Midterms 2018 and beyond

[borris_]

Upravo, danasnji penzioneri su bivši hipici. U francuskoj su naprimjer bivši 68. uglavnom presšaltali prema desnici.

[ObiW]

2 hours ago, Roger Sanchez said:

Naime, čini se da su socijaldemokratske politike umjerene i umivene ljevice globalno omogućile i bile poticaj srednjeslojnim starkeljama da tijekom ulaska u starost i boravka u njoj većinski postanu situirani dobrostojeći i dugoživući bastioni konzervativizma, religiozne zatucanosti, rasizma i/ili ksenofobije. Istu tranziciju bismo mogli očekivati i od većine današnjih srednjovječnjaka.

 

 

Kljucna recenica je "situirani dobrostojeci". Kad nemas para, mnogo si spremniji za promene. I naprasno ti padaju na pamet neke cudne stvari, tipa "solidarnost", "preraspodela podele plena", "porez za bogate" i takoto.

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by ObiW

[theanswer]

Vrhovni sud će možda da ode nepovratno za generacije liberala ali u stvari institucija koja je mnogo nepravednija od nje je Senat. Sama činjenica da su Demokrate dobile 9% midterms u eri najnepopularnijeg republikanskog predsednika u zadnjih x godina a da Republikanci i dalje drže senat 53-47 je užasna. Čak i da ove godine izglasaju Trampa iz Bele Kuće, nešto ne vidim da mogu do većine u Senatu. Verovatno im je 50-50 sa Heris kao tiebreakerom najrealniji scenario. A i u tom scenariju bi radili sa Bajden administracijom i narednim midterm izborima 2022 gde stranka na vlasti obično gubi. A i da dođu do neke većine od recimo 51-49 u toj većini bi bili Mančin iz West Virdžinije, dva senatora iz Arizone itd. 

 

Što se ove godine tiče, Demokrate sigurno gube Alabamu, Tubervil će zameniti Džonsa i to je u startu 54-46. Ono što bi Demokrate trebalo sigurno da pokupe jeste Kolorado. Gardner protiv Hikenlupera, to će otići za Demokrate 99%. Mekseli je u ogromnom problemu u Arizoni, konstantno polluje ispod Trampa koji sam ne polluje odlično. Demokrate imaju dobrog kandidata Kelija, bivšeg astronauta, muža ranjene kongresmenke Gilford. Sledeći su Mejn i S. Karolina. Za Kolins je najbolja šansa da dovoljno glasača razdvoji glasanje na predsedničkom i senat nivou, dok je za Tilisa obrnuto, on se nada da će biti izabran jer će ga pogurati Trampovi glasači. Inače ne bi imao šanse. To sve ako okrenu to je 50-50. Onda su sledeće mete Ajova, gde lično mislim da će Ernst da se izvuče mada je trenutno tossup trka, ali očekujem da Tramp tamo ipak dobije i da ovo oko Vrhovnog suda doprinese pobedi R. U Džordžiji su 2 takmičenja. Jedno je senator Perdue protiv Osofa gde je favorit a drugo je između između 2 republikanaca, Lefler i Kolins i demokrate Vornoka kome preti da završi treći u prvom krugu pa da runoff bude između dvoje Republikanaca. Eventualno ostaje Montana Dejns protiv Buloka i to je to otprilike. Što se šanse da Republikanci okrenu neko mesto Demokrata, to je gotovo nemoguće a ako neke šanse ima to je u Mičigenu Piters protiv Džejmsa koji je bio solidan 2018. na midterms pa se opet kandidovao. 

[Roger Sanchez]

1 hour ago, ObiW said:

Kljucna recenica je "situirani dobrostojeci". Kad nemas para, mnogo si spremniji za promene. I naprasno ti padaju na pamet neke cudne stvari, tipa "solidarnost", "preraspodela podele plena", "porez za bogate" i takoto.

 

Upravo zato je LBJ kriv za sve muke Demokrata, ne samo da je popušio Jug Voting Rights Actom, nego je i starkelje zbrinuo Medicareom, jedinim dijelom ''socialized medicine'' koji su Republikanci donekle voljni futrati.

[ObiW]

Imatti samo Medicare od zdravstvenog osiguranja & Social Security za penziju je za prost narod. "Situirani dobrostojeci" placaju dodatno medicinsko osiguranje a 401k im sluzi da povecaju mesecne prihode u penziji. Moja poenta je bila da ce sve manje onih koji dolaze u te godine biti "situirani dobrostojeci" kada se penzionisu pa ce sve vise starijih biti fleksibilnije kada se prica o reformama. Lako je biti konzervativan kada imas para.

[Roger Sanchez]

LOL

 

[Roger Sanchez]

LOL

 

 

They have this sewn up. Hail President TRUMP 2021-2025

[theanswer]

Meni je i dalje fascinantno kako se Bajden ne pojavljuje nigde. Ok, ovi izbori jesu referendum oko Trampa, ali ne znam, ima manje od 40 dana do izbora, 700k ljudi je već glasalo, taj broj će samo da se povećava.. Tramp je danas bio na Floridi, u Atlanti, sada ide u južnu Virdžiniju, ovaj je bio samo u DC-u na 5 minuta i to je to. 

[Roger Sanchez]

Usput, Obamacare je gotov. Čak i ako Roberts izda pizda, Sutkinja Amy će mu ispaliti peti metak u glavu

 

Ovo je već staro i kačim tek sad jer...

 

.. je cijelo vrijeme svejedno. Nema više Obamacarea

[theanswer]

Što bi se reklo izbori imaju posledice. Ljudi zaboravljaju da je Obamacare u stvari 2016. u vreme glasanja bio prilično nepopularan, a da je tek kasnije sa dolaskom Trampa i pretnje vraćanja pre existing conditionsa postao popularan. 

[Roger Sanchez]

Elie je nešto napisao i o tome zašto je Roe v Wade gotov prvom prilikom

 

Quote

 

If you read one thing about how Amy Coney Barrett’s religion affects her ability to serve as a Supreme Court justice, read her own words. She wrote them down in an article for the Marquette Law Review entitled: “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” There, Barrett argued that Catholic judges should recuse themselves in cases that involve the death penalty. She argued that the Catholic Church’s moral stance against the death penalty might make it impossible for Catholic judges to dispense impartial justice citizens are entitled to. Here’s part of the abstract for the whole long article: 

“Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.”

This article is, frankly, a refreshing dose of truth most aspiring Supreme Court justices assiduously avoid. Barrett is straight-up explaining that her own religious biases may prevent her, or a judge like her, from upholding secular law. It is rare to find a would-be justice who is willing to admit that their personal convictions shape how they see the law because they get trashed by the opposition party for such admissions, even though we all know that a judge’s personal beliefs and lived experiences must impact how they apply the law. 

I don’t find this article disqualifying. I’m Catholic myself (“raised Catholic” I think is the official term for somebody like me who is pretty sure God doesn’t exist but baptizes their kids to hedge that bet). I would love to live in a world where judges were honest and self-aware about their own bigotries and recused themselves accordingly. 

What’s disqualifying is not Barrett’s religious beliefs, it’s her extremist beliefs—beliefs that would often seem to conflict with the moral teachings of almost any religion. 

You can see Barrett’s moral hypocrisy all throughout her judicial opinions. No modern church favors deliberate indifference to human life. Amy Coney Barrett does. In 2019, she dissented from a Seventh Circuit opinion that found that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protected people in prison from correctional officers firing “warning shots” into a cafeteria. Barrett callously wrote: “The guards may have acted with deliberate indifference to inmate safety by firing warning shots into the ceiling of a crowded cafeteria in the wake of the disturbance… In the context of prison discipline, however, ‘deliberate indifference’ is not enough.”

Moreover, there’s no “Catholic” right to bear arms. Jesus, if you believe the stories, famously told his followers to put down their weapons. But Barrett finds no conflict between that teaching and an expansive view of gun rights. She dissented from a 2019 case where the majority ruled that Wisconsin could disarm felons. Barrett found that “virtue-based restrictions” could not be applied to gun rights.

In 2020, again in dissent, Barrett was the lone voice in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of denying entry to immigrants who may in the future require public assistance. She alone thought it was lawful for the Trump administration to apply the “public charge” rule to deny green cards to people who might one day need public assistance, was lawful. I am reminded of Jesus’s famous sermon where he says: “Thou shalt turn away any neighbor who may solicit an EBT card to pay for her bread.” 

That is Barrett’s record. Her religion is not the source of that record, it is the shield she uses to blind people to the political extremism it contains.

 

Nobody should care that Barrett is Catholic, or “very” Catholic, or “super” Catholic. But people should absolutely care that the woman has herself said that she might and should recuse herself for one conflict between the laws and her church but hasn’t recused herself from others—and seems unlikely to once she gets to the Supreme Court. 

 

Barrett will not recuse herself from cases involving abortion. In fact, on the Seventh Circuit, she has argued to impose herself on abortion decisions that weren’t even on her desk. In 2018, a three-judge panel she was not on invalidated an Indiana law requiring fetal remains be buried or cremated. Barrett voted to reconsider the ruling in front of the full circuit. Her side lost, but the Supreme Court eventually reinstated the law. In 2019, another Indiana law required girls under the age of 18 to recieve consent from a parent before getting an abortion, including girls who had already recieved a court order allowing them to have one. Again, Barrett was not on the three-judge panel which invalidated the law, but again she voted to have the case reviewed before the full circuit.

These are not the actions of a person trying to keep their personal beliefs out of an abortion debate. Quite the opposite: Barrett has been trying to get her hands on an abortion case since she got on the circuit. 

What this means is that Barrett is unwilling to impose her theocratic views to save a man’s life, but she is very likely willing to possess a woman’s body for nine months, forcing them to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. She’ll put herself between a woman and her doctor but won’t stand in front of an executioner and a defenseless prisoner. That incongruity doesn’t sound like the devout position of a religious adherent; it sounds like some bullshit dreamed up by Federalist Society hypocrites more concerned with using that law to control women than serve God. 

If Barrett ruled like a devout Catholic all the time, that would be one thing. But she doesn’t. She rules like an extremist conservative all the time, she just uses religion to justify those extremist positions when it is convenient for her to do so. She ignores the moral and ethical underpinnings of her faith, when they conflict with the cruel requirements of conservative dogma. 

 

E sad, kad bi Republikanci čak i bacili u koš sve te dobro postavljene planove za vječnu vladavinu koje sad slijede i provode i nekim ludim slučajem dopustili Demokratima da uzmu trifectu, Kongres bi mogao ozakoniti i novi Obamacare i novo federalno pravo na abortus. Ali bi morao i nafilati Sud da ih sačuva od obaranja.

I would hold my breath though, čak i za prvu stvar. Kako kaže Elie u tweetu gore, if I had wheels I'd be a wagon.

 

[theanswer]

Imaš jedno 5 demokrata koji su ili u senatu ili u ovim tesnim borbama za senat koji su već rekli da nema šanse da će da ukidaju fillibuster ili da packuju court. Jednostavno je senat tako napravljen da ne pogoduje Demokratama. Ili će demokrate morati da nađu način da uzmu senat mesta i u crvenim državama. A neće ih dobiti tako što će se zalagati za ove stvari. Tako da kvaka 22

Edited September 25, 2020 by theanswer

[Roger Sanchez]

Neka se čita prorok ovog doba u US of A, Matt Negrin, slava mu

 

 

[theanswer]

Kao pokvarena ploča se sad već ponavljam ali još jedan užasan dan za Trampa što se tiče anketa. Od 8-10 procenata nacionalno i iste brojke i u Viskonsinu i Mičigenu. Deluje da uopšte neće doći do smanjivanja prednosti osim eventualno ako debate nešto ne promene. E sad, ako ankete greše onda jbg. 

[iDemo]

10 hours ago, theanswer said:

E sad, ako ankete greše onda jbg. 

Vidish, zato je trebalo da nam napishesh na koje tacno ankete mislish, ne? 

Ili da pogledam post iznad?

...idem