Jump to content

Ranxerox

HERO Member
  • Posts

    3,091
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Ranxerox

  1. 1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

     

    In other words, forming a parliamentary coalition.  I don't know.  NYT's running updates included thoughts on both Reps voting for Jeffries...never happen, would be considered a betrayal...and Dems voting for McCarthy...same.  NOT on Dems voting for someone centrist, but the betrayal notion's probably still there.

     

    It's also unclear if the coalition could be kept happy...but that's probably going to be an issue no matter what.  

     

    Yes, many Republicans will view it as a betrayal to vote for any Speaker who is being supported by the Democrats.  However, the betrayal won't have the same sting if the vote is being cast for a respected Republican instead of a Democrat.  As for the Democrats, they won't be happy to vote for a Republican but otherwise they will have no say at all in the next Speaker, so it is under the circumstances a win for them.

  2. 5 hours ago, Old Man said:

    Second round failed to elect anyone as well.

     

    As fun as this is to watch, there's less than zero chance that enough Republicans defect for Jeffries to become Speaker.  And the House literally cannot function at all without one.  So ultimately we're left with a choice between McCarthy, Biggs, and Jordan, any of whom would be disastrous.  But if it takes a couple weeks of high profile humiliation and infighting before it finally happens, I'm completely okay with that.

     

    Centrist Republicans Don Bacon of Nebraska and Fred Upton of Utah have both expressed some interest in making a bid for the Speakers gavel if McCarthy proves unable to win it.  For this to work they would need to secure the support of Democrats as well as moderate Republicans.  Neither of these men would do anything to advance Biden's agenda, but they could be counted on handle basic governance and they would be able to completely ignore the desires of crazies on the red side of the aisle.  So, IMHO, the Democrats would do well to take them up on their offer if either of them throws their hat into the ring. 

  3. 7 hours ago, csyphrett said:

    The last I heard it hasn't reached the supreme court. The two guys suing in Texas are mad about the money limits, and the Republican states suing are mad that some of their debt collection agencies might be out of business and it will hurt their economies.

    CES 

     

    It will likely take years to reach SCOTOS.  That is if it ever does.  However, being decided by a lesser court is still being decided by a court.

  4. 9 hours ago, csyphrett said:

    I think that he is a trumpist and doesnt have a clue. One day I was telling another guy about the school debt relief being held up in Texas because one of the guys suing was because he didn't get enough money. Paul was like this was rendered unconstituational and it was executive action. When I tried to tell him he was wrong, he was like no you're wrong.

     

    But if you do a search for the law on this you get the congressional record here:

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2034

    When you look at the status, the president signed on it

    CES    

     

    Paul is right.  It is an executive action.  If you look at the legislative tracker given by the your link, it list the bills status as being "Introduced".  It hasn't even been voted on, much less passed by the House and the Senate. So, Biden may have used this bill as the template for his executive action, but that doesn't make it a law.

     

    As for whether or not the executive action is unconstitutional, that is for the courts to decide.

     

     

  5. 1 hour ago, slikmar said:

    Been catching up on Stargirl. Another reason for hating the takeover from Nextar of the WB brand. Stargirl has remained really good, to me at least. It has retained that hopefulness we saw in the earlier Supergirl series and apparently two of the last season episodes (before they realized they were making their last season, so might not have wasted the episodes) were setting up an Infinity Inc. series with Jade, Obsidian and Sand as members and The Shade on his redemption run mentoring them. but alas, not to be.

     

    Yeah, I liked Stargirl too and thought the last season was surprisingly strong. I say surprisingly strong, because most CW shows are going badly down hill by their 3rd season.

  6. 6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

    Okay, I have an honest question for American Herophiles.

     

    Peru's Dina Boluarte was sworn in as Peru's first woman president, after Pedro Castillo was removed following an impeachment trial over corruption. Looking over social media, I was struck by the number of people asserting this was some sort of CIA plot, and either Boluarte or Castillo is their puppet. Honestly, I hear/read that sort of comment often every time there's a political upheaval anywhere on the planet.

     

    Is it common in America to believe that agents of your government are pulling the world's strings, and are responsible  for every significant development in every other country? Because we in the rest of the world find that attitude rather pretentious, and more than a little condescending and insulting. And those who believe it, are they angry about it, or proud? Or both?

     

    It depends on your definition of common.  A sizable majority of Americans have barely any awareness that a world outside of the US borders exist much less that our government might be heavily involved out there.  Of those that are more political aware, maybe half are familiar with our nations history of meddling with other countries' internal politics and maybe a third of those see it as an ongoing problem.

     

    As for the impeachment in Peru, I would bet money that we had nothing to do with it.  Peru just doesn't have or make anything that we care about enough to orchestrate a change of government over it. 

  7. I went to see Black Panther: Wakanda Forever yesterday.  Excellent performances by all involved and Ryan Coogler is a heck of a director.  Even though the movie clocks in at over two and a half hours, it doesn't have a wasted minute (though on the dark side that does make finding a time to run to the restroom hard).

     

    However, the BP2 isn't one Marvel's action comedies, so if you go to MCU movies expecting to laugh this might not be the movie for you.

     

    I am curious to hear what a Namor fan thinks about it.  They make some big changes to the character, but in other things they are surprisingly faithful to the original.

  8. 3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

     

    I wonder if California law can escalate any or all of these into hate crimes.  It might not matter;  because he's the spouse of a US official, and the assault caused serious injury (head surgery would automatically count, I would think)...that one's 30 years, in a Federal pen.  The attempted kidnapping...I can't offhand tell which sections apply.  The state charges are another whole laundry list...the big charge is, of course, attempted homicide (the head blow counts, I think, even if there was no intent to kill), but the ADW and elder abuse are nice tack-ons...up to 4 years each, and when the clear intent is to terrorize, ya gotta figure the sentences for those will be on the harsh side.

     

    This is what the far right's been promoting.  The ONLY semi-positive angle is, Pelosi's been the main, primary, consistent target for their demonization since Hilary lost, and that's been raised to (anti-) messianic vitriol ever since the Republicans lost the House...but it's *only* been her.  I think there've been a couple other issues over the last year to 18 months...but it's encouraging that it takes SO MUCH hate to actually get someone to react with violence.  The downsides are, a) the far right will make him a martyr, which will only encourage more incidents, and b)  one has to worry if this will act as an 'icebreaker' of sorts.  Perhaps not, especially if the first moves slam the jerk in jail *hard*.  

     

    IANAL, but I think that hate crimes have to involve an attempt to terrorize or intimidate a protected group, and I don't think Democratic politicians qualify.

     

    The Squad as a group, AOC in particular and Pramila Jayapal have all had to face big helpings of Republican vitriol these last four years.  However, you are right that no one has been as routinely demonized as Nancy Pelosi.

  9. 9 hours ago, Starlord said:

     

    How does removing Native children help with fossil fuel access?  Just trying to understand - are they being adopted and then later coerced into allowing land rights?

     

    The belief is that the lawyers are playing the long game. That a ruling against the ICWA would be a stepping stone on the way to rulings that would help their fossil fuel clients.

     

    It is deemed unconstitutional to make a law saying that only white people can adopt white children or only black people can adopt black children.  However, it is perfectly constitutional to make a law saying that the children of foreign nationals living in the US in the event of the loss of the parents should be sent back to the nation of the their parent if it can safely be done and does not harm the children.  

     

    Therefore, a ruling that the ICWA is unconstitutional is a legal precedent against the sovereign status of the tribes.  Precedents like that are useful when you want to argue that you should be allowed to build a pipeline across a reservation or acquire drilling rights on federal land is considered part of a tribal nation. 

  10. 2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

    I've seen no word on a 2nd season of She Hulk, and it didn't do enormously well.  I'm not sure how you follow up on turning her into a reality manipulator; remember this stuff is all canon now.  

     

     

    It is also canon that they fixed the platform so that she can't do that trick again.  So, we don't have to worry about her making a habit out of it.

  11. 2 hours ago, Pariah said:

    I read the other day that a second season has already been approved.

     

    Where did you read that?  It hasn't been officially announced, and Tatiana Maslany is saying that she does not know if there will be a second season.  Though, until such time as a second season is officially announced she would say that even if she was aware of plans for a second season.

  12. A Distracted Russia Is Losing Its Grip on Its Old Soviet Sphere

     

    tl;dr - Since invading Ukraine, Russia has been ignoring its role of providing security and stability to the Collective Security Treaty Organization.  As a result, the other members are getting into armed conflicts with one another and experiencing internal unrest, leading to China and even the US inserting themselves into the security vacuum.

  13. 9 hours ago, assault said:


    OK, I can only answer this in terms of the Australian federal system. States and Territories each have their own quirks. Also, I will use the Australian terminology of preferential voting - essentially ranked choice or instant run-off voting. This will be long.

    First of all, Australia has a different party system to the US. Parties pick their candidates through their own internal processes. There are no primaries.

    <snip> 


    Senate elections use a mix of proportional and preferential voting. Typically, that results in the election of three candidates each from the "left" and the "right". It's rare these days for any party to have a majority in the Senate - getting legislation through involves negotiation and accepting amendments.
    <snip>
    With (say) 132 candidates, most of whom you've never heard of, listing them from 1 to 132 is a chore, and fairly meaningless when you have no basis for ordering them.

    At that point, there is the option of voting "above the line" or "below the line".

    "Below the line" voting is fairly rare in practice. Basically, you chose a minimum of 12 candidates in the order in which you prefer them, and your vote is valid. Yes, you can vote for all 132 candidates this way. Or you can vote for a party candidate that's at the bottom of the list, and so on.

    "Above the line" works on the fact that the candidates are listed in columns. Even the independents. (There's an "ungrouped" column or two for people who aren't running alongside anyone else.)
     

    When you vote above the line you are allocating preferences between different columns. I think you have to choose at least six such groups. In that case, the order of candidates in each column matters - your vote goes initially to the first candidate. If they get elected, surplus votes go to the second candidate and so on.

    The maths here gets weird, and I'm not going to go into the details of quotas and such. It takes a lot longer to count Senate votes than House of Reps ones, but you can usually guesstimate the results on election night with reasonable accuracy.

    Well that's all as clear as mud, but yes, there are ways to deal with huge numbers of candidates without brain bleed or resorting to two rounds of voting.

    And "third/fourth/fifth parties" have a reasonable chance of getting elected where they have genuine support.

     

     

     

    Thank you so much for taking the time to explain Australia's system to me. 

     

    It sounds like, that for your House of Representatives  you do a have primary of sorts.  It is just a backroom primary in which most people don't get to vote.  Once upon a time, I would have decried that system as being undemocratic.  However, I know that the Republican leadership really didn't want want Trump as their candidate and would like to get rid of a number of Trump clones from their legislative ranks.   So, I am not sure where I stand on party officials deciding who gets to run and who doesn't.

     

    As for your Senate selection process, it is way too complicated for us 'Mericans. 

     

    So, I think we are probably stuck with our primaries, even though they do draw out the election process interminably.  😟

×
×
  • Create New...