[y66]

Bannon guilty. I'm glad they didn't waste a lot of time deliberating. Next.

[y66]

Dr. Ashish Jha said:

It’s great to see the president doing better. He’s doing better because he’s vaccinated, he’s boosted, he’s getting treatment.

https://www.nytimes....-covid-symptoms

[pilowsky]

Winstonm, on 2022-July-22, 07:15, said:

PS: I was thinking of expatriating to Pluto but since its downgrade I doubt it qualifies for public assistance programs, however, a little alliteration is likely.

Probably governed by a plutocrat.

[y66]

Poultry in motion.

[kenberg]

Bloomberg has an article that gives some encouragement, I quote a bit of it:

Quote

“I think it’s time to move on,” a two-time Trump voter and a woman, said in a focus group of MAGA Republicans about a week after the first hearing in June. The focus group was organized by GOP strategist and never-Trumper Sarah Longwell.

In another focus group of hers, this time with voters who supported Trump in 2020 but not in 2016, one female voter said: “They keep talking about the results of the election and I feel like even when he's doing his roadshow, he keeps bringing that up, like it's, you know, a grudge.” The woman added, “I just feel like we've moved past that.”

Let's assume for the moment that Republicans are sufficiently fed up with Trump to choose a different candidate in 2024. Mike Pence, perhaps. He has some hero status for standing up to Trump, risking his life actually, during the insurrection. Care must be taken with optimism. I look at the two quotes “I think it’s time to move on” and “I just feel like we've moved past that”. My conclusion is that Democrats need to have a 2024 strategy that also moves beyond Jan 6. Quite possibly Biden should be replaced. I am open to discussion on that. I think it is essential that Democrats approach 2024 looking toward the future, explaining why the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, is better for the future than the Republican candidate, whoever it is. If, as I hope, the Republicans are prepared to dump Trump and move on, I would expect voters to expect the candidates from both parties to do so. Biden could run against Trump and succeed. If the 2024 Republican candidate is not Trump, running against Trump will not be a good strategy.

[Winstonm]

pilowsky, on 2022-July-22, 16:18, said:

Probably governed by a plutocrat.

👍

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2022-July-23, 07:04, said:

Bloomberg has an article that gives some encouragement, I quote a bit of it:


[/font][/size][/font]

Let's assume for the moment that Republicans are sufficiently fed up with Trump to choose a different candidate in 2024. Mike Pence, perhaps. He has some hero status for standing up to Trump, risking his life actually, during the insurrection. Care must be taken with optimism. I look at the two quotes “I think it’s time to move on” and “I just feel like we've moved past that”. My conclusion is that Democrats need to have a 2024 strategy that also moves beyond Jan 6. Quite possibly Biden should be replaced. I am open to discussion on that. I think it is essential that Democrats approach 2024 looking toward the future, explaining why the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, is better for the future than the Republican candidate, whoever it is. If, as I hope, the Republicans are prepared to dump Trump and move on, I would expect voters to expect the candidates from both parties to do so. Biden could run against Trump and succeed. If the 2024 Republican candidate is not Trump, running against Trump will not be a good strategy.

Although it is really hard to unseat an incumbent president, I still prefer Sharod Brown or Newsom. I think the Democrats need a more vigorous voice, someone who doesn’t seek compromise with those compromised.

[johnu]

y66, on 2022-July-22, 17:25, said:

Poultry in motion.

Looked like Josh Hawley to me

The only question is whether there will be a Hawley running brigade at the next Pasadena Doo Dah parade.

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2022-July-23, 16:39, said:

Looked like Josh Hawley to me

The only question is whether there will be a Hawley running brigade at the next Pasadena Doo Dah parade.

Hawleying ass.Just joshing.

[pilowsky]

Evangelical progressives - from 538.

[Winstonm]

When I've brought this subject up before it hasn't caused much of a stir, Perhaps now that it has climbed into mainstream headlines, a little more about this risk might be considered.

https://www.cnn.com/...-cec/index.html

Quote

The insurrection marked the first time many Americans realized the US is facing a burgeoning White Christian nationalist movement. This movement uses Christian language to cloak sexism and hostility to Black people and non-White immigrants in its quest to create a White Christian America.

[kenberg]

I found this interesting. Isenberg suggests that Bien announce now that he will not seek re-election in 2024.

here is a way he could describe it: "In 2020 we face a crisis. It was essential to have a known and electable candidate on the Democratic ballot. In 2024 I hope we have a strong, reasonable, and younger Democratic candidate running against a strong, reasonable, and younger Republican candidate. That is once how things were, I very much hope that we can return to that way of life. I described myself as a transition candidate, 2024 is the time to complete the transition. "

Or something like that. Isenberg notes that Biden has accomplishments to be proud of. True enough. And a graceful exit could be another.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2022-July-24, 15:56, said:

I found this interesting. Isenberg suggests that Bien announce now that he will not seek re-election in 2024.

here is a way he could describe it: "In 2020 we face a crisis. It was essential to have a known and electable candidate on the Democratic ballot. In 2024 I hope we have a strong, reasonable, and younger Democratic candidate running against a strong, reasonable, and younger Republican candidate. That is once how things were, I very much hope that we can return to that way of life. I described myself as a transition candidate, 2024 is the time to complete the transition. "

Or something like that. Isenberg notes that Biden has accomplishments to be proud of. True enough. And a graceful exit could be another.

I would rather hold the House and gain 2 more Senators and let the Republicans try to unseat an incumbent president,

[pilowsky]

You will never have a democracy with a minoritarian Senate, an unaccountable supreme court that changes the rules on a whim, and a gerrymandered house of representatives.
The situation is made worse in the absence of a functioning independent electoral commision to avoid gerrymandering.

Now that the US Supreme court has decided that it has no business interfering with the whims of good ole boys,

Quote

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Alabama to implement a redistricting plan that is being challenged as illegal racial gerrymandering. A lower court ruled last month that the state's new congressional map likely violates the Voting Rights Act, and it ordered the state to draw a new map. But the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision put the lower court's ruling on hold, effectively allowing Alabama to proceed with its preferred map as it prepares for primary elections in May.

democracy is even further away.

When the white slave-traders got together to make a republic in order to avoid paying taxes, democracy was not high on their list of priorities.
At the time considerably fewer than half of the adult population was permitted to cast a vote.
The current Republican party appears to take the original documents very seriously.
It is hard to take democracy in the USA seriously.


A theocratic gerontocracy perhaps? With the progressive wing manchin to the beat of different drummer.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2022-July-21, 14:23, said:

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Peter_Thiel

Matt Yglesias said:

John Ganz said:

The Enigma of Peter Thiel There Is No Enigma — He's a Fascist

He’s just realized, more clearly than his opponents often, that there’s ultimately a contradiction between the rule of capital and democracy, and the way to deal with this contradiction, as far as he’s concerned, is to do away with democracy.

The Thiel concept is that this settlement is unacceptable, and you need to wield populism as a mask with which to destroy democracy — and then it can be discarded in pursuit of a capitalism unbound by democratic regulation.

To me this is a crazy bet — there are lots of successful variations on the theme of welfare state capitalism while the odds on “roll the dice and hope you end up with Singapore instead of North Korea” look awfully bad.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2022-July-25, 06:49, said:

It’s the arrogance of wealth, the wealthy never believe they can lose.

[kenberg]

Discussion of the Supreme Court and the Constitution prompted a realization of how little I know. In college (class of 1960), I read Plato's Republic and Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Today, at 83, I can't remember a thing from either. Well, I could remember Burke thought the revolution was a disaster and I could remember something about a cave in The Republic. I remember there was this Reign of Terror and I remember the French had a couple more revolutions in the 1800s. And I thought the British didn't really have a Constitution but I gather it is more accurate to say that they have one but not in the same form as the US does. Here is from the Wikipedia

Quote

The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched;^[2] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law.^[3]

And here is the Wikipedia on Burke:

Quote

Burke served in the House of Commons of Great Britain, representing the Whig party, in close alliance with liberal politician Lord Rockingham. In Burke's political career, he vigorously defended constitutional limitation of the Crown's authority, denounced the religious persecution of Catholics in his native Ireland, voiced the grievances of Britain's American colonies, supported American Independence and vigorously pursued impeachment of Warren Hastings, the Governor-General of British India, for corruption and abuse of power. For these actions, Burke was widely respected by liberals in Great Britain, the United States and the European continent. Earlier in his career, Burke had championed many liberal causes and sided with the Americans in their war for independence. Thus, opponents and allies alike were surprised at the strength of his conviction that the French Revolution was "a disaster" and the revolutionists "a swinish multitude".^[7]

Ok, I'm ignorant. I have not read enough, and a lot of what I have read I have forgotten. I claim that one of my strengths is that I realize I am ignorant. I also claim that while some people know more, a lot more, there are a great many who know less. Anyway, some thoughts.

At least I can remember that George Washington took office in 1789 and this helps me figure out when the Constitution was ratified. Wik says it was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, took effect in 1789.
Yep, I knew that approximately. At my birth in 1939 there were 21 amendments, but the 18th and 21st on Prohibition cancel each other out so really we are speaking of 19 amendments over the first 150 years, with 6 more during my lifetime. Moreover, the first ten amendments are often thought of as being, or almost being, part of the original Constitution.

Some of the amendments were very fundamental, but still it cannot be a surprise that as time moves on there were at least some people who argue that we have to do a bit of modernizing through interpreting. And of course others who would say no, we don't interpret, we follow it as written or we amend, but we don't modernize by interpretation.

The above might be the heart of the matter or at least one important conflict. How are we to carry out national interests while staying true to a document that was written 233 years ago? We were not the only country with slaves, we were not the only country that thought control should be in the hands of men, we were not the only country that took land from others by force, and so on. Times have changed.

If we agree that some interpretation of the Constitution is necessary, that leads to problems. And of course we have just witnessed a major one. If one Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution to say that women have a Constitutional right to an abortion, another Supreme Court can interpret it differently. At the time it was written, the rights of man were important, with man being men, not mankind including women. The basic problem being that we are relying on a Supreme Court to interpret, rather than on legislation that reflects the popular will. And yes, saying that we should not interpret to reflect a changing world leads to very serious problem

I grew up thinking that having a Constitution is a great idea just as I thought Euclid developing geometry based on axioms was a great idea. I still think so, both with the Constitution and with geometry. But I am now much more prepared to acknowledge that it can lead to some serious problems.

I would be very interested in hearing from those of other countries. Some, maybe all, have a Constitution. As the Wik says, the Uk has one, it just is not thought of in the same way as we think of ours. A Constitution provides stability, with all the good and bad that comes from making change difficult to bring about.

[awm]

kenberg, on 2022-July-26, 08:24, said:

If we agree that some interpretation of the Constitution is necessary, that leads to problems. And of course we have just witnessed a major one. If one Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution to say that women have a Constitutional right to an abortion, another Supreme Court can interpret it differently. At the time it was written, the rights of man were important, with man being men, not mankind including women. The basic problem being that we are relying on a Supreme Court to interpret, rather than on legislation that reflects the popular will. And yes, saying that we should not interpret to reflect a changing world leads to very serious problem

It may be worth noting that this Supreme Court has no respect for legislation that reflects the popular will. They've annulled the Voting Rights Act, which was passed and extended many times over decades by massive bipartisan majorities, based on totally made-up reasoning that has no basis in the Constitution as far as most legal analysts can see. And this gets to the core of how popular will is reflected in our government (making sure that everyone can vote). So while we can certainly ask why Democrats never passed a law codifying Roe nationwide, there's no reason to think this Supreme Court wouldn't have ruled such a law unconstitutional based on their desire to enforce their religious preferences on the country at large.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2022-July-26, 08:24, said:

Discussion of the Supreme Court and the Constitution prompted a realization of how little I know. In college (class of 1960), I read Plato's Republic and Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Today, at 83, I can't remember a thing from either. Well, I could remember Burke thought the revolution was a disaster and I could remember something about a cave in The Republic. I remember there was this Reign of Terror and I remember the French had a couple more revolutions in the 1800s. And I thought the British didn't really have a Constitution but I gather it is more accurate to say that they have one but not in the same form as the US does. Here is from the Wikipedia



And here is the Wikipedia on Burke:



Ok, I'm ignorant. I have not read enough, and a lot of what I have read I have forgotten. I claim that one of my strengths is that I realize I am ignorant. I also claim that while some people know more, a lot more, there are a great many who know less. Anyway, some thoughts.

At least I can remember that George Washington took office in 1789 and this helps me figure out when the Constitution was ratified. Wik says it was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, took effect in 1789.
Yep, I knew that approximately. At my birth in 1939 there were 21 amendments, but the 18th and 21st on Prohibition cancel each other out so really we are speaking of 19 amendments over the first 150 years, with 6 more during my lifetime. Moreover, the first ten amendments are often thought of as being, or almost being, part of the original Constitution.

Some of the amendments were very fundamental, but still it cannot be a surprise that as time moves on there were at least some people who argue that we have to do a bit of modernizing through interpreting. And of course others who would say no, we don't interpret, we follow it as written or we amend, but we don't modernize by interpretation.

The above might be the heart of the matter or at least one important conflict. How are we to carry out national interests while staying true to a document that was written 233 years ago? We were not the only country with slaves, we were not the only country that thought control should be in the hands of men, we were not the only country that took land from others by force, and so on. Times have changed.

If we agree that some interpretation of the Constitution is necessary, that leads to problems. And of course we have just witnessed a major one. If one Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution to say that women have a Constitutional right to an abortion, another Supreme Court can interpret it differently. At the time it was written, the rights of man were important, with man being men, not mankind including women. The basic problem being that we are relying on a Supreme Court to interpret, rather than on legislation that reflects the popular will. And yes, saying that we should not interpret to reflect a changing world leads to very serious problem

I grew up thinking that having a Constitution is a great idea just as I thought Euclid developing geometry based on axioms was a great idea. I still think so, both with the Constitution and with geometry. But I am now much more prepared to acknowledge that it can lead to some serious problems.

I would be very interested in hearing from those of other countries. Some, maybe all, have a Constitution. As the Wik says, the Uk has one, it just is not thought of in the same way as we think of ours. A Constitution provides stability, with all the good and bad that comes from making change difficult to bring about.

Ken,
Once again you impress me with your intelligence and ability to communicate thoughtful ideas and concerns; however, from what I can tell your concerns expressed are for a situation that is imaginary, the reality being that the very basis of self rule is under attack by ruthless arrogant concerns who are only interested in creating a world of their liking rather than sharing or caring what others think.

The model adopted by Karl Rove and the GOP has been used successfully many times to destroy democracies from within. One of the critical steps of that path is to politicize the courts.

Without legitimate courts, the Constitution is just more right wing propaganda used to push a narrative.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2022-July-26, 12:49, said:

Ken,
Once again you impress me with your intelligence and ability to communicate thoughtful ideas and concerns; however, from what I can tell your concerns expressed are for a situation that is imaginary, the reality being that the very basis of self rule is under attack by ruthless arrogant concerns who are only interested in creating a world of their liking rather than sharing or caring what others think.

The model adopted by Karl Rove and the GOP has been used successfully many times to destroy democracies from within. One of the critical steps of that path is to politicize the courts.

Without legitimate courts, the Constitution is just more right wing propaganda used to push a narrative.

I am not trying to duck realism, I am trying to realistically address an issue I have been thinking about for quite a few years. Let's say that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. So I was taught. I imagine you were taught the same. How do we deal with the fundamental law of the land being a document enacted in 1788? However brilliant Madison et al were, it was 1788. Before social media, before television, before radio, before the pony express. I was once in a bar in Laurel Maryland that was in a redone hotel where people used to stay overnight when traveling from Washington D.C. to Baltimore Maryland. It's an hour's drive. A very different world. Amendments to the Constitution are few and hard to come by. So what do we do? Well, we interpret. But actually, it is not you and I who interpret, or if we do no one cares, the Supreme Court interprets. Inevitably, this often makes the Supreme Court political. It seems unlikely that all Supreme Court decisions that I like are completely logical and apolitical while all Supreme Court decisions that I don't like are completely political and illogical. It's a mix.

I mentioned that I hope to hear from people from other nations. Probably most nations have some fundamental documents, something that they are proud of and they regard as expressing basic principles of their society. I suppose that they somehow address the fact that something written 200+ years ago might need some re-interpretation for application to today's world.