(12-16-2018 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Can someone explain to me why it was perfectly okay for multiple congress critters to pay off multiple sex partners with taxpayers' money, but it is somehow a felony for Donald Trump to pay off two women with his own money?

Nice strawman you got there...
I think many people do not like the current practice of using tax payer money to fund sexual harassment settlements. It's a rather shocking fact, and it's good that it was exposed back in 2017.
Last I saw, both parts of Congress have passed legislation to end the practice, but the bills haven't been reconciled. I've got no idea how that's the case, as one would imagine that this would be a great, bipartisan piece of legislation.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-s...sment-bill
And the issue for Trump isn't who he paid and what for, it's that the payments were not disclosed and exceed campaign contribution amounts. As Tanq has argued, they weren't campaign contributions, but I'm not really interested in continuing down that rabbit hole...

Let me change one word:

Can someone explain to me why it was perfectly legal for multiple congress critters to pay off multiple sex partners with taxpayers' money, but it is somehow a felony for Donald Trump to pay off two women with his own money?

Now explain the straw man. I didn't like Trump paying off the bimbos. But I have a hard time concluding that it is somehow illegal, much less a felony, when the precedent has been set for decades that it was okay.

The "whatabout" cries tend to lose their significance when one realizes that our entire legal system is based upon precedent, as is any common law jurisdiction. Therefore, there is a serious problem when the rules change willy nilly. That's why our constitution has a prohibition against ex post facto laws.

I have a feeling that congress would never have gotten around to outlawing the process of outlawing having their indiscretions paid for by taxpayers had not Donald Trump become president. This strikes me as primarily something being done by a bunch of self-righteous a-holes to cover their butts so they could point fingers, rather than something they really believed was appropriate.

I have a feeling that the payments on behalf of those congress critters were not disclosed and exceeded campaign contribution limits, so those distinctions fail.

If what Trump did was illegal, then what those congress critters did was also illegal. And they stole my money for theirs, whereas he paid for his with his money. Or at least that's what we are told. If it turns out he diverted campaign contributions received from others, then I can see a problem. If it's his money, I would certainly never vote to convict if I were on the jury. Not ever.

I guess with the current view, any politician who wants to pay the monies back (the article cites several who do reimburse), they better report those payments of their own money as 'contribution in kind' in order to keep some people's knickers on straight.....

Given that the practice is, in lad's terms, a 'strawman' and a nothingburger, I guess in that world it will be far better to never do such a remimbursement, since, in lad's terms as well, the repayment is pretty much an ipso facto self-contribution and the fund payments are a nothingburger under that. Neat result.

If Trump does it, it is different.

May not have the opportunity again to say something positive about The Donald, so I shouldn't let this one pass.

Props to the Trump admin and a subset of Republicans for helping pass criminal justice reform. Much needed and important changes, IMHO, and would not have happened if Trump had not supported it.

(12-19-2018 10:36 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  May not have the opportunity again to say something positive about The Donald, so I shouldn't let this one pass.

Props to the Trump admin and a subset of Republicans for helping pass criminal justice reform. Much needed and important changes, IMHO, and would not have happened if Trump had not supported it.

Kushner's project?

(12-20-2018 06:18 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

That letter is . . . concerning.

Whoa even Pete Olson went on the record today agreeing with the military who feels it's not a good move to withdraw from Syria. This is probably the first time he's spoken publicly against Trump.

(12-20-2018 07:05 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Whoa even Pete Olson went on the record today agreeing with the military who feels it's not a good move to withdraw from Syria. This is probably the first time he's spoken publicly against Trump.

Mattis resigning seems to have most reasonable Republicans looking around wondering if Trump has jumped the shark. With the government shutdown being driven by numerous tweets and conservative media (people like Limbaugh have apparently influenced Trump’s decision making), I think even more will agree the shark has been jumped. Heck, even Fox News hosts are criticizing him now!

And this doesn’t even touch on how Trump’s behavior and policies have resulted in a horrible December for the stock market. Down something like 10% for the month. Nor how all evidence keeps pointing towards how the corporate tax cut didn’t result in the reinvestment that were touted and resulted more in stock buybacks than anything else. Just hoping that someone fixes things before we spiral into a recession...

(12-22-2018 09:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 07:05 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Whoa even Pete Olson went on the record today agreeing with the military who feels it's not a good move to withdraw from Syria. This is probably the first time he's spoken publicly against Trump.

Mattis resigning seems to have most reasonable Republicans looking around wondering if Trump has jumped the shark. With the government shutdown being driven by numerous tweets and conservative media (people like Limbaugh have apparently influenced Trump’s decision making), I think even more will agree the shark has been jumped. Heck, even Fox News hosts are criticizing him now!
And this doesn’t even touch on how Trump’s behavior and policies have resulted in a horrible December for the stock market. Down something like 10% for the month. Nor how all evidence keeps pointing towards how the corporate tax cut didn’t result in the reinvestment that were touted and resulted more in stock buybacks than anything else. Just hoping that someone fixes things before we spiral into a recession...

The corporate tax cuts were not designed to stimulate any immediate reinvestment. What they will accomplish is that in looking at long-term decisions, the tax deterrent against coming to the US is largely removed or reduced. The decision where to build the next factory in, say, 2023, will be impacted more favorably toward the US. Of course, clamor to roll back those taxes will cause many of those decisions to be reversed or at least reconsidered.

I agree with getting out of Syria, but the Mattis and Hailey and other resignations are troubling.

What we are seeing is why I did not vote for Trump. I hope the chaos stops, because there are zero democrats that I like.

As to Owl#s comments above, the reinvestment has substantially impacted smaller companies immediate decisions and actions. Most of which are overlooked by many, including lad.

So they *were* designed for immediate effect at the 'lower' level of corporate entities who dont have 3-5 year reinvestment / major investment timelines. And, to be blunt, at least three companies that I have an interest in have taken substantial advantage of that, notwithstanding lad's blanket pronouncements. This blithe ignoramus strongly suspects that many others in the 300k to 8 million valuation have done the exact same, mainly because of my first hand knowledge of them.

And yes, Trumps trade policies have definitely had an effect on earnings and expectations on them. Fed decisions have as well, and probably to a greater extent. I guess lad is bundling up the independent actions of the Fed with the trade policies for his blanket indictment for all the market's woes. Interesting, to say the least.

And I have no problem with extrication from Syria, I am agnostic on positives and negatives. I respect Mattis' views and actions, but I am no more troubled with his departure than I am with at least three of Obama's SecDef in roughly equivalent timeframes.

I will say that the combination of Mattis' resignation letter and Tillerson's public comments give a wide swaths of reservation as to Trump's 'style' of foreign policy and its relationships with defense. But, while Obama's 'style' was far less troubling, Obama's substantive foreign and defense policies more than make up the difference that the style policies afforded him.

As a final comment, it was the height of hubris *and* idiocy for Trump to proclaim that the higher stock market was the result of *his* actions. The Presidential actions that can really affect that market are really limited to tariff policy de jour -- which he has undertaken mind you. But for others to claim, on the other hand, that the responsibility for a lower market is solely to a President or his actions is kind of just idiotic.

Massive corporate tax cuts
Troops leaving Syria
Troops leaving Afghanistan
Government Shutdown
No Border Wall
Obamacare unconstitutional
Neocon warmongers resigning left and right
President tweeting that the Fed is the biggest problem in America

This is like the libertarian dream scenario.

Fake news


"...a reported effort to create fake evidence that automated Russian accounts, called bots, were supporting Moore in the race."

Democrats using fake news to create political advantage? Unheard of!!!

Didn't know where this fit best, but saw that a self-described "bipartisan" constitutional amendment was introduced into the House that would, in effect, overturn Citizens United.

This goes back to a conversation a while ago about how the left didn't do things like introduce amendments, and relied on the courts to do their work.

My guess is that this will never get out of the Senate (let alone the House), but seeing this reminded me of that conversation, and I figured some on here would be happy to see this.

https://teddeutch.house.gov/news/documen...tID=399461

(01-04-2019 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Didn't know where this fit best, but saw that a self-described "bipartisan" constitutional amendment was introduced into the House that would, in effect, overturn Citizens United.

This goes back to a conversation a while ago about how the left didn't do things like introduce amendments, and relied on the courts to do their work.

My guess is that this will never get out of the Senate (let alone the House), but seeing this reminded me of that conversation, and I figured some on here would be happy to see this.

https://teddeutch.house.gov/news/documen...tID=399461

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Going to take a LOT of bipartisanship.

There were lots of things introduced in the House today that are primarily for show, or so they can tell their constituents they tried.

(01-04-2019 02:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Didn't know where this fit best, but saw that a self-described "bipartisan" constitutional amendment was introduced into the House that would, in effect, overturn Citizens United.

This goes back to a conversation a while ago about how the left didn't do things like introduce amendments, and relied on the courts to do their work.

My guess is that this will never get out of the Senate (let alone the House), but seeing this reminded me of that conversation, and I figured some on here would be happy to see this.

https://teddeutch.house.gov/news/documen...tID=399461

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Going to take a LOT of bipartisanship.

Yep.

That's why I said it was unlikely to make it out of the Senate, let alone the House.

But it's evidence that Dems are willing to try and use the amendment process, as opposed to solely relying on the courts.

(01-04-2019 02:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 02:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Didn't know where this fit best, but saw that a self-described "bipartisan" constitutional amendment was introduced into the House that would, in effect, overturn Citizens United.

This goes back to a conversation a while ago about how the left didn't do things like introduce amendments, and relied on the courts to do their work.

My guess is that this will never get out of the Senate (let alone the House), but seeing this reminded me of that conversation, and I figured some on here would be happy to see this.

https://teddeutch.house.gov/news/documen...tID=399461

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Going to take a LOT of bipartisanship.

Yep.

That's why I said it was unlikely to make it out of the Senate, let alone the House.

But it's evidence that Dems are willing to try and use the amendment process, as opposed to solely relying on the courts.

IMO, no not really. It is not a sincere efoort to use the amendment process. It is the quick and easy way to keep a campaign promise, to initiate something that has no chance of success. Next year, when they start running for re-election, they can point to this and say "I tried, but those damned Republicans kept me from success".

For real change to the Constitution, they need the courts. Maybe they can get a court to say 2/3 and 3/4 actually mean simple majority, and then they can really go to town.

Hope your holidays were good, Lad.

I will say kudos to them for introducing a proposed amendment.

But, funny enough, it is an amendment that is designed to *restrict* individual rights. I can only think of one amendment that did that ---- ever. And that one was shitcanned.

But kudos for them for trying to get a 'restriction' on individual rights (First Amendment restrictive, as well...) popped through.

By the way, another proposed Democratic Constitutional Amendment was proposed earlier this week to ixnay the Electoral College as well.

(01-04-2019 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will say kudos to them for introducing a proposed amendment.

But, funny enough, it is an amendment that is designed to *restrict* individual rights. I can only think of one amendment that did that ---- ever. And that one was shitcanned.

But kudos for them for trying to get a 'restriction' on individual rights (First Amendment restrictive, as well...) popped through.

I'd argue that restricting or allowing the regulation of something via amendment is different from completely prohibiting something at the federal level via amendment. The former allows for voters to have a say in how the topic is handled on a yearly basis. The latter doesn't.

And furthermore, this amendment is suggesting that individual states can make the decision to regulate election spending, whereas a state is unable to do that now.

Have you guys read that proposed amendment? It's horrifying! The operative sections say as follows:

Quote:Section I. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

If you thought the Alien & Sedition Acts went too far in criminalizing political speech, this one's a doozy. "The raising and spending of money to influence elections" covers just about all election-related activity. "Regulate" authorizes any type of regulation, as does "set reasonable limits". In short, Congress and the States would be given the power to subsidize ("regulate") any election activity that the party in power likes, and to suppress ("set reasonable limits on") any election-related activity they don't like.

Quote:Section III. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

Since freedom of the press includes the ability to pay for and publish communications to influence elections, this exception either swallows all of section I, or is meaningless.

--

Such a sweeping grant of power to government -- in the very field which is at the absolute core of liberty -- is unconscionable. Such a blatant internal contradiction in drafting is amateurish in the extreme.

Mark my words: this amendment is so bad that no principled legislator will vote for it -- one. Any legislator who does vote for it will be doing so either because (1) he/she knows it will not pass, or (2) he/she is an idiot.

I know nothing about Ted Deutch, but if this amendment is his signature cause, he is a clown.

(01-04-2019 05:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Have you guys read that proposed amendment? It's horrifying! The operative sections say as follows:

Quote:Section I. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

If you thought the Alien & Sedition Acts went too far in criminalizing political speech, this one's a doozy. "The raising and spending of money to influence elections" covers just about all election-related activity. "Regulate" authorizes any type of regulation, as does "set reasonable limits". In short, Congress and the States would be given the power to subsidize ("regulate") any election activity that the party in power likes, and to suppress ("set reasonable limits on") any election-related activity they don't like.

Quote:Section III. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

Since freedom of the press includes the ability to pay for and publish communications to influence elections, this exception either swallows all of section I, or is meaningless.

--

Such a sweeping grant of power to government -- in the very field which is at the absolute core of liberty -- is unconscionable. Such a blatant internal contradiction in drafting is amateurish in the extreme.

Mark my words: this amendment is so bad that no principled legislator will vote for it -- one. Any legislator who does vote for it will be doing so either because (1) he/she knows it will not pass, or (2) he/she is an idiot.

I know nothing about Ted Deutch, but if this amendment is his signature cause, he is a clown.

Fully admit to have not read the amendment and its details.

I've got to agree that it seems rather poorly written, as you point out that Section III kind of negates Section I. Or is it vice versa?

I think any amendment focusing on campaign finance will need to be written with a needle and be incredibly precise.