| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/24/24 2:50 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
Do we have to hear fairy tales about America's lost industry again? The US accounted for about 20% of global manufacturing out put last year, the same percentage its done for decades. The US is as industrialized as it has ever been.
If you want to decry automation, which is what's reduced employment in manufacturing, go right ahead. But don't spread lies about a "de-industrialized nation". It's not outsourcing or foreign competition that's eliminated factory jobs, it's machines.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/24 8:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
Do we have to hear fairy tales about America's lost industry again? The US accounted for about 20% of global manufacturing out put last year, the same percentage its done for decades. The US is as industrialized as it has ever been.
If you want to decry automation, which is what's reduced employment in manufacturing, go right ahead. But don't spread lies about a "de-industrialized nation". It's not outsourcing or foreign competition that's eliminated factory jobs, it's machines. |
So no... I don't understa... WHAT? lol.
So, again, you're talking to someone who lived it, saw it, lived through it and most importantly the aftereffects on friends, family, the job market, the types of jobs, the effects on the community I lived in, surrounding communities, the state of Pennsylvania and surrounding states, etc.
Let's take this one quote from Encyclopedia.com I used in a prior response and look at and think about what the numbers reveal.
"Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Jones and Laughlin had a large plant in nearby Aliquippa that became the object of the NLRB prosecution. Vertically integrated with 19 subsidiaries, it owned and operated ore, coal, and limestone properties; lake and river transportation facilities; and terminal railroads located at its manufacturing plants. The fourth largest steel and pig iron company in the nation, Jones and Laughlin employed 33,000 men mining ore, 44,000 men mining coal, 4,000 men quarrying limestone, 16,000 men manufacturing coke, 343,000 men manufacturing steel, and 83,000 men transporting its product. The company had about 10,000 employees in its Aliquippa plant, which was located in a community of about 30,000 persons."
So J&L was just the FOURTH largest steel company in the country. But look at the number of men it employed. So let's add them up. I come up with 523K men employed at some unspecified time by the fourth largest steel company in the US. So because we don't have numbers on the other three let's just say they had the same number of employees and round it down to a half-million employees each.
Two million.
But now let me just share the steel landscape just from my own eyes. Across the river was Ambridge PA. Named after the steel finishing plant there, American Bridge. American Bridge was HUGE. Probably a couple of miles long. My oldest brother was an electrician there. Paid as well as J&L. There was also an ARMCO plant in Ambridge where mrs jammer's father worked. And that was really the plum place to work in the area. Might as well have been a Rolls Royce plant. Starting pay there was I think over $7 an hour when J&L was in the $5 range and it was clean I believe and warm there in the winter. I'm not going to say it was safe but it was freaking safer than J&L.
But there were smaller mills and foundries lining the Ohio River from way past Pittsburgh all the way through our area and into West Virginia and Ohio. And then there was all the supporting industries all throughout the region and all of those manufacturing states.
So if just the four largest companies in the steel making sector employed two million people you would have to know that many more than that also worked in the steel industry and that all of these high-paying union jobs supported SO MANY towns and local economies and, of course, families and communities. (I'm going to talk about communities and what I think that word means to a society before this thread is much older.)
So we don't know when these numbers are pulled from but the NLRB case that this I've quoted is referring to was in the late 1930s. In 1940 the population of the US was 132M. But let me work against my own argument and say these J&L employment numbers were taken from the 1960s when the population of the US was around 180 million.
Counting (and underestimating) just the employees working in the steel industry in those four companies represent over one percent of the total population of the United States. lol.
Come on, man! What are you talking about? Union jobs. Thriving cities and towns and communities all across the northeast through the midwest as a result of just this one (albiet largest employment sector) industry. Yes, that's right. Steel manufacturing was the largest employer in the country at one time. The largest employer in the country was unionized. The employees of the largest employment sector in the US had company paid health insurance and paid vacations and stellar pension plans.
You can ASK me respectfully what that actually looked like and I can share an oral history and even if you don't respectfully ask me if you keep poking at me I'm going to end up telling you. I think this is all SUPER important context for this or any other election year because it explains the EXTREME discontent of the American people that saw them vote in a reality television star as president and possibly ready to do it again.
Look. Here's a perspective you might not have heard before. They came for us. WE KNOW THAT. We talked about it BEFORE it even happened. They took all of that away to line their pockets. They did it to keep us away from them. To keep us away from Aspen and Cancun. To keep us away from their daughters. They did it intentionally. They did not like the fact that the American worker had grown so prosperous and powerful. Our power stood in opposition to their power. Our prosperity came out of their profits. All of that had to end REGARDLESS of the damage to the country. And it ended.
That's what happened._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/24 9:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Industries rise and fall and get replaced by other industries. That's the way it works. It's what Joseph Schumpeter called creative destruction, the "process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one."* The US has as much industry as it ever has, even if less of it steel than it used to be.
* The quote is from Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, published in 1942. So you're right that we knew it was coming long before it came.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8947
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/25/24 8:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Nevada's going to be a messed up mess.
People can vote in the primary for "none of these" and caucus for Trump. Haley could win the primary, but not the delegates. Or she could lose the primary to "None of these" if enough Trump supporters also vote in the primary and vote against her.
| Quote: |
Instead of running in the Feb. 6 primary, Trump is participating in party-run caucuses two days later. Only the caucus results count toward selecting the state's 26 Republican National Convention electors, but state law still requires a primary.
Voters can participate in both contests but candidates had to pick one or the other. |
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/01/25/trump-nevada-primary-caucus-delegates-explained/72325476007/
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/25/24 1:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
Industries rise and fall and get replaced by other industries. That's the way it works. It's what Joseph Schumpeter called creative destruction, the "process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one."* The US has as much industry as it ever has, even if less of it steel than it used to be.
* The quote is from Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, published in 1942. So you're right that we knew it was coming long before it came. |
This your boy, p-master?
Surely we didn't have to go all the way back to someone born in 1882 in Europe, the very industrialized hellscape that inspired Kafka, to find an alien-like former Austrian Minister of Finance and son of a bloody factory owner himself to refute the jammer's perspective on what America was like when he was a young man as opposed to where it is now?
"The film Other People's Money (1991) provides contrasting views of creative destruction, presented in two speeches regarding the takeover of a publicly traded wire and cable company in a small New England town. One speech is by a corporate raider, and the other is given by the company CEO, who is principally interested in protecting his employees and the town."
Directed by the great Norman Jewison who just passed away a few days ago.
Like I said, I'm going to talk about community here in this thread and what that means and what we've lost as a country and aren't likely to get back in ANY of our lifetimes.
But I think we come from vastly different perspectives, pilight. I'm sure this book was assigned reading in your studies at some point. But, once again, we have discovered something on which one side simply cannot agree to what the other side considers to be a basic fundamental fact. When we don't have that mutually agreed upon foundation then it's very hard to have a sensible conversation.
I'm basically telling you that things were better for vast swaths of working Americans in that past. A drive through most parts of this country and witnessing the decay of small towns and communities should demonstrate how UNCREATIVE the churning of economies actually has been for the American people. Destructive is the appropriate title for the ancient economic theory in this case. But if you're sitting at the top of the world like this guy was his entire life then creative destruction was something he could only experience from on high.
A vast industrialized American landscape of high paying union jobs with excellent benefits created a period of working class prosperity that now seems unimaginable. I have absolutely no doubt someone benefitted greatly from the creative destruction of all that. The fallout however, I would contend, has and is continuing to destroy this country as it did this quaint economic period in the past that some can fantasize has been replaced by something better.
Because THAT GUY above had a theory._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/25/24 3:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
They perpetuate the FICTION that we live in a democracy. They do not challenge the folly of permanent war.
They do not call out the corporations, who have de-industrialized the nation and abandoned and impoverished American workers."
Like I said. I know you like the Chris Hedges, Howee.  There he is. |
Maybe Maher and Stewart are exceptions? |
....or Carlin   |
Carlin is a different subject and different era completely so, maybe later on him, But Bill Maher and John Stewart exceptions?
Maher works for HBO and Stewart for Comedy Central. I don't know what that or these guys look like out in America but, IDK, I like weird (what I think are) illuminating on-the-ground the-view-from-here explanations. So here goes a couple.
You have to see the buildings. And the buildings of the buildings. I'll get to that.
Bill Mahar is paid 20M a year by HBO. HBO is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, which was formed as a result of a spin off by AT&T and a merger with Discovery.
Comedy Central is owned by Paramount Global and formerly owned by Time Warner.
So Warner Bros, Paramount. This is, big surprise, Hollywood. BIG Hollywood. Now modern global media conglomerates.
There was a time, when Bill Maher had a show on ABC called Politically Incorrect. I loved that show. But... hmm... when Bill made a crack about the US fighting a war in a cowardly manner by firing missiles from warships out in the Persian Gulf during Iraq he lost this NIGHTLY late night show that was indeed must watch TV for many.
So Bill fucked around and found out.
Likewise the Jon Stewart of 20 years ago is a distant far cry from the who he is politically today. Remember when he dressed down Tucker Carlson and whatever that other Crossfire asshat's name was... something Hogan ON CNN?
Like I said. You have to see the buildings. You have to understand what Hollywood is. Maher is repped by UTA. Ugh. Jon Stewart is repped by CAA. These agencies are so fucking rich powerful and powerful politically that both Joe Biden and his wife are also repped by CAA. You got to see that fucking building in Century City. lol. And they fucking BUILT it for themselves.
So let me contrast that something different. I worked in the restaurant business the first decade or so when I came here. All I knew for the first ten years I was in LA was actors, actresses, and comedians. Lived with one. Worked with them, partied with them, listened to their stories, watched them compulsively checking their messages. Hundreds of actors and actresses. A dozen or more stand-up comics. For over ten years.
Out of all of those people I knew. NONE of them, to my knowledge, ever got ANYWHERE in the business. I mean NOT ONE. Talented, funny, attractive, bright people. As far as I know not one ever did shit. My late friend Gary Hayes had a bit part in a Tom Hanks movie, The 'Burbs but that was before I even got to LA.
So what's my point? You look at those buildings. You look at the corporate conglomerate power structure. You look at the pro-Democratic Party political power wielded MERCILESSLY just by the talent agencies. You think about the masses of hoards of people who never get anywhere in show business. And then you look at the iconic career paths of a Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, and then you HEAR what they're saying politically and how they say it, etc.
Bill Maher was brought to heel by losing his ABC late night network television show. Jon Stewart went from decrying divisive political discourse on CNN to (and while) creating the smug mocking political comedy that defined his show on Comedy Central which spawned Samantha Bee, John Oliver and Trevor Noah.
These ARE the comedians that Chris Hedges is speaking of and he's absolutely right.
Look. If you're hearing it on either a broadcast network or a cable news or entertainment network, everything is all owned and controlled by the same corporate conglomerates. And these people who are paid tens of millions of dollars to continue to sit in front of the cameras and be famous are in the pockets of those conglomerates. All of them. No exceptions. If they step out of line, they're gone.
Consider this. When Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, at the time a rising star in Democratic Party politics, bucked party leadership and resigned from her position as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee to endorse Bernie Sanders in 2016 instead of the party’s chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, she received an email from two executives at Creative Artists Agency (CAA) informing her of their disappointment with her decision and the fact that they would be cutting her off from receiving any further political support from them.
CAA is arguably the largest and most powerful talent agency in Hollywood, which means that it’s also most likely the most important talent agency in the world. Its "about page" rightly stakes claim to the entertainment and media conglomeration’s position as being at the very nexus of talent, content, brands, and technology, allowing it to create limitless opportunities for the storytellers, trendsetters, icons, and thought leaders it represents.
One of the two CAA agents whose name was on that email sent to Tulsi Gabbard was Michael Kives. The Guardian reports that “Kives’s road to becoming a big wheel in the Democratic money machine began in June 2001, when he was an undergraduate at Stanford. Bill and Hillary Clinton were flying in for Chelsea Clinton’s graduation. Kives admired Clinton - his intelligence, his ballsiness, that determination not to let enemies or idiots get in the way of whatever he wanted. He became a Clinton guy.”
When Kives was married in November of 2018, his wedding was characterized in The Hollywood Reporter as a ‘power summit.” Other than both Bill and Hillary Clinton, THR says notable attendees were reported to have included, “Power players from the worlds of politics (Sen. Cory Booker, Arnold Schwarzenegger, L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti), royalty (Princess Beatrice, Crown Prince Hussein of Jordan), tech (Tesla guru Elon Musk, ousted Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, Google’s Eric Schmidt, Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg with Activision’s Bobby Kotick) and branding (do-it-all moguls Jessica Alba and Reese Witherspoon). A source tells THR that Sen. Kamala Harris was expected but couldn’t make it last minute.”
Tulsi Gabbard would find out what it meant to cross the likes of an uber-political CAA powerhouse like Kives when she threw her hat into the ring for the Democratic nomination for president just four years later. Gabbard found herself routinely both attacked and interrogated by a plethora of CAA and UTA (United Talent Agency) clients in the news media, including Jake Tapper, Chris Cuomo, Bill Maher, and Whoopi Goldberg. _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/25/24 4:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
You're not good at playing dumb, jammer. Schumpeter said the cycle of creative destruction was hurtful to some workers but it was necessary to maintain a vital economy.
In any event, I was only taking issue with your description of the US as de-industrialized. That's an obviously untrue statement no matter how often you and Trump say it.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/25/24 10:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Here's CAA's building. These are from an article called, "Buildings that are Deathstars." Look how LEETLE the people and cars are.
 _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/25/24 10:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
You're not good at playing dumb, jammer. Schumpeter said the cycle of creative destruction was hurtful to some workers but it was necessary to maintain a vital economy.
In any event, I was only taking issue with your description of the US as de-industrialized. That's an obviously untrue statement no matter how often you and Trump say it. |
Mention me and the Great One in the same sentence and I'm swooning with delight._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/29/24 6:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So about the comedic landscape.
What I'm about to say is I SWEAR the truth.
A few days ago I was thinking about adding more to this conversation. Just stuff that pops off in my head. And I was thinking about how these comedians LOOK (maybe) to people out in the country versus how they look (maybe) to people here in LA. Like me. Or only me. Whatever.
So it went like this. Something like I think that people around the country might look out their windows and if the thought of Hollywood or these famous comedians cross their minds at all it's on a level (literally physically) that is horizontal to themselves. California is far away but it's not up in the sky somewhere it's on the ground like they are. They watch these people on TV, the TV is basically at eye level take a foot or two. Okay, I'm beating a dead horse, I know.
But out HERE, you know, because of the buildings and all that, and the money and the fact that there is this sea of desperate talented people who never make it in show business, etc. reasons like this, that the perspective that (at least) I have is of a much more vertical structure to all of this that we're talking about in regards to these political comedy GIANTS.
So when Bill Maher signed his contract I believe it was one or two years ago and it was a five year deal I believe for $20 million a year so it's a hundred-million-dollar contract. And then these large bus stop posters, the kind that are behind locked glass or whatever, started popping up everywhere in LA. Or at least on the west side. Bil was making that whatever Bill Maher face where he's just exuding that fact that you're an idiot and he is disgusted with you.
AND, I'm almost certain there was up on Sunset Strip, giant Bill Maher ads 30 stories high on buildings. Can't say absolutely for sure but I DO really believe they were there at that time.
Fast forward to today. So I go to the Guitar Center up in Hollywood which is on Sunset Blvd and on my way back, what do I see? How about I just show you.
This is across the street from the Rainbow Room and the Roxy. Like the REAL Sunset Strip. This is what I mean by vertical. If you think 150 foot high Bill Maher is talking back to The Man, The Party, the government, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, or any one else that has power in this country and telling the truth to the public then you didn't grow up watching The Smothers Brothers being taken off the air or George Carlin having to recreate his own career away from television touring colleges, etc.
January 29, 2024 1:17PM
2000 Sunset Blvd
 _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/30/24 7:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
So months after rumors that RFK Jr might join up with the Libertarian Party to get what is said to be relatively instant 50 state ballot access, a possibility which then seemed to be permanently off the table after he instead announced that he was indeed abandoning the Democratic Party but would run as an independent, it seems like the Libertarian Party option is being considered once again.
So some Kennedy supporters are losing their shit because so many Libertarian Party policies don’t align with his or theirs or, you know, anyone else who has a drop of sense in their heads. Don’t they want to split the country or something?
But I don’t really see the LP’s traditional ideological stances as carrying much weight here in this very unique situation. RFK Jr isn’t organically a Libertarian by nature or in terms of his political beliefs. This would be a limited partnership with both sides getting what they want and nothing more.
The Libertarian Party gets a legitimate big name candidate who, regardless of the party he’s attached to, has at this point more than a puncher’s chance of becoming president and, if he should win, it would be the greatest legitimizing event in Libertarian Party history.
And Kennedy simply and quickly resolves his ballot access problem. And that’s it.
Anyone who thinks the President of the United States is going to be answering to Libertarian party officers huddled in an Elks Club somewhere or L-Party dogma is out of their political minds.
But hey, maybe someone who knows a little bit more about the Libertarian Party might come and humiliate me for my ignorance.  _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/07/24 4:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So NBC did a 2:30 minute feature on the NBC Nightly News of RFK Jr. that is in no way a hit piece but is instead a fairly balanced and even-toned introduction of the American people to the guy.
A lot to unpack here.
Why and how? Why would the parent organization of MSNBC, both owned by media conglomerate Comcast, literally the neoliberal beating heart of the establishment press, finally, and IMO quite fairly, platform RFK Jr. like this?
Just days after Joy Reid was caught on a hot mic (if you believe that) bashing Biden saying that he was "getting us into another fucking war."
I think many have said, along with me, that the American people, who polls show want a third option in November, would swing to RFK in DROVES if they only heard him speak.
I also believe this has been quite clear to both parties right from the start of RFK Jr.'s campaign, and thus the red line that was put in place that should never be crossed would be at putting this guy on the American public's radar by platforming his campaign with fair and reasonable television coverage.
And now NBC has done exactly that.
Why?
And then the “how.”
I can’t imagine that this isn’t a calculated high-level decision that is signaling some kind of shift in the outlook for this election by the powers-that-be in the mainstream establishment media. Which also means some very significant part of the corporate landscape. I also can’t imagine that the other two of the Big Three broadcast news networks will not follow suit.
Look, no one knows better than me how wrong I can be. But in a news and information ecosystem that is as corporate captured by Big Pharma and Big Food, military contractors etc. as ours is, they just don’t casually happen to do a fairly neutral two-and-a-half-minute piece on a rogue presidential candidate who is the very one threatening the aforementioned corporate establishment that owns all of these news networks.
So I don’t understand it.
I do believe though that in every one of these evil entities there are people who aren’t on board with the way this country is being governed and the direction in which we’re being led. And I’m sure that must include some people at or near the very top of the American economic and political elite hierarchy.
So maybe there’s something happening there.
So when Joy Reid said what she said, Jimmy Dore was screaming on YouTube saying, “THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE REALLY THINKING.”
Which was absolutely correct.
But, I’m sorry, I don’t believe that hot mic accidents happen at the MSNBC network level. I don’t believe that was an accident.
And I don’t believe Bobby Kennedy Jr. gets on the NBC Nightly News just because his candidacy happens to be newsworthy.
I really do think that somewhere on high there has to be some kind of shift going on or a peeling away of the antipathy or resistance towards RFK Jr.
Fool that I am._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/24 8:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
My firmest prediction is that the 14th amendment shtick won't work to keep Trump off any state ballot. |
Why is it shtick? |
What I mean is that the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear the Colorado case on February 8, has multiple sound legal bases to disallow individual states from removing a U.S. presidential candidate from the ballot per section 3 of 14th amendment, especially where he has never been convicted of or even charged with the federal crime of insurrection. I would expect the Court to render a decision that will apply uniformly to all states, not just to Colorado. |
The Supreme Court held oral arguments today on the constitutionality of the Colorado Supreme Court decision that struck Trump off the Colorado ballot based on its purported understanding of section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
I listened to the argument and predict the Supreme Court will hold for Trump by 9-0 or 8-1.
For the zero persons who are probably interested on this site, I'll quote the five relevant portions of section 3 of the 14th Amendment and indicate what Trump's arguments are in [square brackets] as to each portion, plus a sixth overall argument. Whether or not Trump participated in an "insurrection" was not really discussed at all.
"No person shall . . .
hold any office . . . [The provision only bars holding an office, not running for election for an office. This is reinforced by the last sentence of section three that allows Congress to remove the holding office bar, which they could do after an election and which they historically did many times after the Civil War.]
under the United States . . . [The presidency is not an office "under" the United States, but is the supreme office of the United States executive branch.]
who, having previously taken an oath, . . . as an officer of the United States . . . [The president is not an "officer". Under other parts of the Constitution he is the one who appoints all officers, and he obviously doesn't appoint himself; he is elected. Hence "officer" only applies to appointed officials not elected officials.]
to support the Constitution . . . [Unlike the Constitutional oath administered to other people in government, the prescribed presidential oath does not use the specific words "to support".]
shall have engaged in insurrection . . . ." [Trump and no one else involved in the Jan. 6 event has ever been convicted or even charged under the federal insurrection statute. Hence, Trump did not engage in an insurrection.]
[Overall, states do not have authority to enforce section 3 of the 14th Amendment, individually and differently, even if all the elements have been satisfied; that would create political chaos and deprive people in states of their right to vote. Only the federal Congress can enforce section 3 via an enabling statute that will apply uniformly to every state, and Congress hasn't done that.]
Based on focus of interest manifested by their questions, the Justices are likely to vote for Trump based on some combination of the "hold any office under" argument, the "officer" argument and the "overall" argument.
Last edited by GlennMacGrady on 02/08/24 9:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/24 9:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| IMO, only the last two of Trump's arguments hold water. He has not been found guilty of insurrection and this clearly falls under the purview of congress, not the states.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/09/24 3:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Doubtless any of you who are political junkies missed the REALLY big news yesterday. Joe Biden will not be prosecuted for HIS classified documents issues. But the reason why as stated by the special counsel investigating the current President of the United States was that Biden would be unlikely to be convicted by a jury as he would be seen as a doddering well-meaning old man of diminished mental acuity. That is mostly my characterization of the special counsel's language but, trust me, I'm not cooking the books here.
Former Bernie Sanders campaign staffer Krystal Ball gives her reading of the report and what it signifies here.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K19PCMyKg7o?si=Ut5DGEgfhY8_trGa" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And even though she's a prominent face of the indie-left media, her take is pretty much an accurate characterization of the mainstream establishment media's reading of what it all means.
Look at the lead story on the New York Times this morning. I'm gifting it via this link so even if you don't have a Times subscription you can still read it here
And even though she's a prominent face of the indie-left media, her take is pretty much an accurate characterization of the mainstream establishment media's reading of what it all means.
Look at the lead story on the New York Times this morning. I'm gifting it via this link so if you don't have a Times subscription you can still read it here
But that's not the most significant part of this story for me. After the report was made public and the media tongues began to wag, and as the sun began to set over the Biden White House, Sundowner Syndrome himself decided to hold a somewhat impromptu prime-time address and press availability in order to defend himself and attack the special counsel's characterization of his mental state.
Biden looked like an angry old man but we've certainly seen worse examples of his mental decline in just the last few days. That's also not the story for me.
What I found to be absolutely JAW DROPPING (but still not the point of this piece) was the behavior and treatment of the president by the White House press corps.
It seemed (at least in the edit I saw last night) to start with Peter Doocy the FOX News reporter who is a constant daily thorn in the administration's side.
But this wasn't that.
It quickly became very clear to me that someone told the piranhas that it was finally okay for them to go ahead and start eating this president and, let me tell you, this was one HANGRY grouping of this nation's most prestigious news organizations' top correspondents. You knew these probably once idealistic journalists had been deprived of doing their actual jobs for FAR too long.
They all but ran poor Joe out of office right then and there. I'll start this (I hope) at the point where that good White House applesauce Joe likes hits the fan.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YFqDdLEa3D4?si=4-7QmhkUuY4tP127&start=322" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So I started this thread with a prediction that either Biden or Trump or both were very likely to be unavailable to voters come November. Astonishingly bad poll numbers along with some of the most uncomfortable video examples of the president's mental decline yet in the past week or so has resulted in what can only be called visible cracks in the fuselage of this Boeing Boeing gone idea that Joe Biden will ever be re-elected President of the United States. But hey, Joe. Never say never. There's always 2028.
So why am I writing any of this here today? It's all over the news. See it for yourselves. None of this is why I'm really here pounding on my laptop.
This all is presenting the likelihood of what can only be described as the Democratic Party's worst nightmare scenario.
Is it that Joe will announce that he's not seeking re-election? Nope. That's not how this is going to go down. Biden has to go now if not sooner. He has to resign the office of the presidency. Full stop. I believe that’s coming very soon.
If Biden were simply to declare he's not seeking a second term he would still be there. He would still be a story that would be running parallel to the story of whoever the Democratic Party is running at the top of their ticket. He would continue to be a doddering leader of the free world during these so very treacherous times. So, while the Democratic Party would be desperately trying to establish their replacement candidate as the story, Joe Biden's continuing mental decline would still be an issue for all of us and a competing headline for the Democratic Party’s preferred election year narrative.
Enter Kamala. Yep. There she is, the cackling nightmare we've all been dreading. But this is also the Democratic Party's worst nightmare. And here is why.
Many are the reports coming from inside the White House about how recalcitrant the vice-president has grown over the last year or so. She has been bristling at how she's being used or not used by the administration. She is reported to be one unhappy camper. Yes, she probably still laughs uncontrollably for no reason, but this shit is no longer funny for the Democratic Party because, while they will be more than happy to celebrate Kamala as the country's first female president, they do not want her to be the candidate that replaces Joe Biden on the ballot in November.
Joe Biden resigns the presidency and the Democrats and the news media celebrate the nation's first woman president. Personally, I too would love to celebrate this historic moment. I once thought Kamala Harris was a pretty sharp cookie. But no one thinks that anymore.
The Biden administration has never found a way to use her in which she doesn't end up embarrassing herself and the administration in short order. So they've hidden her away. The public has had her number since she first entered the 2020 Democratic Primary. Senator Kamala Harris of California was exposed over and over again during her short and painful primary season run as the walking, rambling, inappropriately laughing personification of an empty pants suit. VP Harris never caught on with the American public in the three years she’s been in office and the real-life VEEP's poll numbers to this very day are worse than even the ever-declining numbers not enjoyed by the president.
But now he's gone and she is president. There was no deal to be made. Ha-Ha Harris was the Vice President of the United States and the Democratic Party put her there. THAT was the deal that was made. Now they as well as the rest of us are stuck with her. Certainly someone is going to have to impress upon her the Democratic Party establishment's desire that she forego any attempt to run on her own at the top of the party's ticket in November. "No way, honey,” Someone's going to be thinking. "This silliness stops right here!"
But now (or then) behind the scenes, is where the nightmare truly begins. The party has no power over her. She's the President of the United States. If leaks from the administration and her former staffers are to be believed, and they are believed here inside my head, she probably hates every White House face she sees. And so I think President Kamala Harris will go rogue on the party that put here there. I think she will not go quietly into that good-night victory column of history as merely the first woman president of the US. I think she's going to want to hang onto what she has and try for the brass ring of being the first woman, and a woman of color at that, to be elected President of the United States.
And that, ironically, could end up being a massive nightmare for the Democrats. Best case scenario for the party is an all-California Harris-Newsome ticket and I’d be looking for that announcement even before Joe Biden can remember where he put his PJs.
The however many months Kamala Harris will actually be president could very well be a nightmare for the country and the world. Maybe not as bad as we might imagine. Maybe better than we could have hoped. But this is one pissed-off lady with a wildly inappropriate sense of humor and poll numbers somewhere down in the basement of poll numbers for public figures. I can't imagine that she'd be someone the Democratic Party can control.
Even I, who rightfully imagines this party to be the most powerful disorganization of humans in the history of the world, has to admit that once Kamala Harris is president she's going to possess, albeit probably quite temporarily, the power to do whatever the hell she wants to. And, to paraquote a familiar boast from her current boss, to anyone who doesn’t believe that, I would say, just watch her._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8947
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/09/24 7:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Biden's toast after that report and screwing up the dude's country.
Now if SCOTUS would just do us all a favor and rule in favor of Colorado (and any other states that want to keep Trump off of the ballot, maybe we could get some decent candidates to pick from. (Probably not, but I can dream, right?)
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/09/24 8:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| This would be a much more exciting election if it was anybody but Biden vs. Trump. This country is going to be in a sad state the next four years regardless of who gets elected.
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8947
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/10/24 8:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| toad455 wrote: |
| This would be a much more exciting election if it was anybody but Biden vs. Trump. This country is going to be in a sad state the next four years regardless of who gets elected. |
I agree. It really scares me where we're at right now as a country. I truly hope that we can survive the fucked up mess we're in.
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/10/24 10:15 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
| toad455 wrote: |
| This would be a much more exciting election if it was anybody but Biden vs. Trump. This country is going to be in a sad state the next four years regardless of who gets elected. |
I agree. It really scares me where we're at right now as a country. I truly hope that we can survive the fucked up mess we're in. |
The fact that neither party can stand up to them and say "please don't run" is sad. I'd settle for any other two candidates except for these two again.
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/22/24 9:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Tulsi Gabbard as Dumps VP? Who's worse, Gabbard, Tim Scott or DeSantis?
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/04/24 1:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that states don't have the authority to remove candidates from the ballot under the "insurrectionist clause" of the 14th amendment
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/04/24 2:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that states don't have the authority to remove candidates from the ballot under the "insurrectionist clause" of the 14th amendment |
Yes, as anyone with common sense could predict, the Court specifically held that: “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency”. (But states can enforce Section 3 with respect to state offices.)
Otherwise, "The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct . . . . The 'patchwork' that would likely result from state enforcement would 'sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States' as a whole . . . ." |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/04/24 2:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| We already have a patchwork of eligibility for nearly all candidates. They'll be on the ballot in one state and not in the next.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/05/24 4:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
And then, there's The Black Voters. I wish any/all of the people in the pics could find a voice with the media to denounce the abuse of their images.
Interesting to see how the ethnic minorities' sentiments - Blacks, Latinos, Natives, Arabs, Jews, etc. - really will flow in this election cycle.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
|
|
