GeorgiaDon

If unconstrained greed is such a good thing, I guess we can call you a fan of Alex Murdock.  Sensible people realize there needs to be limits to greed. When people build their fortune facilitated by a society that provides them with an educated work force, infrastructure that allows them to access their supply base and get their products to market, and on and on, yet claim they shouldn’t have to help pay for any of that, they are worse than the mythical welfare queen they so fear.

18 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure, pretty much nobody is going to pay extra from the goodness of their heart. Hence, asking for a proper taxation structure that allows for a vibrant and healthy society is not really envy.

 

Do you really think Jeff Bezos would not have built Amazon if he had ended up with only $150 billion?

When MAGA types are asked about the mythical "Again"  time they want to return to, they generally vaguely refer to the post-WWII years.  Back when Men were Men (or cowboys, or test pilots), women knew their place (baking cookies while barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen), and the color line was in full force.  Another interesting aspect of MAGA dream time is that during the Eisenhower Administration the top marginal income tax rate, which applied to income above $200,000 ($400,000 for couples) ($200,00 in 1954 dollars is equivalent to $2.3 million today), was 91% (!!!).  Of course, that was the taxes applied to the portion of income above those limits.  A couple making $465,000 would have paid an effective tax rate of 75%. (source)

So I'm curious, if there is any truth to the argument that expecting the very wealthy to pay anything more than an incredibly low tax rate would result in them refusing to invest in business, leading to the collapse of American society, how is it that those years of 90% tax rates are the very same years that are held up as the best years in America's history?

And Brent, I'll see your "envy" and raise you "greed".

"Nutty" is in the eye of the beholder.  I consider limiting what is possible in the legal realm to laws closely similar to laws that were in effect in 1791 (when the 2nd was passed), to be completely "nutty", or more to the point insane.  We will see how far Thomas and Alito want to take us in a couple of months when the court rules on US vs Rahimi, but the indication so far is that because domestic abuse was legal three hundred years ago, domestic partners today are ineligible for protection from "gun nut" boyfriends and spouses.  I find it nutty, or even insane, that any "originalists" could think that that is a good idea.

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

...

The newly proposed law in IL, House Bill 3239, will be interesting to follow. The bill requires one to obtain a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) card. That requires a background check. To purchase a gun one must obtain permission from local law enforcement, and attend an 8-hour training class.  New Gun Law Requires Triple Background Checks and Mandatory Training (msn.com)

The FOID is done by the State police. ...

Good ideas I think, but I'm pretty sure they weren't doing all that in 1776 so it won't take long for Thomas and Alito to take a big stinky dump all over the idea. 

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Works for me. While Willis is probably the more competent, I think that Wade is a little less tainted, because he wasn't the one in power.

Because my opinion matters... 

Wendy P.

Your opinion always matters.

However, if Willis takes herself off the case, that would mean taking her entire prosecution office off the case.  That would require reassigning the case to a different prosecutor's office elsewhere in the state, which would mean that new prosecutor (if anyone would agree to take the case) would start all over, beginning with reviewing everything and deciding what charges (if any) to pursue.  Everything would be delayed by many months at a minimum, and it might well never get to trial.

OTOH Wade could be replaced and the prosecution would continue through Willis's office, likely with not much delay.

21 minutes ago, kallend said:

What description is appropriate for someone who wants a proven FRAUD and LIAR to be President of the USA?

A MAGAt?

Lord of the Flies?

I totally did not see how Taylor Swift pulled off that last touchdown!  She is that good!

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

I think the SCOTUS hearing was always going to be about how to find the most expedient off-ramp.

Unlike Bush v Gore, apparently.

2 hours ago, jakee said:

It’s weird isn’t it. Biden forgets the name of a General he used to work with, while Trump forgets who his own wife was, and Biden comes out sounding worse. 
 

Hell, I’m half his age and I couldn’t reel off the names of all the people I worked with 8 years ago. 

It's like a Trump superpower.  Somehow he sets the bar for himself so low a cockroach couldn't crawl underneath it, and when he meets that low standard his minions think he is a genius.  Everybody else is expected to be superhuman, never getting tired or frustrated or confused about anything, otherwise they are a doddering old fool.  WTF.

Biden has long been known for verbal mixups.  These likely result from the fact that he has overcome a serious stutter, so his verbal processing is more convoluted in his brain that those of us who have not had to contend with that issue.  Voters will have to decide what concerns them more, the occasional gaff such as saying Mexico when you mean Egypt, or Trump repeatedly confusing Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi, or insisting that he ran against and beat Obama, or that Washington won the Revolutionary War by taking out British airfields, and on and on.

I do wish the Ds had come up with a younger, more dynamic candidate.  I think Biden has done a pretty good job, considering all the obstacles and crises he has had to contend with, but at this point he looks and sounds really old.  That is superficial appearances, but it unnecessarily concedes some ground to Trump.  I hope it doesn't turn out to be like Ginsberg hanging on a little too long.

1 hour ago, billvon said:

 This is why you have to attribute quotes that you didn't write yourself.

Plagiarism is a career-ending offense, if not a capital offense, if done by a liberal, a member of a minority, or an educated elitist.  It is a badge of honor for MAGA types.

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Nah, I think he's just burnt out.

Getting too hot will do that to you.

It would be informative to see who wants to hear the appeal, and who does not.  Unfortunately we usually don't get to see how individual justices vote on these things.

I doubt that his legacy is really almost done.  I hope that what we are seeing happen, which provides much of the "dark energy" that Trump is channeling, is a convulsive last gasp of the old attitudes that were so inflamed by Obama's election.  I sometimes wonder how much people's values can really change as they age.  If you were raised immersed in racist ideals, can you really leave those behind or do people just learn how to disguise it?  Anyway I think fewer and fewer people have grown up surrounded by Jim Crow values, although I know there is still some of that in circulation.  Real change takes generations.

19 hours ago, richravizza said:

... The freedom loving folks having a collective memory of lockdowns and school closures will get it ...

Well, except for the Herman Cain Award recipients of course. 

Less dramatic than assassinations perhaps, but under the scenario Trump is proposing an outgoing president could openly sell pardons or even top secret military information to the highest bidder, as long as there wasn't enough time left in his term to impeach and convict him.  On January 18th he could advertise "going out of business: pardons for sale for only $100,000" and no-one could do anything about it.

9 minutes ago, kallend said:

Half of the US population has IQ < 100

I don't agree with the insinuation that only stupid people support Trump.  I think there are a lot of reasonably smart people who are more concerned about power and inflicting their priorities on the country than they are about democracy or political/legal "norms".  People who see the Handmaid's Tale as aspirational rather than dystopian, such as Michael Johnson.  Or people like Ted Cruz or Steve Bannon, who seem (to me anyway) to seek to take advantage of the chaos Trump creates to enhance their own wealth or power.

He's a never-Trumper.

Tool of the deep state.

In George Soro's pocket.

If the choice is binary, either someone is absolutely perfect or irredeemably corrupt, it seems only perhaps Winsor passes the test.  As an imperfect person, I tend to see shades between the two extremes.

I have learned things here, or at least become more aware and understanding of some other points of view.  Even if I still disagree with that point of view, I may learn that it isn't as unreasonable as I first thought.  It's difficult to discuss some topics at work, and anyway people at work (and my friends too) mostly are academics, and so they tend to lean a certain way.  There are a couple who are quite conservative, but I learned long ago that it is best to avoid discussing certain topics with them, and we get along well as long as those topics are avoided.  Same-sex marriage, for example, has nothing to do with my work, so it would be stupid to wreck a friendly and productive work partnership over an irrelevant disagreement where we will never change each other's minds.  For the same reason I would never bring up these topics at the drop zone.  On the other hand I can come to Speaker's Corner and hear a variety of opinions about a lot of topics from people who are for the most part well read and quite articulate.  Sometimes quite amusing as well!  Even BH occasionally prompts me to go look things up and develop a counter-argument, even if I don't always end up posting it.  A very few people would post nothing but irritating drivel, but putting them on "ignore" makes the place much more entertaining.

1 hour ago, billvon said:

But god forbid there's a RAINBOW at Target!  Then it's the woke drag-queen agenda shoving their filth down your kid's throat!

But what about an actual rainbow, in the sky?  Does that mean God has a woke drag-queen agenda?  If God was MAGA, wouldn't "rainbows" be red, white, and blue?

They'll just say that's all locker room talk.  Don't you have a sense of humor?  Also, all "real men" talk like that.

In some of the reports on this, it was alleged that the "friend" was disappointed when the F Zeigler didn't show up, as she was "mostly in it for Bridget".  She told the M Zeigler that she wasn't interested, but the M Zeigler didn't take "no" for an answer.  If true, there was a history of FF interaction.

17 minutes ago, billvon said:

 And even a far right Supreme Court is going to have trouble with the idea that a woman can be jailed for saving her own life.

I doubt that Thomas and Alito and maybe Gorsuch would have any problem with it. 

I'd really like to see the woman's lawyers show up dressed in Handmaid's Tale regalia.

17 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

One interesting take on a Trump presidency; and, I am not in total agreement:  As a lawyer, however, I’m more at ease. The Trump presidency won’t be an extension of the Miss Universe pageant or “The Apprentice.” He can’t fire Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Sen. Elizabeth Warren or the rank-and-file working for the EPA or the State Department. 

The Founders prepared us for this threat | The Daily World

Jerry Baumchen

The linked article is from November 2016.  Back then Trump was constrained by the guardrails (or hockey pads, or whatever) because he was both lazy and ignorant of how the levers of power actually worked.  He may still be lazy, and stupid, but now he is surrounded by entities such as the Heritage Foundation who are neither lazy nor ignorant, and they are determined to remake the country as a Frankenstein chimera of 1850s law/society and Christian nationalism.