Politics And Current Events

[Pavel Bure]

There is what I'd call a populist progressive movement attempting to come through. A protect America from the others (foreign farmland ownership = foreign steel ownership, along with crack downs on immigration) while also supporting many Democratic social issues in larger terms.

It goes way back to his being mayor in Braddock which still has an operational steel plant and… well mostly just that. It’s him staying consistent to his constituents.

[DigitalGypsy66]

Didn't we learn our lesson with COVID when we "discovered" how we don't make anything in this country any longer? Ventilators, masks, pharmaceuticals, microchips, etc. have all been outsourced to countries where workers have few protections and make pennies an hour.

It's not going to be easy, to be sure - I just read an article about the Biden admin's push to get a domestic microchip industry started and they can't find enough labor to actually build the microprocessors - but we have to try to do something.

[Kaiser]

This judge didn't kill themself

[count2infinity]

The company that I work for has about 50% of its business in the semiconductor industry, so it's something we monitor closely. Pre-covid, many of the big players in the industry were trying to get us to open a shop in Malaysia. Now that the chips act has passed, and the investment is starting toward making the material here rather than there, companies are consolidating a ton of their supply chain branches under our roof instead.

I don't know if any other industries learned from it, nor did some of the other industries receive the federal support that the semiconductor field did, but to point at microchips and microprocessors, not only did they learn, they acted and they're building here rather than overseas.

[Troy Loney]

Let’s go Brandon

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

re: the Epstein stuff…are we really gonna learn anything from the list? We already know Trump, Clinton, etc were on Epstein’s flights. They almost certainly did some heinous ****. But unless we get some hard evidence, nothing will really change

[count2infinity]

mimh is clearly on the list and doesn't want it released.

[Pavel Bure]

Didn't we learn our lesson with COVID when we "discovered" how we don't make anything in this country any longer? Ventilators, masks, pharmaceuticals, microchips, etc. have all been outsourced to countries where workers have few protections and make pennies an hour.

It's not going to be easy, to be sure - I just read an article about the Biden admin's push to get a domestic microchip industry started and they can't find enough labor to actually build the microprocessors - but we have to try to do something.

Samsung is currently building a MASSIVE (seriously the all caps doesn’t do it Justice) facility in Austin to build the chips. I’m sure there are other projects in the country but things do seem to be in motion already.

https://semiconductor.samsung.com/us/sa ... ny/taylor/

[CBear3]

re: Epstein
Oh yeah, anybody who ever flew on his plane or met him for dinner is going to be considered a perv. I'm actually much less certain than mimh that they all did heinous stuff, but they all will be assumed to have done heinous stuff. A man who had that much cache was bound to get the ear of many different people even if just to hear a pitch.

[AuthorTony]

A man who had that much cache was bound to get the ear of many different people even if just to hear a pitch.

Exactly. They all wanted Epstein's money and connections. Were some of them pervs? Absolutely. Were most? Highly, highly doubtable.

[Pavel Bure]

A man who had that much cache was bound to get the ear of many different people even if just to hear a pitch.

Exactly. They all wanted Epstein's money and connections. Were some of them pervs? Absolutely. Were most? Highly, highly doubtable.

It’s probably similar to Weinstein. It was a known “secret” and people ignored it because of power and money.

[Gaucho]

[count2infinity]

Whoaaaaaa…. Consequences for actions. Never thought I’d see it.

[count2infinity]

Although, he’s got no shot in Colorado, so does it really matter?

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

based on previous Republican moves, they’ll try to remove Biden from other states


which, not sure how much that matters but I guess this **** is just going to devolve from here

[nocera]

Yeah this isn’t the way. Firstly, shouldn’t he be found guilty of insurrection first? Is he even being charged with sedation or inciting an insurrection? Second, this will get overturned by the f’real SCOTUS quickly. Third, this is a slippery slope that I just can’t get behind because you know damn well conservative states (or purple states with a conservative court) will respond in kind. This is an overstep and one that will backfire spectacularly regardless of if it’s upheld or not.

[Shyster]

Very much agree with the slippery slope argument. I do not want judges basically making policy calls on who can be on the ballot because I do not trust that power to not be abused.

By its terms, the Colorado decision is stayed in effect until January, and it says it will remain stayed if the Trump campaign seeks SCOTUS review, regardless of whether that review is granted. That almost certainly means that Trump will be on any primary ballot, so the question for SCOTUS (and I don't see how the Court could not take this case) would be for the general election.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

this reads like an AI spit it out

Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, bashed the ruling and signaled that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was forthcoming.


“Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice,” Cheung said in a statement.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rcna130484

[Shyster]

As an aside, I don't like that the case even exists, but there are many juicy appellate legal issues there, including:

1. What is the standard for whether a person has engaged in insurrection or rebellion under Section 3 of the 14A?
2. Can incitement (i.e., speech alone) constitute "engaging in" insurrection or rebellion?
3. Was Trump's speech on January 6 actually incitement to insurrection or rebellion, or was is protected speech under the 1A?
4. Is Section 3 disqualification something that can be determined only through a process established by Congress?
5. Does due process require that there be a prosecution and conviction for an insurrection-related offense in order for Section 3 to apply?
6. Is the President an "officer of the United States" under Section 3?

[faftorial]

Yeah this isn’t the way. Firstly, shouldn’t he be found guilty of insurrection first? Is he even being charged with sedation or inciting an insurrection? Second, this will get overturned by the f’real SCOTUS quickly. Third, this is a slippery slope that I just can’t get behind because you know damn well conservative states (or purple states with a conservative court) will respond in kind. This is an overstep and one that will backfire spectacularly regardless of if it’s upheld or not.

The Confederate politicians were not convicted of insurrection and they were prohibited from seeking federal office after the war.

[Shyster]

The Confederate politicians were not convicted of insurrection and they were prohibited from seeking federal office after the war.

Do you have a source for that? This isn't a hostile "Source!" accusation. I'm looking for background on this topic.

I understand that a whole lot of people assumed that former Confederates were banned from office by Section 3, but there weren't many formal determinations that people actually were. That is because the Amnesty Act of May 22, 1872, provided, "that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States." So there was a fairly short window for former Confederates to be excluded by court cases before the amnesty kicked in. According to an anti-Trump organization*, there were only eight court cases in which officials were formally adjudicated to be disqualified under Section 3, and none of those produced binding SCOTUS precedent.

Multiple former Confederates did get elected after the amnesty. Confederate vice president Alexander Stephens was in the US House from 1873 to 1882 and was then elected governor of Georgia.


* https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor ... fications/

[faftorial]

The Confederate politicians were not convicted of insurrection and they were prohibited from seeking federal office after the war.

Do you have a source for that? This isn't a hostile "Source!" accusation. I'm looking for background on this topic.
* https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor ... fications/

Google says:

Were any Confederate leaders charged with treason?

None of the leading Confederate politicians or military leaders were tried for treason. Only two were indicted, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee. Only one was arrested and imprisoned, Davis. Lee was protected by General Grant.

[tifosi77]

Colorado is part of the Tenth Circuit, for which Mr Justice Gorsuch is the gatekeeper. The Tenth Circuit includes: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. If - very big if - anything comes out of this on its way to SCOTUS, notwithstanding any likely stay orders, would any other states be bound by this decision? This is a state court issue, so I don't think this would travel, but I'm not sure if/how or in what ways it might be applicable.

[faftorial]

Colorado is part of the Tenth Circuit, for which Mr Justice Gorsuch is the gatekeeper. The Tenth Circuit includes: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. If - very big if - anything comes out of this on its way to SCOTUS, notwithstanding any likely stay orders, would any other states be bound by this decision? This is a state court issue, so I don't think this would travel, but I'm not sure if/how or in what ways it might be applicable.

The CO judge put a stay on the decision so if the SCOTUS doesn't respond by election day Trump will be on the ballot.

[Shyster]

Colorado is part of the Tenth Circuit, for which Mr Justice Gorsuch is the gatekeeper. The Tenth Circuit includes: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. If - very big if - anything comes out of this on its way to SCOTUS, notwithstanding any likely stay orders, would any other states be bound by this decision? This is a state court issue, so I don't think this would travel, but I'm not sure if/how or in what ways it might be applicable.

No, this is a decision of the CO Supreme Court, not the Tenth Circuit. There's a side question of state law in the case as to whether the sections of the Colorado Election Code under which the plaintiffs sued to get Trump off the ballot would even apply to a Section 3 analysis for the 14A. Two of the three judges in dissent (this was a narrow 4-3 decision of the 7-member Colorado Supreme Court) argued that the state law doesn't apply.