to the radical left and the Reign of Terror followed.
---

I actually mostly agree with LotM on this one. Pelosi as speaker specifically for her ability to herd the sheep and keep the votes in line is good.

Pelosi as speaker for basically everything else though uhhhhhhhh

Reg posted...

I actually mostly agree with LotM on this one. Pelosi as speaker specifically for her ability to herd the sheep and keep the votes in line is good.

Pelosi as speaker for basically everything else though uhhhhhhhh

That's basically the Speaker's only job. Look at Mitch McConnell in the Senate - that's about all he does. And at that, he is the best.
---

The only way Trump is going to be seen as being "exonerated" is if a ton of Dems vote against removal. A more or less party line vote will just be seen at worst as partisanship; no one seriously believes that there are 20 Republican Senators who are just going to judge impeachment on the facts of the case rather than through a political lens.
---

Reg posted...

I actually mostly agree with LotM on this one. Pelosi as speaker specifically for her ability to herd the sheep and keep the votes in line is good.

Pelosi as speaker for basically everything else though uhhhhhhhh

isn't that the whip's job anyway?
---

Pelosi's strength is overblown by the fact she's the only one given that position. She's dropping the ball monumentally all over the place enough for me to wanna find someone better.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The only way Trump is going to be seen as being "exonerated" is if a ton of Dems vote against removal. A more or less party line vote will just be seen at worst as partisanship; no one seriously believes that there are 20 Republican Senators who are just going to judge impeachment on the facts of the case rather than through a political lens.

Any majority vote for acquittal will be seen as exoneration. Anything less than 67 votes for conviction will be an acquittal.
---

My problem with Nancy isn't that she doesn't want to impeach. It's that she'd rather attack members of her own party than the opposition who have LONG murdered bipartisanship in a way that makes Rasputin feel undermurdered.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

It's fucked up how restrained and supportive AOC & co have been to her yet Pelosi can never resist tossing them under every bus she sees. Meanwhile progressives always take the brunt of the blame for divisiveness or being too angry.

I thought the fight AOC and the Squad started by voting against the House border bill was a weird fight to pick but Pelosi's dismissive response to it was really bad. Especially when a pot more Democrats ended up opposing the Senate bill that was passed, against what Pelosi wanted, it validates AOC's concerns.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

My problem with Nancy isn't that she doesn't want to impeach. It's that she'd rather attack members of her own party than the opposition who have LONG murdered bipartisanship in a way that makes Rasputin feel undermurdered.

Because her own party is the one that is at fault. Republicans have done an absolutely fantastic job of representing their constituents. Democrats have repeatedly dropped the ball. They fold when they have a winning hand and go all-in with losing hands. Over and over.
---

She is the opposite of "leadership". The only stands she takes are against her own. The idea nobody else could do her job is laughable,unless you concede her job is to coddle the republicans and keep the left in line (it is).

I feel like someone in the white house has to be saying "You know, maybe we should fire Acosta? That'd be good optics."
---

Dancedreamer posted...

My problem with Nancy isn't that she doesn't want to impeach. It's that she'd rather attack members of her own party than the opposition who have LONG murdered bipartisanship in a way that makes Rasputin feel undermurdered.

Pelosi and the Democratic establishment fear the left more than they do the right.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Dancedreamer posted...

My problem with Nancy isn't that she doesn't want to impeach. It's that she'd rather attack members of her own party than the opposition who have LONG murdered bipartisanship in a way that makes Rasputin feel undermurdered.

Pelosi and the Democratic establishment fear the left more than they do the right.

Oh weird, I wonder why that is.
---

So yesterday (I think?) the DoJ said that most of the lawyers working on the census case were going to withdraw and be replaced with a bunch of other lawyers who don't typically do this type of case. The judge denied the motion for all but two of the attorneys (who had left the DoJ or the Civil division) and is demanding that they explain why they're requesting to withdraw (not clear if they chose to drop because they were uncomfortable with Trump's demands, or if Trump ordered them replaced):

https://twitter.com/ssamcham/status/1148705384531730433
---

I'm not sure that the attorneys are going to be able to give an answer beyond, Trump ordered that we be replaced.
---

https://twitter.com/FOX4/status/1147498707601899520

Reality is beyond parody.

But those cops are literally making a joke about a viral video
---

I'm familiar with the copaganda that follows literally every major negative story about police, yes.

They get very confused when guarding neapolitan ice cream.
---

Nrrr posted...

I'm familiar with the copaganda that follows literally every major negative story about police, yes.

Oh the joke is absolutely for propaganda, I just assumed people were taking the headline at face value. Sure.
---

https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1148695339026853888?s=21

Thank god
---

I think I'm also a bit more sympathetic to Pelosi here though I do find myself increasingly frustrated by her inaction on oversight/impeachment.

It does bear remembering that all the Speaker challengers to her at the start of this Congress came from her right. AOC herself even noted that at the time. If you can find someone better who wants to run for it, sure, I'll listen, but that hasn't been the case so far.

I also think there's some credence to the idea that by the very nature of being Speaker she can't do the kind of things that say, AOC, can. She has to represent the caucus as a whole and that still includes a fair number of moderates. Take the border bill from not that long ago. That showed that if the moderates break they can get things passed. (The actual issues here I think are a bit more complex, including Schumer basically screwing the House over on this as well as - pathetically - the fact that a bunch of people just wanted to start the recess and get out of there.)

So Pelosi has to deal with/protect those more moderate democrats lest risk losing their seats in 2020. I mean, yeah, it sucks that that's the cold political reality but it is what it is. When Pelosi really wants to get something done, she delivers.

However, I do think she's been more hostile/throwing more shade at the progressive wing than she really needs to. It's aggravating and I honestly don't really see the political benefit she derives from it like I can in other instances (where I break with some in the topic I suspect.)

tl;dr: The only people who have been willing to challenge Pelosi for the speakership thus far have been from her right. No one from her left has shown the will/desire to. I also think being Speaker comes with a few other priorities that by their nature can be aggravating to the left. That said, I do think her comments have been needlessly dismissive lately and I totally disagree with her lack of substantive action on oversight and impeachment.
---

agreed that the only challengers so far have been to her right, and I was certainly behind Pelosi during the midterms over lol Tim Ryan, and I'll continue to back Pelosi over that kind of extra trash - but she is fucking up a lot of my faith in her as a leader this year and I'll gladly encourage better leaders to stand up and take her place because she fucking sucks even if she's still better than a lot of other terrible dems
---

No, I get you. Her comments on oversight re: Acosta and Barr, unneeded shade being thrown at AOC and the other Dem Freshmen... it's grating and its frustrating and I can't defend any of it really when like even if I disagree vehemently I can see her logic on impeachment of Trump and will begrudgingly grant that I think there is a rational basis for her actions there even if I object to some of the premises or conclusions.

Like I said, if we can find someone better who actually wants the job I'm listening! But it's been Pelosi v Tim Ryan and it's like "no thx i'll take pelosi."
---

https://twitter.com/ericuman/status/1148771027729768448

I'm totally convinced!

Also, somehow going under the radar here is the 5th Circuit hearing the ACA case.

Quick Recap: A Texas judge made an absolutely insane ruling the the ACA had to be struck down in its entirety because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and inseverable. It got appealed and is now in the 5th Circuit. It's currently being heard by a 3 judge panel, 2 of which are Republican appointed (Trump and Bush 43.) Oral arguments started today and reporters there seem to have come away with the impression that the 2 R judges are hostile to the ACA/receptive to the Texas ruling. Trump's DOJ is arguing that the ACA should be struck down and the Texas judge ruled correctly.

It'll go to SCOTUS either way I'm sure but ugh.
---

The argument makes absolutely no sense and I'd normally be pretty confident that Roberts at least would reject it, but my confidence in the court is extremely low right now so who the fuck knows

(He probably still does reject it, but it'll probably be a 5-4 ruling for something that should have been a slam dunk 9-0 rejection of the Trump admin's position).
---

Yeah, if I had to bet I'd say Roberts rejects the argument but I'm a lot more uncertain about that than I feel I ought to be.
---

I read Judge O'Connor's opinion. Basically, it seems that this turns on the question: what was the intent of the 2017 Congress in passing the TCJA that eliminated the tax for not having health insurance?

Judge O'Connor says the 2017 Congress intended to eliminate the shared responsibility payment but keep the individual mandate and keep the text in the ACA that says the individual mandate is "essential." He goes to great pains to try to show that the shared responsibility payment and individual mandate are two different things. And the evidence for this is that the 2017 Congress changed the amount of the ACA tax to zero but left unchanged everything else in the ACA, including the provision setting forth the individual mandate.

Under that reading, the whole ACA must now fail because the individual mandate, which is now unconstitutional, remains "essential" to the rest.

It seems to me pretty obvious that the intent of the 2017 Congress was to eliminate the individual mandate. Why would they eliminate the only enforcement mechanism for it if they didn't intend to eliminate it? Without a tax/penalty, it says X is illegal but attaches absolutely no consequences to it. And if Congress intended to repeal the individual mandate but not the rest of Obamacare, then it is obviously no longer an essential portion of Obamacare and can be severed. There is no dispute that the rest of the act is constitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause if there is no individual mandate attached to it.

I guess there is a case for Judge O'Connor's position because the text in the ACA saying that the individual mandate is "essential" remains in the text. So he can take the position that what Congress actually passed is what it intended, that even if 535 members of Congress all say "we meant X" if they actually unambiguously wrote "Y" then courts must rule based on "Y."
---

Well, yes, the argument that it's not severable so "welp the whole thing's gotta go" is what's absurd but that's where we are in 2019.
---

So....fairly confident Gorsuch and Thomas vote to uphold this decision. They are really big on the "words mean what they say" thing. That means words mean what a reasonable person of the time of the passage of the law would think they mean, not necessarily what the drafter intended. If that leads to absurd results, they'll give their usual line about how courts can't fix that and you should take it up with Congress if you don't like their poor drafting.

Hard to see Roberts going for this - I don't think he's really gone for the all or nothing, black or white, complete and total exoneration or immediate execution style* jurisprudence before.

*I think Thomas has been on record in a dissent in saying that even a factually innocent prisoner can be executed if he received a procedurally fair trial and the only mistake was the verdict.
---

xp1337 posted...

Well, yes, the argument that it's not severable so "welp the whole thing's gotta go" is what's absurd but that's where we are in 2019.

Well, suppose Congress had added a sentence to the TCJA: "Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify or abrogate any portion of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate which is an essential component of the Affordable Care Act, except for the modification of the amount of the shared responsibility payment set forth herein."

Then it would be obvious what the intent was. The effect would be the same as if the ACA was repealed and immediately passed again without a tax penalty for the individual mandate. So, it would be like if Congress passed a law saying:

1. Every school is required to teach Christianity.
2. There shall be no consequences for any school that doesn't teach Christianity.
3. Congress authorizes $X in funding for poor school districts.
4. If any part of this act is held to be unconstitutional, the rest is inseverable and will not be effective.

Well, this one will be fun. I think the elephant in the room is that Congress is not taking care when drafting these statutes anymore - Congress is handing out statutes that are hundreds of pages long an hour before the final vote at 2 a.m. and then having a senator "debate" the bill by telling stories about his family and refusing to answer any questions about the bill. So the whole legal fiction that Congress knows what it is doing is really fiction at this point. But courts are bound to abide by it.
---

If the Supreme Court does uphold this decision, this will allow for Team Mitch and company to craft many creative poison pills to place in legislation in the future. As usual I expect Republicans will be at least 15 years ahead of the Democrats in legislative sophistication and we may end up with a bevy of laws that end up doing the opposite of what Democrats intended when they voted for them.
---

If the Supreme Court upholds that decision, Republicans will lose in a wave that makes 2018 look like a puddle. The whole ACA repeal effort saga saw their polling crater to the worst its ever been all while the ACA reached its highest levels of approval in turn.

I just don't want to have millions of people lose health insurance as a result.
---

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1148775401801621504

from the wapo:

Two meme creators who have been favored by Trump and his staff, who use the online handles @ mad_liberals and @ CarpeDonktum, had a 20-minute Oval Office meeting with the president July 3. The user @ CarpeDonktum previously won a $10,000 anti-mainstream media meme contest sponsored by the conspiracy-theory website Infowars, which has been barred on major social media sites. He recently created a fake animated cover of Time magazine that suggested Trump would stay in office forever. Trump retweeted the video, getting more than 25 million views on Twitter.

Where is the genius? I want to meet the genius, Trump said to @ CarpeDonktum as the men entered the Oval Office, according to the recollection of @ mad_liberals. Both men spoke to The Washington Post about their experience with the president on the condition their full names not be used because they fear online or in-person harassment.

The two have complained of unfair treatment by social media companies. @ CarpeDonktums account on Twitter was suspended for eight days, he said, after he posted an altered spaghetti western video that showed Trump slapping and shooting a gun at CNN reporter Jim Acosta. @ Mad_liberals said Instagram shut down his account for reasons that are not clear to him.

...
---

Great! It is really important that the dishonest mainstream media be defeated, and that will happen if Americans get their news from alternative sources. Hopefully, the mainstream media will eventually hit bottom and realize what depths they have sunk to. Then they can accept that reality is subjective in the sense that it can only be experienced subjectively, and maybe one day regain their lost credibility.
---

We truly live in hell

GuessMyUserName posted...

Both men spoke to The Washington Post about their experience with the president on the condition their full names not be used because they fear online or in-person harassment.

GuessMyUserName posted...

suspended for eight days, he said, after he posted an altered spaghetti western video that showed Trump slapping and shooting a gun at CNN reporter Jim Acosta.

o i c

red sox 777 posted...

Democrats have repeatedly dropped the ball. They fold when they have a winning hand and go all-in with losing hands. Over and over.

didn't obama win in '12?
---

I've now seen both Bernie and Kamala Harris mention they've introduced bills with AOC. And I've seen AOC working with Elizabeth Warren too. Meanwhile, Pelsoi attacks the freshman congresswoman instead. Dems should be propping up fellow Dems. It reminds me of how Feinstein treated those kids who came to ask her to support the Green New Deal. Instead of taking time to listen to them, she dismissed them outright and told them they didn't vote for her. I feel like some of the older Dems just don't get it. Even if you're in the safest district who'll never vote for a Republican over you, doesn't mean you should take for granted the rest of the country is watching.
---