Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 404: Fox Tuckers Out, CNN Sours On Lemon

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/us/cleveland-texas-neighbor-shooting-monday/index.html

That guy who shot up his neighbors? Illegal and been deported 4 times. The right wing will just eat that up!

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/politics/cardin-retirement-reelection-decision/index.html

Longtime Dem Senator from Maryland, Ben Cardin, is retiring. Probably not news because Maryland is as solid blue as you can be, right? Well...what if former, very popular, governor Larry Hogan were to run for the seat? I think he'd have a very strong chance to win. If I were GOP's leadership, I'd be THROWING money at him to run. And yes, I realize he's a more "traditional R", not a MAGA, but the 2024 cycle is already going to be tough for the Ds, so it's not a seat they really want to think about defending.

I suspect Hogan wouldn't even win the primary for the Republican nomination. I say this because they ran Dan Cox for governor last year and generally they seem poised to double down on that sort of candidate.

Even if Hogan were the nominee, voters are probably smart enough these days to understand the difference between electing a Republican for state office versus federal office.

Yeah, I kind of neglected to think about the primary side of the issue. And yeah, taking into account "smart voting" strategies, he'd have an uphill climb. Still the Rs best bet if they truly wanted to win a seat in a deep blue state.

Wisconsin tried a similar thing with their very popular Republican former-Governor Tommy Thompson. He ended up losing the Senate race and his reputation in the state took a big hit. Campaigns are ugly nowadays with all the mud slinging, even revered state politicians of yesteryear aren't immune to it.

https://www.levernews.com/thomas-helped-kill-eviction-ban-threatening-benefactors-business/

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas voted to end federal tenant protections that his billionaire benefactors company says threatened its real estate profit margins, according to corporate documents reviewed by The Lever. Thomas did not disclose his relationship with real estate billionaire Harlan Crow, nor did he recuse himself from the 2021 case, despite its potential impact on Crow Holdings.

Speaking of SCOTUS, a bunch of documents from former Justice Stevens were released today and included this scorcher from 2000: Then Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Thomas and Scalia, wanted to put Independent State Legislature in the ruling back then. Sounds like Kennedy and O'Connor both nope'd out of that and that's how we ended up with the trash ruling we got. The two of them were only willing to go so far so the other 3 had to reel it in and settle for handing Bush the presidency.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/politics/bush-gore-oconnor-supreme-court-2000/index.html

it truly is astonishing how absolutely bad a billionaire can be at business

https://twitter.com/BobbyAllyn/status/1653820431621668869

• Musk threatens NPR to use Twitter or else he'll give their handle away
• NPR reports on that
• Musk emails NPR "you suck"

Debt ceiling update: Dems actually pulled a savvy move. We've discussed the discharge petition option to bypass McCarthy before and one of the biggest issues it would face was that a pre-requisite for using it is that the bill has to sit in committee for over 30 days - and legislative working days at that. Knowing that if one of the higher profile Dems submitted a bill it'd receive scrutiny, they had a lesser known rep submit a bill back in January written in such a way that it fell under the jurisdiction of like 20 committees and could be used as a vehicle to be editted to a debt ceiling bill that has reached that threshold since it escaped the noticed of the GOP. So the discharge petition option is back on the table now. Would still require a handful of GOP defectors but the Dems did plan ahead on this one to set things up for this scenario.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/debt-ceiling-vote-democrats-discharge-petition-republicans-rcna82526

Do they only have one shot with the discharge petition? Or can they keep bringing it up for a vote without waiting an additional 30 working days?

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure, but if you asked my best guess I'd say it's one shot per bill. But I don't think that's an issue because it would only come up for a vote if they got 218 signatures which is basically the same as it having the votes because the idea that 5+ GOP vote to sign the petition in order for it to reach the floor but then voted it down there seems far-fetched.

Personally I doubt this ends up happening but it was still somewhat savvy of Dems to prepare for this months in advance so they can be ready at this moment. It shouldn't be, because this was the most obvious thing from the moment the GOP took back the House, but still! If nothing else, it gives them a bit of leverage by placing the option back on the table.

GuessMyUserName posted...

it truly is astonishing how absolutely bad a billionaire can be at business

https://twitter.com/BobbyAllyn/status/1653820431621668869

* Musk threatens NPR to use Twitter or else he'll give their handle away
* NPR reports on that
* Musk emails NPR "you suck"

npr should just adopt the marshawn lynch strategy

"i'm just tweeting so i don't lose this handle"

Or the Brodie Lee method

Weekly tweet of "Its Monday, you know what that means".

Oh boy, there's more.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

Thomas had taken legal custody of Martin when he was 6 years old and had recently told an interviewer he was raising him as a son.

Tuition at the boarding school ran more than $6,000 a month. But Thomas did not cover the bill. A bank statement for the school from July 2009, buried in unrelated court filings, shows the source of Martins tuition payment for that month: the company of billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow.

The payments extended beyond that month, according to Christopher Grimwood, a former administrator at the school. Crow paid Martins tuition the entire time he was a student there, which was about a year, Grimwood told ProPublica.

What's a little $6000/month for their friends kids tuition. I know my mom's landlord lets her stay there free, and then pays for my kids to go to a fancy private school that costs $6000/month. Just another nice guy landlord. Who doesn't have a friend like that?

I'd say the most damning detail is further into that article where it points out that Thomas did disclose when a different, non-billionaire, friend gave him $5k for his son's education.

So a one-time (although who knows at this point?) $5k gift was something he thought warranted disclosure but the billionaire who was giving more than that per month? "Doesn't look like anything to me."

Sounds like a great friend!

Don't worry guys! There's no evidence of quid pro quo, so it's totally okay for him to receive all these gifts. And even if there were evidence of quid pro quo, Thomas has been the most consistent(ly awful) justice, so there's no evidence it actually changed his mind! And even if there were, then it's okay because he still didn't break any laws! And even if he did, that's still okay because he's above the law as a Supreme Court Justice.

Why should we hold high ethical standards to the judicial branch that decides all our laws, including Citizens United and Dobbs?

The twists and turns conservatives take to defend this behavior has been insane. Not surprising, just their normal typical insanity. And it's why we should never allow Republicans to hold nation-wide office ever again. I don't care if they put Hunter Biden up for President. If he's the Democratic choice, he's got my vote. We should still try to make good choices, better choices, but at this point I'm 100% blue no matter who. Because the alternative will always be worse. We live in a fucking nightmare.

alito: "why is nobody defending us :("

Taking applications for a billionaire best friend

Im currently not in a position to give you undue influence in any important area, but who knows what the future may hold!

I can't believe people are surprised that the Supreme Court is corrupt, or even surprised at how blatantly corrupt they are. They made it quite clear years ago that they support bribery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States

What the absolute fuck

https://twitter.com/rollingstone/status/1653449803441774592?s=21

I had heard that Crowder was railing about it but I figured it was just him being a psychopath

A huge part of conservative ideology is just about controlling women as property so of course they're against no-fault divorce, they always have been.

No, they've been coming for it for at least since they killed roe. It just picked up more steam recently.

As a teacher, I'd be in trouble if I accepted a gift over $100. Yet, here Clarence Thomas is receiving $150k gifts? One would think we'd have higher expectations of a supreme court justice, sitting in their seat for life, than of a school teacher. But that's just me I guess.

I hope you haven't forgotten about Ginni!

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1654265190052159489

Can we drain the swamp now?

What if you were a billionaire's friend? Would it be fair to ask you to turn down gifts just because you held a high office, even though you weren't influenced by those gifts at all? That kind of policy just discourages very talented people who also happen to be friends of billionaires from serving in high offices, which is a loss for all of us.

Alternately, what if you were a billionaire? Shouldn't you have the right to give your money to whomever you like without damaging their careers? After all, you'd have way too much money to spend it yourself! Should the money just go wasted by not being spent?

red_sox_777 posted...

Alternately, what if you were a billionaire? Shouldn't you have the right to give your money to whomever you like without damaging their careers? After all, you'd have way too much money to spend it yourself! Should the money just go wasted by not being spent?

This is why we need to heavily tax the rich, so thier excess money can go toward the good of society without them getting undue influence upon the world (or any more than they've already got by y'know, being fucking rich)..

ElizeLutus posted...

As a teacher, I'd be in trouble if I accepted a gift over $100. Yet, here Clarence Thomas is receiving $150k gifts? One would think we'd have higher expectations of a supreme court justice, sitting in their seat for life, than of a school teacher. But that's just me I guess.

As a hospital employee if a vendor offered to buy me Subway for lunch I'm required to turn it down.

red_sox_777 posted...

What if you were a billionaire's friend? Would it be fair to ask you to turn down gifts just because you held a high office, even though you weren't influenced by those gifts at all?

Um, yes? Holding high office is privilege, not a right. Don't take the office if you want to keep accepting gifts.

Yesmar_ posted...

Um, yes? Holding high office is privilege, not a right. Don't take the office if you want to keep accepting gifts.

The right belongs to the people, as expressed through elections. So if the people who elected George H.W. Bush, who appointed Clarence Thomas - that is, Republicans - have no problem with this, then that is within their rights.

red_sox_777 posted...

What if you were a billionaire's friend? Would it be fair to ask you to turn down gifts just because you held a high office, even though you weren't influenced by those gifts at all?

Can you prove it didn't influence their vote?

red_sox_777 posted...

The right belongs to the people, as expressed through elections. So if the people who elected George H.W. Bush, who appointed Clarence Thomas - that is, Republicans - have no problem with this, then that is within their rights.

So by that logic corruption can't exist in a democracy because people are elected?
Well that's certainly a take.

No but if you were in that position, then you would know if it influenced your vote. And if it did, the ethical thing to do would be to recuse yourself from the case. And if not, then not.

I mean obviously conservatives are going to believe Justice Thomas when he says it didn't influence his decisions, and it might not be reasonable to expect liberals to believe that. On the other hand, liberals seemed to have no problem with Hillary Clinton getting paid $250k per speech to deliver speeches to banks.

red_sox_777 posted...

No but if you were in that position, then you would know if it influenced your vote. And if it did, the ethical thing to do would be to recuse yourself from the case. And if not, then not.

Yes, but Clarence Thomas has shown himself to be anything but ethical. He didn't recuse himself from cases regarding January 6th, which his wife was involved in. I don't know about you, but I'm uncomfortable with having someone in a position of power who is married to someone who involved a seditious plot to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States. But I guess I'm just a bit more patriotic.

red_sox_777 posted...

No but if you were in that position, then you would know if it influenced your vote. And if it did, the ethical thing to do would be to recuse yourself from the case. And if not, then not.

I mean obviously conservatives are going to believe Justice Thomas when he says it didn't influence his decisions, and it might not be reasonable to expect liberals to believe that. On the other hand, liberals seemed to have no problem with Hillary Clinton getting paid $250k per speech to deliver speeches to banks.

correct me if I'm wrong, but the Clinton's did not get paid for speeches while holding office. Bill gave speeches starting in 2001 after W. took over. Hilary gave speeches when she wasn't Secretary of State.

And sure, some of those speeches were to banks. And sure, those banks might have been paying for those speeches in an effort to make the presumptive future president look upon them more kindly.

But none of that happened WHILE she was holding the keys to their freedom. None of it while they were in a position to directly wield their power or influence. So maybe let's support cracking down on all the direct lines to abuses of power before worrying about the more tenuous ones.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/biden-can-win-the-debt-ceiling-fight-with-consol-bonds.html

Huh. Apparently Biden and the Department of Treasury have a way to exploit a loophole to get around the debt ceiling.

and no not the coin (which remains the funniest solution)

Legally the debt ceiling is defined by the amount of principal the government must repay. However, the treasury has the power to issue consol bonds - bonds that have no principal, but instead indefinite interest payments - and could therefore bypass the problem entirely.

The downside is that Treasury would likely have to issue them at a high interest rate - essentially raising the cost of financing the government. But the upside is that it's a supremely boring and legal way they can circumvent the manufactured crisis. Invoking the 14th Amendment to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional or minting the coin are probably preferable since they lack that downside but also they probably end up at SCOTUS and who knows what the fuck they do.

I think the premium bonds are probably the best solution (well, behind Congress just raising the fucking debt ceiling of course). If theres real doubt about SCOTUS upholding the workaround then markets are gonna crash whether or not they do end up overturning it

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think the premium bonds are probably the best solution (well, behind Congress just raising the fucking debt ceiling of course). If theres real doubt about SCOTUS upholding the workaround then markets are gonna crash whether or not they do end up overturning it

The best solution is Joe Biden needs to sit down and negotiate. No more whining about how Republicans didn't ask for anything from Trump for a debt ceiling raise.

Right now McCarthy is weak and will probably agree to very minor cuts as long as he gets a show of Biden agreeing to compromise.

Also the 14th Amendment argument is ridiculous. Saying that public debt is valid doesn't authorize the President to borrow illegally in contravention of a law in force. It means you can't retroactively declare public debts invalid. Also, a debt being valid doesn't authorize you to borrow more to repay it. No more than anyone can excuse stealing by saying that they have a valid debt to pay.

As far as minting coins, fine, that seems legitimate. But don't be stupid and mint a single trillion dollar coin, mint a billion thousand dollar coins, and let people buy them from the Mint. This will be inflationary of course but that's what happens when you create money out of nothing!

HeroicCrono posted...

Right now McCarthy is weak and will probably agree to very minor cuts as long as he gets a show of Biden agreeing to compromise.

Right because the current Republican party loves to show how they compromise and work with Democrats. They definitely don't campaign based on doing the opposite of that.

McCarthy has been asking for a meeting for months. It's Biden who says he doesn't want to negotiate.

The debt limit is not a reasonable thing to hold hostage for negotiation. Breaching it will cause a global economic catastrophe. If he really wants to insist on cuts the appropriate time for that is when Congress is making a budget.

LordoftheMorons posted...

The debt limit is not a reasonable thing to hold hostage for negotiation. Breaching it will cause a global economic catastrophe. If he really wants to insist on cuts the appropriate time for that is when Congress is making a budget.

Don't worry, we'll go through that usual bullshit in September/October and/or December too!

LordoftheMorons posted...

The debt limit is not a reasonable thing to hold hostage for negotiation. Breaching it will cause a global economic catastrophe.

Maybe a global economic catastrophe is actually a good thing, though? It would solve our inflation problems, it would force workers to accept lower wages, it would provide a great excuse to give money to the wealthy, and it could potentially force the US to make massive permanent cuts to popular government spending. Considering how much some people would gain from it, it's surprising we don't default on our debt every year.

Negotiating with Republicans is pointless, as they're never negotiating in good faith. They're always playing political games. They want to cut popular social programs, then blame Biden for letting them do it. At this point it's an abusive relationship, where the husband keeps telling the wife "Why do you let me hit you?"

I should know.

Like with every other instance of right-wing violence - the right is starting to claim the Allen shooter was actually a false flag to make them look bad. And now they've got Musk coming along for the ride.

https://twitter.com/PokerPolitics/status/1655725277576589312