US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

I see you don't remember Cash for Clunkers, in which the feds paid people to destroy perfectly good automobiles to try and "jump start the economy" and "go green" at the same time. They are and will be that wildly stupid.

I was too young to really take note of it in 2009, but I have since become well aware of it. Its the reason I highlight a mandatory version of it as peak stupid - If it worked once voluntarily, it'll work even better as a mandatory program, and they've got all the vehicle registrations they need to ensure compliance.

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

I see you don't remember Cash for Clunkers, in which the feds paid people to destroy perfectly good automobiles to try and "jump start the economy" and "go green" at the same time. They are and will be that wildly stupid.

I vividly remember the Cash for Clunkers fiasco and I’m convinced that the end game was to price working class people out of being able to own cars. I had been laid off from my engineering gig and was scratching by sorting out junk cars and flipping them (I was that guy on Craigslist saying “I buy junk cars”).

The stuff I was able to find and sort was really sketchy. Whereas a few years before you could lay hands on a serviceable vehicle, put a weekends worth of work in it and then flip it. But the government had intentionally inflated the low priced vehicle market, locked people who probably couldn’t afford it into a high interest monthly note and then taken low priced vehicles and intentionally destroyed the engines (so you couldn’t even transplant them into another vehicle).

Let’s face it, for a lot of people spending $400 on a junkyard engine and dropping a grand to have it transplanted into their current ride is a better financial decision than taking out a $20k note at 16%.

They didn’t just dry up the sub-1000 car market, they did their best to make it as unaffordable as possible to service your existing automobile.

Damned near a decade and a half later it still pisses me off.

A econ buddy told me he believes this will be similar to the recession of the 1970's. So even more stagflation, just with shittier music and no bell bottom jeans. Oh and a government body that don't give a flying rats ass about trying to fix anything as they focus on leeching what they can to their personal slush funds and bitching about Trump some more.

Are we getting 8-tracks back though?

I was too young to really take note of it in 2009, but I have since become well aware of it. Its the reason I highlight a mandatory version of it as peak stupid - If it worked once voluntarily, it'll work even better as a mandatory program, and they've got all the vehicle registrations they need to ensure compliance.

They’ll pry the keys for my 61 Buick Convertible from my cold dead hands.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

Just more news about American priorities right now:

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1544339824974254081

Biggest concern via Monmouth poll:
33% inflation
15% gas prices
9% economy
6% bills/groceries
5% abortion
3% guns
3% health care
3% unemployment
2% tuition costs
2% housing/rent
2% safety/crime
1% civil rights
1% climate change
1% coronavirus
1% education
1% illness

 

[teriyakiburns]

The one that got me, about our equivalent of cash for clunkers, was a whole field filled with perfectly serviceable land rovers. Those things should have lasted until the end of the world... or until the timing chain broke and destroyed the entire engine, but before that happens, they're indestructible. Just need hitting with a hammer every so often. Crying shame.

 

[mandatorylurk]

Did Monmouth purposely leave immigration off?

 

[BONE_Buddy]

Did Monmouth purposely leave immigration off?

Here's the link to the study:

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_070522/

 

[MuuMuu Bunnylips]

Did Monmouth purposely leave immigration off?

Nobody likes immigration - it was taken as unnecessary to mention.

 

[FunPosting101]

Just more news about American priorities right now:

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1544339824974254081

Biggest concern via Monmouth poll:
33% inflation
15% gas prices
9% economy
6% bills/groceries
5% abortion
3% guns
3% health care
3% unemployment
2% tuition costs
2% housing/rent
2% safety/crime
1% civil rights
1% climate change
1% coronavirus
1% education
1% illness

The really important thing about this list is that the first four items are basically and unarguably the same item: The Economy. Meaning that 63% of the country is concerned about one very specific issue with abortion and guns being a very, VERY distant second and third respectively. You could also argue that unemployment, tuition costs, housing/rent and possibly health care are also part of the economy issue, which makes things even worse for the Democrats, honestly.

The bottom line is that pushing for Abortion and Gun Control really isn't going to work out for the Dems as far as the mid-terms go.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

Reddit and CNN are freaking out about the definition of the word Legislature:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/politics/independent-state-legislature-theory-what-matters/index.html

(CNN)The US Supreme Court is on a tear remaking the way Americans live.
It cut back states' abilities to regulate the carrying of guns.
It gave states the power to outlaw abortion.
It undercut the power of the Environmental Protection Agency and other government agencies to regulate polluters.
Next up could be a complete re-imagining of American democracy, where, if a legal theory based on the word "legislature" is adopted by the Supreme Court, state lawmakers could, in theory, have new power to ignore voters and pick presidents.
The conservative-majority court has agreed to hear a North Carolina case that pits the state's GOP-controlled legislature against state courts that threw out congressional maps they said were gerrymandered.
Here's what to know:

What's the independent state legislature theory?​

The Constitution refers specifically to the "legislature" in each state determining the time and manner of federal elections.
Backers of the "Independent State Legislature Claim" argue that since the Constitution doesn't name other parts of state government -- including courts -- they should have no power to check the legislature on the subject of federal elections. Even if a state's constitution or laws give power to courts or a governor, the theory argues legislatures should be able to ignore them.


The seeds for this idea, according to the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, come from a concurring opinion by then-Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election.

Why is this coming up now?​

The congressional map drawn by North Carolina's GOP-controlled legislature to benefit Republicans was thrown out by the state Supreme Court earlier this year. While the state is politically split, the legislature's map would likely have resulted in Republicans picking up two congressional seats. The state courts ultimately adopted a more even map drawn by experts that could result in Democrats gaining a seat in North Carolina. Republican lawmakers in the Tar Heel State want the US Supreme Court to allow them to ignore the state court and use the GOP-friendly map for future elections after this year's midterms.

What's the most-extreme scenario?​

Here's what CNN's Ariane de Vogue and Gregory Krieg wrote: "If the theory is embraced by the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority, critics say, rogue legislators would be freed to act without any constraints by courts in their states."
The Washington Post editorial board pointed out Tuesday that the Supreme Court, which has already said it lacks authority to address gerrymandering, may now take that power away from state courts as well. The end result, according to the Post: "...state legislatures — their own makeup the result of heavy gerrymandering — could contort congressional districts at will to ensure one party has the advantage, playing with how much every individual's vote really counts."

What's the argument in favor?​

The text of the Constitution matters, even if this new interpretation unsettles US democracy.
"The Elections Clause does not give the state courts, or any other organ of state government, the power to second-guess the legislature's determinations," the Republican lawmakers argue in the case.
Here's an extremely detailed scholarly article friendly to the idea of independent state legislatures by Florida State law professor Michael Morley.

Why is this theory gaining traction now?​

Evan Bernick, a law professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law, has written a new book focused on the 14th Amendment. He told me in an email that this theory "taps into a tradition that is (unfortunately) as old as the Founding but has taken on new life in recent years. This is a tradition in which only a subset of the people are allowed to rule and the rest are disregarded as somehow less than truly 'the people.'"

Who would benefit if the Supreme Court adopts this doctrine?​

Republicans would. While Democrats currently hold slim majorities in the federal legislature, Republicans have a clear advantage at the state level, where they control more than 60% of state legislatures.

What does the Constitution mean by 'legislature?'​

I talked to Vikram Amar, dean of the law school at the University of Illinois. He recently published an article along with his brother, Akhil Amar of Yale Law School, dissecting and trashing the notion of independent state legislatures as "rubbish."
He argued that conservative justices who view themselves as originalist interpreters of the Constitution's text cannot legitimately foist this new doctrine, which he refers to in shorthand as "ISL," onto the country.
Plus, the people writing the Constitution had a more expansive view of the term "legislature" that's in line with allowing courts to protect the rights of voters in their states.
"It's inconsistent with the practices of state legislatures and state constitutions in 1787, and it's flouting 100 years of clear precedent from 1916 all the way to 2019," Amar said of ISL.

Legislatures ignoring courts. Why does this sound familiar?​

Supporters of former President Donald Trump riffed on the doctrine as they proposed GOP-controlled legislatures in key states ignore the 2020 presidential election results and simply appoint their own slate of electors to do an end-run around the election he lost and keep Trump in the White House. Amar referred to this plan as "ISL on steroids."
But that could be reality if the Supreme Court were to fully embrace ISL. Amar threw out a hypothetical where a legislature simply decided before an election it would not be bound by the voters and then put forward its own slate of electors.
"If you buy ISL, they can do that," Amar said. "If you don't buy ISL, then they probably can't do that because in most states, the state constitution will say that the electors are selected by the people."

Do voters often disagree with their legislatures?​

You could argue that since legislatures are picked by voters, they should not be encumbered by state courts in the presidential selection process. Courts, after all, are less accountable to voters than legislators.
On the other hand, voters have routinely voted for a president other than the party that controls their legislature. President Joe Biden won the White House because multiple states with GOP-controlled legislatures in 2020 -- Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, for example -- picked him over Trump.

What is the role of gerrymandering in all of this?​

Amar argued state legislatures are heavily gerrymandered, often giving one party more control over a state than it has support among citizens.
"You may have the hearts and minds of 40% of the state, but if you currently control the legislature, you can distribute that 40% of support you have so that you win 60% of the districts reliably," he said.

Is this the new form of democracy?​

A complete re-interpretation of the Constitution to give legislatures superpower over elections would be extreme. But there is an increasingly open opposition to the idea that voters should be calling the shots. Politicians seem to have no problem favoring the idea that only voters they agree with should be calling the shots and voters they disagree with should be blocked.
In a somewhat related vein, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who effectively created the conservative Supreme Court majority, has essentially promised a Republican-controlled Senate would not confirm a Supreme Court nominee for a Democratic president chosen by voters.

What will the court do with the independent state legislature theory?​

CNN's de Vogue noted in March that four Supreme Court justices -- Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- "expressed some sympathy in three different disputes for the notion that state courts had overstepped their boundaries when resolving lawsuits about rules for elections."
Amar told me Kavanaugh has been notably quiet more recently.
Plus, there is some question about the views of the newest conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett.
What is for sure is that the high court will be directly considering this theory in its next term.

apparently legislature means legislature + judicial now. Better tell the SCOTUS that they're part of congress

the exact quote from the constitution:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 

[NyQuilninja]

Poor people don't run out to buy a brand new car because of a $1000 subsidy. They were burning up perfectly good middle-class cars, even saw some BMWs getting crushed. It was a retarded scheme to "stimulate" the auto industry and get rid of "dirty" vehicles from the late 90s and early 00s (vehicle exhaust has been a negligible part of our air for decades now). And it worked! Inexpensive, older used cars became very difficult to find in short order.

I just said that. And I never said poor people went out and bought new cars afterwards. However they did help greatly by turning in vast number of cars for quick cash. Now good luck finding a used under 10k that runs well. Read the post next time

 

[DavidS877]

This topic is a personal gripe of mine as people buy cars without realizing the cars connect to mobile networks to transmit data back to the manufacturer so there's yet another massive digital profile being made on people without their knowledge. Now the term being used a lot is "telematics" and "smart cars" are being pushed a lot but the truth about "smart cars" is it's just another vector to literally spy on you, to include your phone contacts when you connect your phone via bluetooth, as well as how you drive, where you drive, and when you drive. I've no doubt that driving fingerprinting is a thing at this point though it may not be centralized fingerprinting yet. eg Ford may know it's you driving whether you're in a sedan or pickup but if you hop from a Chevy to a Ford neither would know, presumably

Not if you open the box and rip out the Cellular Modem Module. Admittedly mine is a 2016. I'm at a bit of a crossroads, I want the fancy things like adaptive cruise control but I know the newer models likely won't tolerate being disconnected. I may just go all in with electric once they hit 400 miles.

 

[Aidan]

Not if you open the box and rip out the Cellular Modem Module. Admittedly mine is a 2016. I'm at a bit of a crossroads, I want the fancy things like adaptive cruise control but I know the newer models likely won't tolerate being disconnected. I may just go all in with electric once they hit 400 miles.

The gripe isn't just the cars tracking, it's that most people are completely unaware it's a thing. You can take yours out (for now) which is all well and good but everyone else is an unwitting victim, even those who think they have no online presence.

 

[Sweet and Savoury]

ScotUS votes for things the Lib-Left likes = Yay! It's doing it's job and is a valued part of American Life

SCotUS votes for things the Lib-Left doesn't like = Boo! It's a terrible institution that needs to be regulated or eliminated and it's justices need to be disbarred!

I wonder if the Lib-Left can even recognize hypocrisy at this point?

 

[George Floyd Sneed]

I remember the good old days when random judges in Honolulu or Portland would file a nationwide injunction for something Trump wanted and that being celebrated versus the apparent tyranny of the SCOTUS. I guess they prefer one random ass judge making the decisions.

I’m convinced that the end game was to price working class people out of being able to own cars.

Futurists for decades have obsessed over the idea of reducing our need for cars. I’ve seen presentations about how electric vehicles will usher in “equitable” transportation where for most people, it’s either carpooling, taking the bus, or just going without. There will be a Cash for Clunkers 2 moment where all ICE vehicles will get junked or else you have to pay carbon taxes, risk losing your car insurance, or require a special permit or waiver to own a gas or diesel vehicle. They will never outright ban them but they will make it cost prohibitive to own one.

The bottom line is that pushing for Abortion and Gun Control really isn't going to work out for the Dems as far as the mid-terms go.

Hopefully they ignore those polls and go all in on it. What matters to them is what’s on their Twitter feed and Buzzfeed articles. It reminds me of 2016 when Bill was telling Hillary to at least remotely pretend to care about the Upper Midwest and rust belt and her refusing because her faggot campaign manager thought Texas was in play.

 

[Beavis]

The Biden admin won’t cop to a recession even after a second quarter for negative GDP.

“I don’t care what anyone says we’re not in a recession. We may be in a depression but not a recession!

The really important thing about this list is that the first four items are basically and unarguably the same item: The Economy. Meaning that 63% of the country is concerned about one very specific issue with abortion and guns being a very, VERY distant second and third respectively. You could also argue that unemployment, tuition costs, housing/rent and possibly health care are also part of the economy issue, which makes things even worse for the Democrats, honestly.

The bottom line is that pushing for Abortion and Gun Control really isn't going to work out for the Dems as far as the mid-terms go.

Stuff like gun/abortion rights go to the wayside when you're banging your head against the wall trying to make the math work to feed your kids, pay your mortgage, and have enough gas to get to work.

 

[Sekirodiealot]

Here is the clip of Rogan on Lex Fridman's show talking about Trump, where he also says Joepedo is a walking corpse but like a Never Trumper he just can't say T-Bone is better and things were better 4 years ago:

Rogan's teeth are making it look like he's taking some meth with that ayahuasca or whatever he fucks with. But tl;dr of Rogan's position is more "Spotify wouldn't let me interview him," and in being called on his previous interviews of people like Alex Jones by Fridman, he just tries to say "that wouldn't effect national politics." It's clear he doesn't want the shit that came to him with anti-vax doctors on his show, on top of when Jimmy Fallon had Trump on and shook his hair and humanized him at the end of the 2016 campaign. The midget still thinks the Trump campaign had dealings with Russia, he's in such denial to take an L.

I think Fridman talking to Trump would be a good podcast because Trump's grandson is autistic and he could navigate Lex well. Let Michael Malice be there too for extra shits and giggles.

It's weird to remember the media pounding jimmy fallon for treating trump like a person.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Well, you see, it's racist, because Blacks are too stupid to know how to get ID, and since they still are able to vote (as long as they vote for the democrats) despite being effectively brainless cattle only concerned with violence, mindless consumption and having sex (sometimes consensually), we can't require ID because it would prevent these subhumans from being able to vote (for democrats).

In reality blacks are just fine with finding ID and in fact find it somewhat offensive the democrats would suggest they can't, but the REAL reason, left unspoken, is Voter ID laws would prevent a lot of the left's little tricks that they use to "make things fair" (ensure Democrats win) and "get out the vote" (if they vote democrat) and "fight the Republican's attempts at stealing elections" (which exist only in the left's minds as a justification to steal elections).

It does make you wonder, how many state and local elections since the modern era began after the end of World War 1.

Were legitimate or just rigged elections filled with ballot stuffing and good old boy politics and other horseshit because they still want to use the "honor system" or "trust me bro I am american" system.

Almost every nation considered part of the "1st world" or "developed world" have Voter ID laws while Democrats still using that old trope, that probably even shocked a lot of other non white voters surprised at the level of nigger worshipping excuses that liberals will sink to.

There is also the aspect of illegal aliens voting as well, that Voter ID laws would generally stop.

Blacks can't even get a Social Security card or other welfare gibs like SSI without an ID of some kind as well.

 

[George Floyd Sneed]

Were legitimate or just rigged elections filled with ballot stuffing and good old boy politics and other horseshit because they still want to use the "honor system" or "trust me bro I am american" system.

You had political bosses in cities who gave money to a bunch of micks or wops who are really good with their hands to find 10,000 votes in their precinct for a candidate. No questions were asked and they were able to come up with it. The idea of election integrity is mostly just that, an idea. Joe Kennedy notoriously cut a deal with the Kansas City mafia for JFK to secure Missouri and the election in 1960. Nixon knew it happened but cucked because he thought it’d cause a constitutional crisis (he was probably right).

 

[9Style]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/06/desantis-starter-disciplined-trump-nixon-danger-democracy/

 

[teriyakiburns]

It's weird to remember the media pounding jimmy fallon for treating trump like a person.

Treating Ultra Mega MAGA Orange Hitler as a real person might legitimise his evil, disgusting ideas about, uh, scaling back US interventionism and improving relations in the middle east? Wait...

You had political bosses in cities who gave money to a bunch of micks or wops who are really good with their hands to find 10,000 votes in their precinct for a candidate.