Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[crashcourse]

Peter Navarro indicted for contempt of Congress. Let’s have a few more! Maybe he and Bannon can share a cell in Leavenworth

not sure you want to go down that road

november elections there will bring in a whole new slate of subpoenas in January

[iam416]

Yeah, but what you describe isn't the reality on the ground. Companies aren't being punished for taking ANY political stance. In Florida they get punished only if they take a political stance DeSantis doesn't like.

And just as a random note, I would really like to emphasize that virtue signalling is not something only liberals do. I personally find many of DeSantis' actions, like his social media bill, to be virtue signalling of the conservative strain. He knows the bill won't hold up but passed it anyways, knowing it likely won't be ruled unconstitutional once and for all until he's out of office and his frothing base has long forgotten it.

Out of curiousity, how many companies in Florida are taken political stances in SUPPORT of DeSantis? Is Woke Corporate America really out their pimping for, say, abortion restrictions? Or the 2nd Amendment? Or less DEI? Or less CRT?

On the culture war issues Corporate America pimps on one side only.

But even setting that aside....Hannibal's point is correct -- you can say whatever you want to say, but if it's at odds with Florida voters then understand you're putting voter-supported subsidation at issue.

And it's really easy for the Rays to leave, as you noted. So the cost/benefit calculus is pretty well-establish.

Thankfully, DeSantis ain't cowering to Woke America. He didn't do with Covid. He didn't do with teaching and encouraging kindergartners to sexually transition. He's not doing it on gun laws.

Just as the the Rays have a clear path answer (MOVE) -- the voters of Florida have a clear path answer if they don't like DeSantis standing up to the bullies so used to getting away with everything because they're cloaked in wokeness.

[Dr. Strangelove]

His social media bill has already been defeated in court. Also -- it's not virtue signaling.

I can't comment on whether DeSantis is inconsistent on his stances vis-a-vis corporate political statements, All of the sports leagues are woke, and there are no corporations out there spouting right wing talking points in their annual reports and their marketing campaigns.

Passing a law you know won't stand up in court is virtue signalling. Period. You're doing nothing more than a gesture to make your base happy. You're not really accomplishing anything but giving your base the impression that you are.

[iam416]

Passing a law you know won't stand up in court is virtue signalling. Period. You're doing nothing more than a gesture to make your base happy. You're not really accomplishing anything but giving your base the impression that you are.

At least he's passing them and it's not clear they won't stand up in Court.

Meanwhile, in yet aother in a long list of ridiculous bullshit, your girl Pelosi is gonna run yet another assault weapons ban through the House. You must be thrilled.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Out of curiousity, how many companies in Florida are taken political stances in SUPPORT of DeSantis? Is Woke Corporate America really out their pimping for, say, abortion restrictions? Or the 2nd Amendment? Or less DEI? Or less CRT?

On the culture war issues Corporate America pimps on one side only.

But even setting that aside....Hannibal's point is correct -- you can say whatever you want to say, but if it's at odds with Florida voters then understand you're putting voter-supported subsidation at issue.

And it's really easy for the Rays to leave, as you noted. So the cost/benefit calculus is pretty well-establish.

Thankfully, DeSantis ain't cowering to Woke America. He didn't do with Covid. He didn't do with teaching and encouraging kindergartners to sexually transition. He's not doing it on gun laws.

Just as the the Rays have a clear path answer (MOVE) -- the voters of Florida have a clear path answer if they don't like DeSantis standing up to the bullies so used to getting away with everything because they're cloaked in wokeness.

All the Rays did was issue the blandest, most generic of statements in favor of possible gun control measures.

DeSantis then declared that he was taking away a tax break from them. And you declare that to be "standing up to bullies". How did the Rays bully anyone?

[Hannibal]

Passing a law you know won't stand up in court is virtue signalling. Period. You're doing nothing more than a gesture to make your base happy. You're not really accomplishing anything but giving your base the impression that you are.

He's not signaling how noble and virtuous he is. A social media law might be a symbolic gesture, but that doesn't make it virtue signalling.

[Hannibal]

Will "O" be the next letter added to the alphabet soup?

e8765f1e5b12faf3.png

[Dr. Strangelove]

He's not signaling how noble and virtuous he is. A social media law might be a symbolic gesture, but that doesn't make it virtue signalling.

What he did is noble and virtuous in your eyes and the eyes of the Republican base. C'mon dude. Do you really think your fellow cons NEVER indulge in empty gestures to invigorate your voters? How about the dozens of meaningless votes to repeal Obamacare, for a starter?

DeSantis knows this law won't stand up at the Supreme Court, unless he's a total moron. Which is slightly possible but I give him credit for more intelligence than that. He did it to look like a FIGHTER. We're doing BUT HE FIGHTS!!!! all over again.

The SC refusing to lift the injunction agaisnt the Texas law that's modeled after Florida's is a pretty good sign that Roberts/Kav/Barrett aren't prepared to say that Facebook cannot remove ANYTHING unless it breaks a law.

[Dr. Strangelove]

not sure you want to go down that road

november elections there will bring in a whole new slate of subpoenas in January

Haha, dream on crackcourse, baby. Is Durham really going to do nothing between now and January? It will be almost 4 years since he started the investigation by then!

Can Durham get any new indictments changed to a new venue? Preferably Arkansas or North Dakota?

[iam416]

All the Rays did was issue the blandest, most generic of statements in favor of possible gun control measures.

DeSantis then declared that he was taking away a tax break from them. And you declare that to be "standing up to bullies". How did the Rays bully anyone?

I ask you again, what positions are Corporations taking that are Pro-DeSantis? I assume you agree with everything I said except taking issue with the Rays own virtue-signaling statement.

You're right -- the Rays tweet is ambiguous. Perhaps they meant by "if nothing changes nothing changes" that they want to arm teachers. I dunno.

And maybe this is another shot across the bow by DeSantis. Fuck you if you think you can go contra the popularly elected state government and get that popularly elected state government to give you money.

Finally -- I ask again, though I haven't recently -- to revisit the preposterous NY state lawsuits against Oil companies and, of course, the NRA (the latter you were a definite cheerleader for). I will conceded that the NRA lawsuit at least had merit but it was for shit that a ton of other 501(c)(3)s do -- but not all of them suppor the 2nd A. It would seem that BLM may not be squeaky clean, e.g., but I'll bet you a gazillion dollars NY don't touch them....at al.

[iam416]

What he did is noble and virtuous in your eyes and the eyes of the Republican base. C'mon dude. Do you really think your fellow cons NEVER indulge in empty gestures to invigorate your voters? How about the dozens of meaningless votes to repeal Obamacare, for a starter?

DeSantis knows this law won't stand up at the Supreme Court, unless he's a total moron. Which is slightly possible but I give him credit for more intelligence than that. He did it to look like a FIGHTER. We're doing BUT HE FIGHTS!!!! all over again.

The SC refusing to lift the injunction agaisnt the Texas law that's modeled after Florida's is a pretty good sign that Roberts/Kav/Barrett aren't prepared to say that Facebook cannot remove ANYTHING unless it breaks a law.

Again, the posture of the case isn't exactly amenable to a decison on the merits. And as far as I can tell, if only one of them was voting on a procedural basis, well, then, all of sudden maybe that law is Constitutional. I wouldn't bet a ton of money on that one, DSL. It's not the lock that, say, NY not touching BLM is.

[iam416]

Speaking of brazenly illegal....and politicallly disastrous...and a disgusting public policy....The Chairman appears more and more likely to cancel student debt and ask the plumbers of the world to give their money to the doctors of the world. Or, in other words, ask the Rs of the world to give their money to the D elite voters of the world.

Fucking. Disgusting. And, of course, per Nancy fucking Pelosi- -- something The Chairman can't do -- if he cares about the Constitution.

I can understand why the Ds here would want to focus on DeSantis taking away $30M of public money from billionaire owners.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I saw where he's forgiving the debt incurred by people who took out federal loans to pay for school at Corinthian Colleges. Meh, I'm sympathetic to that. That's different, IMO, to forgiving all student debt anywhere. Corinthian was a total and complete for-profit scam.

[Da Geezer]

Probably talked about it to death at this point but the filibuster is a creation of Senate rules, not the Constitution, like you say. As far as the Founders generation goes, it was an unintended oversight more than anything. The Henry Clay-Andrew Jackson generation is the first to really exploit it but very rarely.

Between the Civil War and WWII it continued to be rarely used, almost always when some Senator felt extremely passionate against some bill and was willing to endure hours on his feet endlessly talking in an effort to block the bill.

The Civil Rights era after WWII changed things with southern Senators utilizing the filibuster far more frequently in order to beat civil rights legislation. The 1970 Mansfield reforms made it possible for the business of Congress to carrry on around the filibuster while making it easier to kill (60 votes instead of 67) but at the same time making it far easier to conduct a filibuster. Since 1970 but especially post 1995 you cannot pass anything in the Senate without 60 votes. Literally everything short of that will be filibustered with minimal effort. It’s become part of the routine process when for over a 150 years it was a weapon you pulled out only rarely.

I think it could be the R’s that finally gut it if they control the Senate for the next six to eight years. McConnell is really the only one stopping that from happening. And he’s got 4 more years at best.

No chance the Rs do away with it. They favor individualism and small government. When you propose to do away with the filibuster, it is usually for the purpose of packing the SC, as it was during the New Deal when FDR tried to pack the SC.

You should read the article I posted about the filibuster. Nowadays, one budget bill per year cannot be filibustered, which is why budgets come in one bill. It used to be that the budgets for the Dept of Transportation would come out of the Transportation Committees. Often the corresponding committees in the House and Senate would meet to negotiate a bill that would pass both houses. There were several budgets passed each year.

It would be interesting to study those matters that the population wanted but were thwarted by the filibuster. I bet there were very few.

[Da Geezer]

DSL,

The side road taken about the filibuster isn’t really interesting (to me, anyway). Sure. Remove it. Or don’t. It doesn’t matter to me, really.

The interesting thing (again, to me), is Representative Jones saying if a filibuster is used that counters the legislation he (and his colleagues) wants passed, the filibuster will be removed so his legislation can be made law AND if his law(s) are found unconstitutional, that he will add justices to the Supreme Court until a majority can be reached and the unconstitutionality of the law ignored.

Correct. It is about respecting the law and the legal processes needed to change the law.