[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2019-August-02, 09:10, said:

Winston, I am genuinely hurt that you would seriously ask me this question.

Zel,

We all make occasional posts that read like something we did not mean. I will now assume such was the case with yours and you meant to parody Trump's racism.

[Winstonm]

Tipping point?

Quote

The number of House Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry reached 118 with the support of Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) on Friday, and now includes more than half of the 235-person Democratic caucus.

Note to Trumpnistas: There does not have to be an underlying legal crime, only that high crimes and misdemeanors occurred.

Quote

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

Quote

In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

[johnu]

The Trump swamp has gone beyond fetid....

GOP senator held up Trump aide's confirmation to get info on border wall contracts

Quote

The Post reported that Cramer has touted a major donor's company as his preferred construction firm. Cramer has received thousands of dollars in donations from the owner of North Dakota-based Fisher Industries and the CEO's family, according to campaign finance records.

One of Dennison's major infrastructure projects is tripling the size of the swamp because it has been overflowing with corruption and sweetheart deals since day 1 of his administration.

[y66]

re: Mayor Pete's structural reform to-do list:

Here's one that my congressman proposed a couple years ago and reintroduced last month along with kenberg's congressman:

Quote

Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) and a group of House Democrats today introduced the Fair Representation Act, an election reform bill to change the way U.S. Representatives are elected. The bill, which includes a provision requiring that all Congressional districts be drawn by independent commissions to prevent gerrymandering, came soon after the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which upheld political gerrymandering.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold political gerrymandering is the latest in a series of terrible setbacks for our democracy, and our legislation would help put the country back on the right track,” said Rep. Beyer. “At a time when Americans have waning faith in institutions and political leadership, the Fair Representation Act would help restore the trust which so many have lost in our political system. This bill would ensure that every voter has their voice represented in Congress, and make real progress towards bipartisan focus on getting results for the American people.”

Beyer was joined in introducing the bill by Representatives Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Jim Cooper (D-TN), and Jim McGovern (D-MA).

“American democracy needs a new engine, which is embodied in this legislation,“ said Rep. Raskin. “I’m proud to cosponsor the Fair Representation Act to make our elections more positive and our government more representative. Let's open up American politics to new voices, new choices and representation for all.”

“Reforming Congress will empower citizens to reclaim our democracy,” said Rep. Khanna. “The Fair Representation Act would help increase representation for communities left out of our political system and open up the two-party system to much-needed choice for voters. I thank Representative Beyer for his courage in reintroducing such a bold solution to reform American elections.”

The Fair Representation Act would move US House elections into multi-member districts drawn by independent redistricting commissions and elected through ranked choice voting. Taken together, these three measures would incentivize congressional candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters.

“Partisan politics and gerrymandering have taken over our elections and helped create the gridlock we’re seeing in Congress,” Rep. Cooper said. “This bill will allow the voices of more Americans to be heard.”

“Our democracy is in serious jeopardy. Right now, we have a system in many states where our representatives are picking the people who vote for them instead of the other way around. If that weren’t bad enough, last month the Supreme Court further undermined faith in our government by upholding this awful practice,” said Rep. McGovern. “I’m proud to join with Representative Beyer to introduce this critical bill, and I’m grateful for his leadership to ensure that every voice is heard and every vote matters.”

The Fair Representation Act was hailed by nonpartisan organizations FairVote, RepresentWomen, and Feminist Majority Foundation.

“Congress must fix partisan gerrymandering, yet can't stop with independent commissions. We must replace winner-take-all elections with the Fair Representation Act to represent the millions of voters who, defying partisan stereotypes, could bridge our seemingly unbridgeable political divides. Ensuring every voter matters in every election is the best way to reverse what has become quite literally a death spiral for our constitutional order,” said Rob Richie, President and CEO of FairVote.

"Despite gains for women in the 2018 midterm elections, women remain under-represented at every level of government. I support the Fair Representation Act because it will help to elect significantly more women to Congress by opening up the political process so that more women can run and win,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

“No single reform would create more opportunities for women and people of color from across the spectrum to compete in fair elections,” said Cynthia Richie Terrell, founder of RepresentWomen. “It is central to our vision of how we achieve parity for women in congressional elections.”

Full text of the Fair Representation Act may be found here, and more resources, including factsheets and FAQ’s, are available from FairVote here.

[y66]

 johnu, on 2019-August-03, 03:38, said:

The Trump swamp has gone beyond fetid....

GOP senator held up Trump aide's confirmation to get info on border wall contracts


One of Dennison's major infrastructure projects is tripling the size of the swamp because it has been overflowing with corruption and sweetheart deals since day 1 of his administration.

In Trump world, every day is a new high water mark of fetidity.

[Winstonm]

+1 for fetidity.

[Winstonm]

It occurred to me that the impact shelf life for trolls is fairly short, and the trolling president is finding fewer and fewer who are persuaded by his name-calling schtick: complaining that the LameStream Media was unfair to his totally incompetent selection to head the Intelligence services starts to sound contrived and pretty boring after awhile - except to weak minds.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2019-August-03, 07:54, said:

re: Mayor Pete's structural reform to-do list:

Here's one that my congressman proposed a couple years ago and reintroduced last month along with kenberg's congressman:

I voted for Jamie Raskin, maybe I'll drop him a congratulatory note on this.



He represents a seriously gerrymandered district (mine):
https://en.wikipedia...sional_district

Working now against gerrymandering is not at all hypocritical. He ran in the district as the lines are now drawn, if he favors re-drawing lines in a more satisfactory manner, good for him, I hope that it succeeds.

[jjbrr]

So after reading about this El Paso deal and hearing that (once again) reporters are at the scene trying to interview people who were literally shot at moments before or perhaps who had just lost a loved one a la Sandy Hook, I'm curious what the breakdown is among BBFers between the news you receive via written media versus televised media.

I suspect there is a strong correlation between the percentage of televised media consumed and general political lean, though BBF is almost certainly not a good representation of most Americans.

[kenberg]

 jjbrr, on 2019-August-03, 15:42, said:

So after reading about this El Paso deal and hearing that (once again) reporters are at the scene trying to interview people who were literally shot at moments before or perhaps who had just lost a loved one a la Sandy Hook, I'm curious what the breakdown is among BBFers between the news you receive via written media versus televised media.

I suspect there is a strong correlation between the percentage of televised media consumed and general political lean, though BBF is almost certainly not a good representation of most Americans.

I read WaPo most every day, I listen to the PBS Newshour more often than not. I lsten to Joshua Johnson some on 1A, most lf I am driving somewhere. I sometimes follow-up on articles posted here, with various reasons and results. For example, when the subject turned to immigrants and CEOs, and Fortune 500, I browsed around. I'm from Minnesota (but I have been in Maryland for 50+years) and was a bit surprised (and pleased) to see that were 18 or maybe 19 Fortune 500 companies in Minnesota. (The St. Paul Pioneer Press said 19, but that article was a year old). Anyone who reads my posts knows I find Paul Krugman's style to be pretty obnoxious but I appreciate having my attention drawn to his articles from time to time.

I cannot tell you who the anchors or main reporters are on CNN or ABC or CBS etc. Mostly I find their news shows unbearable. Somewhere along the way the news got turned over to the entertainment people, and it doesn't fit my interests.

I try to read conservative writers despite my choices of PBS and NPR. I very much appreciate hearing from those with a conservative view, and on some matters we can agree. Not really rare, as a matter of fact. Many conservatives find Trump appalling, but there are other areas of agreement as well.

I don't know if any of this is the sort of thing you were asking about.

[jjbrr]

Ken, do you watch local, daily news?

I have never in my life chosen to seek out a local news segment, except in high school when they announced snow closings. I'm curious if you think local news provides value in your life.

[kenberg]

 jjbrr, on 2019-August-03, 19:26, said:

Ken, do you watch local, daily news?

I have never in my life chosen to seek out a local news segment, except in high school when they announced snow closings. I'm curious if you think local news provides value in your life.

Well, some. I mentioned above that I voted for Jamie Raskin. I went to a debate where there were several candidates for the Democratic nomination and I read various opinion pieces. I follow things involving education. And I suppose it's a question of how local is local. I live maybe 40 minutes from downtown Baltimore. The mayor there resigned a while back. She had written a children's book, self-published, and I gather that she sold copied by the truckload to some organizations that were doing business with the city. Something like that. I followed it sort of, but not closely enough that I can give exact details. Growing up in St. Paul and then living in Minneapolis I followed local news more closely. It was more interesting. And back then I followed sports. Now I have no idea how the Ravens are doing.

On occasion I listen to something on MPT, Maryland Public Television, that talks about the Chesapeake Bay or other matters. But I definitely do not regularly tune in to either a tv channel or a radio station for local news.

I'm guessing few find these facts as just what they needed to know before getting a good night's sleep.

[johnu]

‘Gun Rights’ Fan Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Turns Focus To Mental Health After El Paso Attack

Quote

Ardent “gun rights” supporter Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott tried desperately Saturday to focus on shooters’ “mental health” issues instead of issues such as easy access to assault rifles at a press conference following the mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart that left at least 20 people dead.

Quote

Abbott once boasted he was “embarrassed” that Texas was second to California in gun sales.

Quote

He insisted Saturday that the state legislature passed “bill after bill after bill” to protect students from school shootings after eight teenagers and two teachers were fatally shot last year at Santa Fe High School in Texas. One of the bills Abbott signed into law involved arming more teachers. None of the bills involved increased gun control.

Quote

Abbott acknowledged that “we did not, as far as I know, evaluate for and plan for an incident like this,” referring to the Walmart shooting.

Quote

He later angrily snapped at reporters that it was too soon to focus on the “politics” of gun control while “there are bodies” still to be recovered. “I think we need to focus more on memorials before we start the politics,” he added.

On that last point, by the time all the memorials have been done for the last mass shooting, there will be another mass shooting that will delay any focus on the previous mass shootings.

Quote

Abbott is a favorite of the National Rifle Association, which recently hailed ten pro-gun laws the governor has signed this year. “Governor Greg Abbott has now signed all of the NRA-supported legislation which the Texas Legislature sent him during the 2019 session,” an NRA web site boasted.

In June Abbott vetoed a bill by his legislature making it a state crime to bring guns into secure areas of airports.

Oh my!

[kenberg]

Abbott speaks of mental health. I see the psychological component this way. By allowing for the manufacture and widespread sale of weapons that kill many people in a short time we are , intentionally or not, conveying a view that as a society we are ok with killing a large number of people quickly. We can say oh no, of course we don't actually want you to use this weapon to shoot up a mall or a church or a softball game etc, but it is absolutely inevitable that some people, and not just the total loonies that would be seen as total loonies, will see the legality of the sale as acceptance of the use. And they will choose the manner of use.

I think that this is important. People intuitively understand this point, it shows up in other contexts. For example, it is often argued that if the high school nurse provides condoms to students, that nurse is implicitly accepting sexual relations among high school students. The wisdom of having the nurse handing out condoms ca be debated, but no doubt it will be taken, at least by some, as society saying that it's ok for sixteen year olds to have sex. . Allowing people to buy weapons that will quickly kill many people will be taken by some as society's acceptance of their use of that weapon. They shouldn't interpret it that way but some will interpret it that way. This is certain.

People can understand this argument. That's my point. Most people do not read the Federalist Papers or have long discussions about the Constitution. But they can quickly understand that allowing such weapons to be sold is acceptance that such weapons will be used. And that understanding is a start on addressing the problem.

[Winstonm]

That the gun stance of the Republican party is complicit in these shooting deaths is unequivocal; after all, the symbiotic relationship of the NRA and the Republican party gives rise to a lack of an honest exchange of ideas about dealing with guns and gun violence.

The question to me is how did we go from a the staunch conservative's legal view sounding like this:

Quote

"A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

to the Heller decision written by Antonin Scalia that stated gun ownership was an unfettered right?

[y66]

 Winstonm, on 2019-August-04, 10:06, said:

The question to me is how did we go from a the staunch conservative's legal view sounding like this:

Quote

"A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun.

to the Heller decision written by Antonin Scalia that stated gun ownership was an unfettered right?

We followed the $$$?

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2019-August-04, 08:40, said:

Abbott speaks of mental health. I see the psychological component this way. By allowing for the manufacture and widespread sale of weapons that kill many people in a short time we are , intentionally or not, conveying a view that as a society we are ok with killing a large number of people quickly. We can say oh no, of course we don't actually want you to use this weapon to shoot up a mall or a church or a softball game etc, but it is absolutely inevitable that some people, and not just the total loonies that would be seen as total loonies, will see the legality of the sale as acceptance of the use. And they will choose the manner of use.

I think that this is important. People intuitively understand this point, it shows up in other contexts. For example, it is often argued that if the high school nurse provides condoms to students, that nurse is implicitly accepting sexual relations among high school students. The wisdom of having the nurse handing out condoms ca be debated, but no doubt it will be taken, at least by some, as society saying that it's ok for sixteen year olds to have sex. . Allowing people to buy weapons that will quickly kill many people will be taken by some as society's acceptance of their use of that weapon. They shouldn't interpret it that way but some will interpret it that way. This is certain.

People can understand this argument. That's my point. Most people do not read the Federalist Papers or have long discussions about the Constitution. But they can quickly understand that allowing such weapons to be sold is acceptance that such weapons will be used. And that understanding is a start on addressing the problem.

Ken, it's not that I disagree with you but I think it's also critical to understand who is on what side of the question and just who it is that needs to alter their views.

A holy-scripture-like adherence to a document and a reading of that document to fit beliefs is not the provenance of the middle ground, right-leaning, left-leaning, or left. That is something firmly grounded in the strong-right.

Until the strong right - especially the right-media-complex - no longer controls the entire Republican party, we will have nowhere to go and nothing will be done.

There is middle ground; unfortunately, we have been deemed unworthy to find it.

[Winstonm]

 y66, on 2019-August-04, 11:17, said:

We followed the $$$?

No, I think we were led by the $$$.

The oddity is that if you accept that polls are at least accurate in a general sense, then the U.S. favors some type of limitation of gun rights and gun owenership. This means that a minority makes the decisions in that regard.

I don't think a democratic-republic can be defined as a country where a wealthy minority overrides the will of the majority.

[Winstonm]

Here is a curiosity. I cannot vouch for the accuracy:

Quote

Will Bunch noted on twitter that counties where Trump holds a rally witness a 226% increase in hate crimes.

Trump held a large rally in El Paso last February, he held one three days ago 45-minutes south of Dayton.

From WaPo:

Quote

Using the Anti-Defamation League’s Hate, Extremism, Anti-Semitism, Terrorism map data (HEAT map), we examined whether there was a correlation between the counties that hosted one of Trump’s 275 presidential campaign rallies in 2016 and increased incidents of hate crimes in subsequent months.

To test this, we aggregated hate-crime incident data and Trump rally data to the county level and then used statistical tools to estimate a rally’s impact. We included controls for factors such as the county’s crime rates, its number of active hate groups, its minority populations, its percentage with college educations, its location in the country and the month when the rallies occurred.

We found that counties that had hosted a 2016 Trump campaign rally saw a 226 percent increase in reported hate crimes over comparable counties that did not host such a rally.

my emphasis

[johnu]

 johnu, on 2019-August-04, 00:20, said:

Quote

He (Texas GOP Gov Gregg Abbot)later angrily snapped at reporters that it was too soon to focus on the “politics” of gun control while “there are bodies” still to be recovered. “I think we need to focus more on memorials before we start the politics,” he added.

On that last point, by the time all the memorials have been done for the last mass shooting, there will be another mass shooting that will delay any focus on the previous mass shootings.

Mass Shooting In Dayton, Ohio, Leaves At Least 9 Dead, 27 Injured

The memorials for the El Paso victims haven't even started to be planned and there's yet another gun massacre to take the focus off El Paso and reset the clock to begin talking about the politics of gun control.