Politics

[Legacy]

Walther just published an article titled "The Supreme Court is the real Senate--for now":

First, I appreciate the posting of articles that may stimulate some discussion. So here goes.

The American Constitution is a fossil record. Beneath the rocky soil one finds layer upon layer of strange deposits, atavistic survivors of bygone eras, such as the Electoral College. One of the most curious specimens preserved in the sediment is the United States Senate.

Why does it continue to exist? With the ratification of the 17th amendment, the Senate's raison d'être was eliminated. Bicameralism has always called for a body of common representatives elected by the people and a revising upper chamber of appointed grandees.

Soon after the Constitution ratified by the thirteen states established Senators' election by state legislatures, two predictable problems appeared - legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks. Moneyed interests influenced the choices of Senators. Where both branches of state legislatures were controlled by one party, the appointment of a Senator would be to follow the objectives of that party - not necessarily for the good of the electorate. Because state legislatures were charged with deciding whom to appoint as senators, the system relied on their ability to agree. Some states could not, and thus delayed sending representatives to Congress in some cases for years. Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked across 20 states

The former, as constitutional theorists have long argued, are prone to enthusiasms that must be checked by the wisdom and prudence of the latter, even — indeed, especially — when doing so might prove unpopular. Having two distinct bodies that are both said to directly represent the will of the same electorate is on its face nonsensical. (This is the argument often made against reforms that would turn the British House of Lords into a purely elected body.) The few powers the Senate continues to enjoy might easily be given to the House — or dispensed with altogether. Indeed, the most important of these, the ability to confirm judicial and other presidential appointments, is becoming purely ceremonial.

The Framers' purpose in having state legislatures pick a Senator was, as a delegate argued, that "commercial & monied interest [would] be more secure in the hands of the State Legislatures, than of the people at large." Since most states had two branches, "one of which is somewhat aristocratic," there would be a "better chance of refinement in the choice" of senators. "the great mercantile interest and of stockholders" would be better represented "if the state legislatures choose the second branch." Madison added that the "Senate ought to come from, & represent, the Wealth of the nation. State legislatures, themselves an elite group, would likely select a senate that looked very much like themselves. Such a propertied body would serve to protect the interests of the commercial and mercantile classes.

Britain, as a country, has never extended beyond its island. By the time the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, the U.S. was composed of forty-eight states. Forty-one of their legislatures ratified the Amendment. One turned it down. Six more took no action. Has the ratification of any Amendment been more popular among those legislatures whose upper bodies exercise "wisdom and prudence"?

This is not to suggest that we no longer have a de facto upper chamber. The real Senate of the United States meets not in the north wing of the Capitol but just across First Street. I mean, of course, the Supreme Court.

Walther in this article in This Week approaches his point irregardless of the nonsensical foundation. His raison d'être is to target the Supreme Court. With the influx of billions of dollars into the midterm elections, no one is going to argue that the "great mercantile interests" do not have a significant impact on the choices of all Congressional members. Should we have state legislatures appoint Senators, we can only imagine the amount of money at the state level that would buy their chosen candidates. Arguably, the Senate has been neutralized by those monied interests instead of working for the good of the people to check executive power and resultant judicial interpretations when the executive and legislative conflict. Somehow the Seventeenth Amendment is to blame. Our Senate should be like the House of Lords and we are the worse off for it. The direct result is the federal judicial system deciding matters of constitutionality.

Americans like to split their ballots with Senators from one party elected over candidates from the party that controls the state legislatures. Examples,

In the 2018 midterms, all these eight Senators either Democratic or Independent were elected sometimes overwhelming.
Arizona - Dem wins (Synema, 50% v 47%, flip)
Mich - Dem (Stabenow, 52% v 45.8% Rep, Incumb)
Minn - Dem (Klobuchar. 60% v 36% Rep, Incumb)
Mont - Dem (Tester, 50.3% v 46.8% Rep, Incumb)
Ohio - Dem (Sherrod Brown, 53% v 46.6% Rep, Incumb)
Penn - Dem (Casey, 56%v 42.6% Rep, incumb)
Va - Dem (Kaine, 57% v 41.1% Rep, Incumb)
W.Va - Dem (Manchin, 49.6% v 46.3% Rep, Incumb)
Wisc - Dem (Baldwin, 55% v 44.6% Rep, Incumb)

Eight of the nine are incumbents indicating their popularity with voters in their states who elected Republican legislatures. Without the 17th Amendment, the Senate could reasonably be composed of sixty-two Republicans and thirty-six Democrats and two Independents. The conclusion would be that Walther favors such dominance of one party in order that the Senate could prevent what he sees as a usurpation of authority by the Supreme Court.

Why is this not explicitly acknowledged, I wonder? Are the nine not appointed rather than elected? And do they not legislate, at times clarifying, at other points frustrating the will of the two lower chambers? When we read about the outcome of a case before the court we are told how the justices "voted." This should put paid to everything our middle school civics teachers tell us about the separation of powers and the disinterestedness of the judicial process. A perfect illustration of this is NFIB v. Sebelius in 2012, when, after some horse trading between Chief Justice Roberts and his liberal colleagues, the Supreme Court essentially revised the Affordable Care Act. This is exactly what upper bodies are supposed to do in bicameral legislatures.

Walther links an article that discusses "horse-trading" between Justices to reach a decision on the Affordable Care Act. Judges have become America's policymakers. And they're terrible at it.


Of course, that article's title is meant to appeal to a certain audience, too. That author feels the problem with the judicial system began,

This goes all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, the famous 1803 decision that established judicial review — the principle that the courts can invalidate legislation they think violates the Constitution, despite the fact such a power is nowhere mentioned in that document.

He quotes Jefferson's concerns about Marbury, then says

If we review American history, we must conclude Jefferson was absolutely right. The brief period of Warren Court progressivism is an exception from the overall historical pattern. American judicial system has routinely exercised tyrannical and unjust power, from helping to spark the Civil War by declaring all black Americans non-citizens, to protecting KKK terrorist murderers, to overturning civil rights legislation, to enshrining Jim Crow, to breaking strikes and unions, to gutting antitrust law, to declaring all taxes on interests, dividends, and rents unconstitutional, to banning all economic regulation to protect workers instead of business, and on and on.

That author, Ryan Cooper in The Week, concludes:

Instead of policy being written by the legislature to serve the interests of a majority constituency, then implemented by a legible state bureaucracy, in the United States a great deal of legislating happens through an unaccountable legal priesthood, whose very policy aims have be disguised by arcane rhetoric. The results speak for themselves.

Most other developed nations do not have this kind of hypertrophied legal system — in Denmark, for instance, courts have only invalidated a parliamentary law once. Neither conservatives nor social democrats there can get what they want by stuffing the courts with partisan hacks. They've just got to win elections. It might be worth trying someday.

We should be like Denmark? Some of these predate the Seventeenth Amendment. Is Walther's argument that these exercises of "tyrannical and unjust power" by the judicial system would have been avoided if state legislatures appointed Senators whose prudence and wisdom in acting for the good of the people representing the interests of mercantile class like the House of Lords?

I prefer voting for my Senator despite enduring endless ads, phone calls, door knocking, TMs, flyers, etc. for one candidate or another.

 

[Irishize]

your description of Trump could easily be applied to the Clintons. what is obvious, is that both candidates were horrible dishonest people. the difference is, most that voted for Trump had no dishonest illusion that Trump was some saint. they may like his bullish style, but they didn't like him as a person. they held their nose and voted for him. on the other side, most HRC voters bought into her fake righteousness and voted with pride.

and i'd say that the Left has a third party now. dem socialists.... they are beyond typical progressives.

This is spot on. I give credit to the average voter in that they didn’t let the Dems talking out of both sides of their mouth dissuade them from voting for Trump (while holding their noses as you aptly stated). Clinton’s behaviors toward women dwarfs what Trump has been accused of. The difference for Dems is that the victims of Clinton’s behaviors all colluded together in a mass conspiracy and are lying about Bill’s sexual assault, rape, general lewdness as a sitting Attorney General of Arkansas, as a sitting Governer of Arkansas & as a sitting POTUS. But the stories about Trump are all true & if you say otherwise you’re a masochist who hates women & women’s rights.

The election of Bill Clinton changed the landscape forever. Outside of finding a candidate w/ a dead woman or a live boy...anything can & will be overlooked. Dems have to learn to take the good with the bad. When they’re sexist pig gets elected (twice) they can’t cry #MeToo when the Reps sexist pig gets elected. Same w/ the Electoral College...would they be crying for it to be eliminated in favor of a popular vote/mob rule process if they’re guy had won?

 

[Irish#1]

Julian Assange arrested. British government given permission to enter embassy and arrest. Link to the story is below. If you go to CNN's main page, there's a clip of the police taking him out of the embassy. The dude was trying to resist and arguing. Looks like he aged 20 years.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/uk/julian-assange-arrested-gbr-intl/index.html

 

[Bishop2b5]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/o...fter-1st-heartbeat/ar-BBVQJ3u?ocid=spartanntp

Ohio governor signs bill banning abortions after fetal heartbeat detected.

"I just want to make it very, very clear, our concern is not just for the unborn, our concern is for all individuals who need protection," he said. "It is our duty, I believe, and an essential function of government, to protect those who cannot protect themselves." - Gov. Mike DeWine

 

[Legacy]

Walther just published an article titled "The neglected importance of America's small-c constitution":



Apologies to RDU as this isn't the type of article that can be summarized by bolding a couple key paragraphs.

Götterdämmerung?

In 2019 we find ourselves watching as the legislative branch is subsumed into the authority of the executive. The unlimited powers that George W. Bush's advisors claimed for the presidency both at home and abroad in a supposed time of war were inherited by President Obama, who laid waste to Libya and remade our immigration system with the stroke of a pen. For the past two years on trade, foreign policy, the border, and every other issue of importance, President Trump has been able to govern effectively without the assistance of Congress. The same powers will be used, perhaps with even greater effect, by the party now in opposition when they inevitably return to the White House. We are inexorably engaged in a sixth constitutional revolution, one that will, I think, sooner or later culminate in the de facto abolition of the federal legislature. The self-consciously meaningless gestures of anti-executive defiance that began with the congressional GOP under Obama will continue apace until the whole thing has become a bathetic ritual, like the annual White House turkey pardon.

What will this mean? It may be that the sixth revolution will reverse the decentralization of the post-Carter neoliberal constitution. In the place of a CEO who presides over the apportioning of the United States and those parts of the globe within her sphere of influence to global capital we might have a Bonaparte who codifies the grievances of post-industrial America and uses his imperial prerogative to redress the evils visited upon her citizens by technology, alienation, and addiction. This was no doubt the hope of many old comrades of Eternal Trumpism.

It seems to me more likely, though, that we are witnessing another revolution of continuity and development, like that of Roosevelt, which simply refined the old Lincolnian base metals into something sharper. The new all-powerful executive will very likely use his or her unchecked authority not to upend the power of capital but to solidify it forever. The intermittent populisms of the past will continue to find a voice, if at all, in an increasingly powerless legislature. The saga of Brexit in the United Kingdom has shown us that under neoliberalism constitutional revolution from below is impossible. We should not expect it to come from above either, at least not in any form we would hope for.

Only a god-emperor can still save us.

So, a Caesar or a Siegfried will be stabbed in the back by those close to him/her, but absent that and in a pre-Marbury world, our executive branch would inexorably will achieve the power over all minimizing any democratic principles in a government established to protect them? And an originalist can only rely on a continuing weakened legislative branch to pass laws to counteract that usurpation of power.

 

[Irish#1]

Pelosi finds AOC a little irritating. lol

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/politics/nancy-pelosi-aoc/index.html

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Walther just published an article titled "Bernie's clear lane to the Democratic nomination":

On Monday afternoon Bernie Sanders showed us how he could win the Democratic nomination.

Appearing at a pseudo-town hall event on Fox News, Sanders argued in favor of Medicare-for-all, increasing taxes on the wealthy, and remaking America's relationship with Saudi Arabia. Perhaps most important of all, he insisted that Democrats must do more than simply run against President Trump in 2020. He sounded smart, concise, and polished in a way that he rarely has, and managed to do so despite a hostile and occasionally moronic line of questioning — e.g., the usual "If you love taxes so much, why don't you marry them?" schtick.

Sanders's willingness to go into the lions' den shows that he already sees himself not as someone contending for the nomination of his party but rather as a de facto nominee pitching his ideas to the wider American public. This confidence puts him in a rhetorically advantageous position.

The Democratic National Committee's announcement in March that Fox News would not be allowed to host any debates with its candidates was cowardly. (It also side-stepped the fact that no network's talent tried harder to hold Trump to account during the last cycle of debates than Fox News' Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace.) Sanders understands that he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by appearing in front of right-leaning audiences. On a channel where the top opinion program is hosted by Tucker Carlson, who has spoken positively about single-payer health care and criticized the financialization of the American economy, why shouldn't Democrats expect to reach people?

Because only one of them is Bernie. This is the key to his appeal and the path he will try to take toward the nomination in 2020. If 2016 showed us anything it is that in an overly crowded primary field one candidate who is able to distinguish himself clearly and immediately from the competition can win primaries. This will not be because he starts with the support of an overwhelming majority — much the opposite. But all Sanders needs is what Trump had last time, which is to say, a plurality of 25 or 30 percent. When you add up their 1 or 2 or 5 percent each, the other dozen or so candidates have more voters between them, but it counts for absolutely nothing.

There is one likely obstacle for Sanders and his outsider-plurality strategy going forward. This is the possibility that Democrats will line up behind a single establishment candidate whose chief virtue for many is that simply that he or she is not Sanders. This is what Republicans failed to do in 2016 when Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich each in turn presented himself as the healthy consensus choice only to find themselves rejected by the party's base.

The most obvious person to fill this role in 2020 is, of course, Joe Biden, who has not even announced his candidacy yet. His attempt to apologize without apologizing for his handsy antics will please older voters, but it is unlikely to persuade the crucial but poorly understood bloc of younger Democrats who are socially liberal and fiscally moderate without explicitly acknowledging the latter — what I think of as the Refinery29 vote. Biden may not be an old white man with some icky misogynistic supporters like Sanders, but he still has too much baggage. There will always be as many arguments against him as there are for him, just as there were always enough reasons on hand for GOP primary voters to convince themselves not to get behind Jeb and Little Marco in 2016.

Sanders's political future is not assured. In addition to defining himself against the competition, he will require a certain amount of luck. The longer his fellow candidates remain in the race, the more successful his strategy is likely to be. The other lesson of the last election is one that he will probably remember — namely, that a radical outsider stands less of a chance running against one serious establishment candidate. Against the alphabet soup of O'RourkeWarrenButtigiegBookerKlobucharCastroYangGillibrandDelaneyGabbard he is Bernie. Against, say, Kamala Harris with the full backing of the DNC, he is, well, Bernie. That will make all the difference.

 

[Irish#1]

The one thing Bernie has going for him.........With so many people wanting the nomination, you won't be able to tell the players without a scorecard, which means many will simply decide Bernie is okay from a familiarity standpoint, since he tried to get the nomination the last time. Some also think he should have gotten it over HRC which will help him.

 

[wizards8507]

What the hell is Refinery29?

 

[NorthDakota]

What the hell is Refinery29?

It sounds like a small concert venue in an old factory in Brooklyn.

 

[Irish#1]

What the hell is Refinery29?

It sounds like a small concert venue in an old factory in Brooklyn.

Nope, it's the cologne Wiz likes but can never remember its name.

 

[wizards8507]

Nope, it's the cologne Wiz likes but can never remember its name.

I don't need to remember the name, your mom sends me a bottle every year on my birthday.

 

[Irish#1]

I don't need to remember the name, your mom sends me a bottle every year on my birthday.

You're confused. That was Wooly's mom.

 

[ACamp1900]

Snopes fact checked a Babylon Bee article on AOC:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ocasio-cortez-price-is-right/

Their headline is better than the BB one...lolol

"Did U.S. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Repeatedly Guess ‘Free’ on TV Show ‘The Price is Right?’"

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This sweet, adorable, 8yo actress is not only much cuter than the real <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AlexandriaOcasioCortez?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AlexandriaOcasioCortez</a> but she’s also already much smarter too. I asked her to do this video because when <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AOC?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AOC</a> is talking this is what we’re all thinking. We’re better off with this sweetheart in Congress. <a href="https://t.co/QybovhN8WZ">pic.twitter.com/QybovhN8WZ</a></p>— SickenTirade (@SICKENLAW) <a href="https://twitter.com/SICKENLAW/status/1118873752031285248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thread/<br>Progressive Dems like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders seek to gain power and buy votes by addressing symptoms, not root causes of problems.<br> <br>The problem with college debt is several-fold. Colleges are “selling” educations that are more expensive than they are worth.</p>— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) <a href="https://twitter.com/caroljsroth/status/1120339995389251591?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 22, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Please check out this thread by CNBC reporter Carol Roth. While it starts out as an indictment of Warren and Sanders, she does not let Republicans off the hook either.

 

[loomis41973]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thread/<br>Progressive Dems like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders seek to gain power and buy votes by addressing symptoms, not root causes of problems.<br> <br>The problem with college debt is several-fold. Colleges are “selling” educations that are more expensive than they are worth.</p>— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) <a href="https://twitter.com/caroljsroth/status/1120339995389251591?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 22, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Please check out this thread by CNBC reporter Carol Roth. While it starts out as an indictment of Warren and Sanders, she does not let Republicans off the hook either.

Pretty much common sense. Such a lack of that these days.

 

[Irish#1]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This sweet, adorable, 8yo actress is not only much cuter than the real <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AlexandriaOcasioCortez?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AlexandriaOcasioCortez</a> but she’s also already much smarter too. I asked her to do this video because when <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AOC?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AOC</a> is talking this is what we’re all thinking. We’re better off with this sweetheart in Congress. <a href="https://t.co/QybovhN8WZ">pic.twitter.com/QybovhN8WZ</a></p>— SickenTirade (@SICKENLAW) <a href="https://twitter.com/SICKENLAW/status/1118873752031285248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

LMAO!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Evan Allgood just published an article in McSweeney's titled "A Rough Transcript of Every Interview with Pete Buttigieg":

“Despite lacking traditional qualifications for the presidency and declining, so far, to detail a distinctive policy agenda, Mr. Buttigieg has risen to the middle of the Democratic field in polling numbers and fund-raising.” – The New York Times

- - -
Is it true that you speak Norwegian?
Ja, I am evasive in seven different languages.

How do you plan to tackle income inequality?
If I may, I’d like to speak to that very specific issue with a few glittering generalities.

Go on.
Freedom. Democracy. Bridges.

Care to elaborate?
Optimism. Honesty. A child’s lemonade stand.

You have my vote.
I know. If this piece were any fluffier, it’d have a thread count.

Here’s a question I would totally ask Elizabeth Warren: Phish or Radiohead?
Phish covering Radiohead’s “Tweezer – Reprise,” with a surprise cameo by Dave Matthews.

All right, no more softballs…
Uh-oh, my seat’s heating up! Reminds me of Afghanistan. Did I mention I served in Afghanistan?

Several times, hero. What did you learn from your time in the Navy Reserve?
The Middle East… (steeples hands) is complicated.

Wow. That’s the kind of profound insight you only get from fighting on the frontlines.
Here’s a Polaroid of me in the desert, holding a gun.

You just… carry these around?
You can keep that. I’ve got tons more because I served my country for so long.

How do you feel about the use of American force abroad?
It’s like Graham Greene said: “Innocence is like a dumb leper that has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm.”

(Nods slowly)
I wrote my thesis on Greene at Oxford, where I was a Rhodes scholar — but oh, I don’t like to talk about that. Here’s a hard copy of my thesis. You can keep that; I’ve got tons more.

Is it possible that you’re too smart to be President?
At my core, I’m still just a simple corn-fed farm-boy who went to prep school and Harvard and used to dress up as a politician for Halloween.

That’s not a red flag at all! May I introduce you to my mother?
Sure, I’ll bring over some cornbread that spells out TEAM PETE.

Speaking of teams, with which wing of the Democratic party do you identify?
I am as progressive or moderate or mischievous as you want me to be. Every voter can literally redesign Pete Buttigieg.

Are you a socialist or a capitalist?
I’m a renaissance man.

Is the mayor of a town of 100,000 people qualified to run a country of 327 million?
I guess you haven’t seen this sweet pic of me rolling up my sleeves.

Why you? Why now?
Both of my dogs are rescues.

How do you respond to people who say that you’re just another empty suit, or an Ivy League business guy’s CV that was brought to life when it was struck by lightning?
The American people are sick and tired of politicians answering questions with answers. That’s why I always respond with a hobby, a quirk, or a song.

A song?
(Suddenly seated at piano) Don’t mind if I do. (plays Spoon’s “The Way We Get By”) That’s my stance on immigration.

You, sir, are a delight.
That’s the narrative!

 

[ACamp1900]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thread/<br>Progressive Dems like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders seek to gain power and buy votes by addressing symptoms, not root causes of problems.<br> <br>The problem with college debt is several-fold. Colleges are “selling” educations that are more expensive than they are worth.</p>— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) <a href="https://twitter.com/caroljsroth/status/1120339995389251591?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 22, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Please check out this thread by CNBC reporter Carol Roth. While it starts out as an indictment of Warren and Sanders, she does not let Republicans off the hook either.

While tons of state schools are broke, run deficits or rely on outside funding,... gubamint

 

[loomis41973]

Evan Allgood just published an article in McSweeney's titled "A Rough Transcript of Every Interview with Pete Buttigieg":

Brilliant article by Evan.

 

[NorthDakota]

Lmaoooooooo that article is gold. Butt Edge Edge is a trash person.

 

[Legacy]

Texas will end its botched voter citizenship review and rescind its list of flagged voters

 

[Irishize]

Evan Allgood just published an article in McSweeney's titled "A Rough Transcript of Every Interview with Pete Buttigieg":

This cat can pander with the best of them. His selective embrace of Christianity paints himself into a corner.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Thread:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The stable America of broadly shared prosperity that conservatives pine for was social democratic America. <br><br>The social democratic policies that liberals pine were racially exclusive herrenvolk policies.</p>— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) <a href="https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1122862822294265856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Bluto]

Thread:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The stable America of broadly shared prosperity that conservatives pine for was social democratic America. <br><br>The social democratic policies that liberals pine were racially exclusive herrenvolk policies.</p>— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) <a href="https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1122862822294265856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Interesting statement.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-n...ela-operation-freedom-live-updates/index.html
Attempted coup underway in Venezuela

Get the tissues ready for all leftists in the US...utopia collapsing on live TV

 

[Legacy]

Since this has been discussed prior on the Board....

Texas will end its botched voter citizenship review and rescind its list of flagged voters

First paragraphs:

Three months after first questioning the citizenship status of almost 100,000 registered voters, the Texas secretary of state has agreed to end a review of the voter rolls for supposed noncitizens that was flawed from the start.

The deal was announced Friday as part of an agreement to settle three legal challenges brought by more than a dozen naturalized citizens and voting rights groups against the state. The groups alleged that the voter citizenship review, which was launched in late January, was unconstitutional and violated federal protections for voters of color.

Secretary of State David Whitley — who has yet to be confirmed by the Texas Senate amid the fallout over the review — agreed to scrap the lists of registered voters his office had sent to county voter registrars for examination. Whitley’s office will instruct local officials to take no further action on the names of people it had classified as “possible non-U.S citizens," and county officials will be charged with notifying voters who received letters demanding they prove their citizenship that their registrations are safe.

and,

The original review had been mired in controversy since day one, largely because of the faulty methodology the state used to compile the list and the fanfare with which it was announced.

Top Republican leaders, including Gov. Greg Abbott and President Donald Trump, took to Twitter to falsely tout the list as proof of illegal registrations and voting in Texas. In reality, the secretary of state’s office matched the voter rolls with data it requested from the Texas Department of Public Safety for individuals who at some point in the last few years told the department they were not citizens when they obtained a driver’s license or ID card. But the review did not account for people who could’ve become naturalized citizens since then and weren’t required to update DPS.

The settlement does not prohibit the secretary of state from screening the state's massive voter registration database for possible noncitizens, but state officials agreed they would rework their methodology to only flag voters who provided DPS with documentation showing they were not citizens after they were registered to vote.

It's unclear how that will shrink the original list of voters whose citizenship was questioned. Officials agreed to provide the plaintiffs with that number as well as three more updates once the state begins compiling weekly lists to send out to county officials.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-n...ela-operation-freedom-live-updates/index.html
Attempted coup underway in Venezuela

Get the tissues ready for all leftists in the US...utopia collapsing on live TV

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Such cynicism. Just because according to the media and neocons, Venezuelans have spontaneously coalesced around a Freemason who was educated at a US university and didn't even get the highest vote count in his district, that doesn't mean it's an 'overthrow' <a href="https://t.co/dkiTQOxN1Z">https://t.co/dkiTQOxN1Z</a></p>— CatholicBrit🇻🇦🇬🇧 (@Englishpapist) <a href="https://twitter.com/Englishpapist/status/1123260430800044032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Bernie quotes Aquinas against usury:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/htdoZErfXZg?start=95" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>