Political Randomness

[Zarathud]

No, Trump never divested. He's conflicted as hell and his sons run the business under threat of being fired. Trump's "blind trust" is a sham with him knowing if he financially benefits.

[GreenGoo]

No, Trump never divested. He's conflicted as hell and his sons run the business under threat of being fired. Trump's "blind trust" is a sham with him knowing if he financially benefits.

+1.

Unbelievable conflict of interest. GOP? Sure, no problem, fill yer boots. And coffers.

[LordMortis]

No, Trump never divested. He's conflicted as hell and his sons run the business under threat of being fired. Trump's "blind trust" is a sham with him knowing if he financially benefits.

He said did. He announced while surrounded by paper and files.

[GreenGoo]

And yet somehow he didn't.

Mostly, I don't think he knows what conflict of interest means. Alt-facts, alt-meanings? Conflict of interest means exploitation for money opportunities?

[Isgrimnur]

New Jersey

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a 7-0 decision today, upheld the state Constitution’s ban against taxpayer funds being used for “building or repairing any church or churches.” In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Morris County, FFRF and member David Steketee filed suit in late 2015 against the county, challenging public grants of millions of tax dollars to repair or maintain churches. The state high court’s ruling corrected a lower court’s shocking refusal to apply the state Constitution’s plain command.

FFRF and Steketee originally protested more than $5.5 million in funding to churches since 2012 by the Historic Preservation Trust Fund. The lawsuit specifically challenged $1.04 million in allotments to Presbyterian Church in Morristown, which, in the words of the church, would allow “continued use by our congregation for worship services,” as well as disbursements to St. Peter’s Episcopal Church to ensure “continued safe public access to the church for worship.” All of the churches that received the grants have active congregations.

FFRF contended the grants violate the unambiguous command of Article I, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution that guarantees: “nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right.” This taxpayer protection predates the creation of the United States and was seen by Thomas Jefferson and other Founders as an essential guarantee to prevent the government from establishing religion and forcing citizens to support churches or religions in which they disbelieve.

The lower court ruling claimed an unprecedented exception to this admirably clear command, holding that Morris County was justified in ignoring this constitutional mandate because the funds were part of a historic preservation program. Fortunately, the state’s top court has corrected this mistake, overruling the trial court and holding that the New Jersey Constitution means exactly what it says.

[LordMortis]

Is this an example of what the right means when they use the "Tax is theft" trope?

https://www.socialsecurityworks.org/201 ... -security/

When Social Security runs a surplus, Social Security holds the funds in trust. Social Security currently has a $2.9 trillion accumulated surplus. In the guise of a so-called balanced budget amendment, 233 members of the House of Representatives just voted to pretend that the accumulated surplus does not exist.

Ninety-seven percent of Republicans just voted to steal those past contributions. They voted, in effect, to not pay back hardworking Americans when those funds will be needed to pay their earned benefits. (Ninety-six percent of Democrats voted to honor their commitment to the American people.)

Let the blaming of the Left begin

[Isgrimnur]

Yes, but it failed:

Spoiler:

233-184: Balanced budget constitutional amendment failed in House, 2/3 majority was needed for passage.

[GreenGoo]

Socialism!

[malchior]

It was a show vote for the mid-terms. It is the usual red meat for a very, very ill-informed base who loves to hear about low taxes and balanced budgets as if there typically isn't an inverse relationship at play there.

[Zarathud]

The GOP just revealed the downside of the Trump sideshow -- the House just attempted to loot Social Security to fix the hole caused by their tax cuts, but no one noticed.

[Isgrimnur]

The GOP just revealed the downside of the Trump sideshow -- the House just attempted to loot Social Security to fix the hole caused by their tax cuts, but no one noticed.

Except LM, four posts prior to yours.

[El Guapo]

This guy is a bigot *and* a special political talent.

[Moliere]

Since I can't access WaPo, is there a summary of what he did/said while there?

[Sepiche]

Since I can't access WaPo, is there a summary of what he did/said while there?

The photo, taken in 1935, depicts a woman in a dark dress shuffling down a street in Norden, Germany. A large sign hangs from her neck: “I am a German girl and allowed myself to be defiled by a Jew.” She is surrounded by Nazi stormtroopers.

D.C. Council member Trayon White Sr. (D-Ward 8) studied the image. “Are they protecting her?”

Lynn Williams, an expert on educational programs at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and White’s tour guide for the day, stared at the photo.

“No,” she said. “They’re marching her through.”

“Marching through is protecting,” White said.

“I think they’re humiliating her,” Williams replied.
...
The group paused before grainy photos of German troops executing Catholic clergy in Poland by firing squad. “Were they actually manufacturing these weapons?” White asked.

Moments later, White was nowhere to be seen.

Glazer, the rabbi, texted him to ask his whereabouts. He wrote back that he hoped to see her outside the museum but he had to leave soon for an event in Ward 8.

The tour, scheduled to last 90 minutes, was halfway done. Seven of White’s staff members stayed with the guide, who soon was showing them an exhibit on the Warsaw Ghetto. As she explained the walling in of Polish Jews, one aide asked whether it was similar to “a gated community.”

Glazer spoke up.

“Yeah, I wouldn’t call it a gated community,” she said. “More like a prison.”
...
White, it turned out, was standing alone on the sidewalk outside the museum.

“I’ll be coming back to see more of the museum. I didn’t get a chance to see the whole thing,” he said. “But I think it’s a lot of education here, a lot of synergy here between what happened to the Jewish community and the African community.”

Asked why he left the tour halfway and where he went, he said nothing and held his cellphone to his ear.

Asked whether he had reassessed his comments about the Rothschilds in light of what he had just seen, White walked east on Independence Avenue.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Since I can't access WaPo, is there a summary of what he did/said while there?

Some highlights.

The photo, taken in 1935, depicts a woman in a dark dress shuffling down a street in Norden, Germany. A large sign hangs from her neck: “I am a German girl and allowed myself to be defiled by a Jew.” She is surrounded by Nazi stormtroopers.

D.C. Council member Trayon White Sr. (D-Ward 8) studied the image. “Are they protecting her?”

Lynn Williams, an expert on educational programs at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and White’s tour guide for the day, stared at the photo.

“No,” she said. “They’re marching her through.”

“Marching through is protecting,” White said.

“I think they’re humiliating her,” Williams replied.



The tour, scheduled to last 90 minutes, was halfway done. Seven of White’s staff members stayed with the guide, who soon was showing them an exhibit on the Warsaw Ghetto. As she explained the walling in of Polish Jews, one aide asked whether it was similar to “a gated community.”

Glazer spoke up.

“Yeah, I wouldn’t call it a gated community,” she said. “More like a prison.”

The tour over, the rabbi praised White for being “very sincere in wanting to come here.” But she was perplexed by his abrupt exit.

“I do not know what happened, and I find it confusing,” she said.

White, it turned out, was standing alone on the sidewalk outside the museum.

“I’ll be coming back to see more of the museum. I didn’t get a chance to see the whole thing,” he said. “But I think it’s a lot of education here, a lot of synergy here between what happened to the Jewish community and the African community.”

Asked why he left the tour halfway and where he went, he said nothing and held his cellphone to his ear.

Asked whether he had reassessed his comments about the Rothschilds in light of what he had just seen, White walked east on Independence Avenue.

[stessier]

Edit: Never mind - don't really need it three times.

[El Guapo]

I mean really, how hard is it to just walk along the tour, then say "boy, what the Nazis did was really bad! That gave me a lot to think about, the Nazis being so bad and whatnot." You don't even have to pay attention on the tour!

[Moliere]

Cynthia Nixon Is Gaining on Andrew Cuomo

For weeks now, New York politicos have been jazzed about former Sex and the City co-star Cynthia Nixon’s insurgent campaign for New York governor. The incumbent, Andrew Cuomo, has become a villain on the party’s left even as he reportedly draws up plans to join the throng of Democrats likely to run for the presidency in 2020. Nixon, speaking stridently on topics like wealth inequality and mass incarceration, has directed her pitch squarely at those disgruntled progressives. As the New York Times reported Tuesday, she’s gained 16 points worth of ground against Cuomo in the past month, although he still holds a healthy lead, 58 percent to 27. Cuomo’s approval rating has also slipped beneath 50 percent for the first time since 2015.

[Fitzy]

I mean really, how hard is it to just walk along the tour, then say "boy, what the Nazis did was really bad! That gave me a lot to think about, the Nazis being so bad and whatnot." You don't even have to pay attention on the tour!

I would question the empathy of someone who came out of the Holocaust Museum without paying attention. What this guy did is just...wow. I grew up a typical Midwestern boy holding in emotions, no crying, and I choked up in there. We just went through on our own, it's inconceivable to me that someone could get the special attention of a tour and apparently learn not a thing.

[Holman]

Remember Pat Buchanan?

He's openly fascist now.

[Isgrimnur]

Excuse me, I think I have a copy of Death of the West I need to go throw in the trash. I don't think I ever finished reading it. And I think I got it from a dollar store.

[El Guapo]

Man, he must love A Handmaid's Tale.

[malchior]

Fantastic piece about why Democracy is dying in America.

It is a long read but it hits all the notes. Yascha Mounk just knocks it out of the park synthesizing many data points into a narrative about how money and lobbying (aka the swamp) are killing this nation. He also makes an interesting argument that independent regulatory bodies are also un-democratic which is very similar to the technocratic arguments we are seeing in Europe at the moment. I'm not 100% persuaded by them but they are worth thinking about.

[El Guapo]

Fantastic piece about why Democracy is dying in America.

It is a long read but it hits all the notes. Yascha Mounk just knocks it out of the park synthesizing many data points into a narrative about how money and lobbying (aka the swamp) are killing this nation. He also makes an interesting argument that independent regulatory bodies are also un-democratic which is very similar to the technocratic arguments we are seeing in Europe at the moment. I'm not 100% persuaded by them but they are worth thinking about.

Well, independent regulatory bodies - the commissions, essentially - were *designed* to be insulated from democracy. The concept was borne from the progressive era where the idea was to empower independent minded experts and let them figure out public policy unburdened by the pressures and populism (and ignorance) of the democratic masses. Hence why the President can't tell the commissioners of the SEC, FCC, FEC, etc. what to do, and can't fire them for the most part. They're basically indirectly democratic in that the electorate votes for the President and Senate who nominates and votes to confirm, and then they're more or less off to the races from there.

Obviously there are good and bad sides to this. It does mean that those commissions operate more professionally during, well, bad presidents. But obviously it contains some perils as well. Though even taking a negative view of those bodies, I wouldn't rank them in the top 10 in terms of threats to American democracy at the moment.

[Isgrimnur]

Which the founders did with the Supreme Court from the beginning.

[stessier]

Oops.

[pr0ner]

Diamond and Silk's hearing in front of Congress today has been amusing to say the least. Here's just one example.

[tjg_marantz]

Nothing wrong with Republicans at all...

[malchior]

This is not that surprising considering the right has waged war against the media for generations and then Trump came along and turned up the dial on the crazy.

[Kraken]

Actually, it's reality that gives them conniptions. The press is just the messenger.

[Rip]

Britain is giving us a vivid, tragic sense of how dangerous and heartless government tyranny can be once God is rejected and there is nothing between us and the government.

Ironically, this latest decision was made the same year Stephen Hawking died – 55 years after he was diagnosed with ALS (commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease) and told he had only two years to live.

Apparently, the British government learned no lessons from Hawking’s remarkable lifetime of work and achievement, which he pursued despite having to battle an extraordinarily challenging illness.

In fact, in 1985 Hawking contracted pneumonia while he was writing “A Brief History of Time,” and his wife was asked if his life should be terminated. She refused, and Hawking went on to live another 33 years and publish one of the most acclaimed books of the 20th century, which has since sold more than 10 million copies worldwide. This was all after it was suggested he be taken off life support.

Hawking should be a permanent reminder that the human spirit is more important than the human body, and that the will to live and achieve should not be destroyed by the state.

Yet in the very country that produced and nurtured Hawking, the government still ordered the removal of life support from two babies. In both cases there has been an organized alternative to government-imposed death.

Charlie Gard’s condition was potentially treatable by an experimental process in the United States. An American hospital and other organizations were willing to treat him. Supporters gave more than 1.3 million pounds (about $1.8 million) to pay for the travel and treatment.

Charlie’s parents wanted him to have the chance to live. However, the British bureaucracy took time to consider if he could go to the U.S. for treatment. During that bureaucratic process, his condition worsened. Then it was too late.

While the bureaucratic deliberation continued, Charlie’s parents and those who wanted to try to save him were told they had no right to help their own child. The child belonged to the government, and the government would decide whether he had the right to live.

This year, Alfie Evans had international support for an opportunity to live. The “pope’s hospital” – Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome – has offered to treat Alfie (as it did with Charlie). Pope Francis has publicly appealed to the British government to allow the young boy to be taken to Rome.

An air ambulance was sent to Alfie’s hospital earlier this week to bring him to the doctors who wanted to try for a miraculous cure.

What better place is there to hope for a miracle than in the pope’s pediatric hospital, which has helped many children with rare diseases?

This appeal for hope fell on the deaf ears of the state, which refused to allow Alfie’s parents to transfer their child to Rome. In fact, The Telegraph reported that despite a judge ruling that Alfie’s parents could “explore” taking the child home, doctors treating the child have been against this because they fear that “in the ‘worst case’ they would try to take the boy abroad."

In other words, the “worst case” scenario would be for Alfie’s parents to seek medical help to save their child.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/ ... state.html

[hepcat]

Rip posts yet another wall of text he pulled from any source that makes him feel like he accomplished something. Internet goes “meh”.

[GreenGoo]

Comes across as an anti-abortion screed. See, if someone as sickly and feeble as Hawking can lead such a productive and successful life, you never know who you're terminating. It might be the next Hawking.

Of course, unmentioned, is that the number of Hawkings we see are 1 per generation, and the number of poverty stricken no other choice criminals we get are in the hundreds of thousands.

But hey, playing the lottery with peoples' lives (including the parent(s)) is totally worth it. Someone has to win powerball, right?

edit: Misread the article at first.

Edit: Also, these kinds of cases are CONSTANTLY in the news in the UK. When the government controls the healthcare system and pays for it, of course the government gets to decide whether "extraordinary" efforts are going to be employed or not.

The government should simply say we can't afford it based on the likelihood of success, but if you can come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed, then we can keep going. Canadians simply cross the border into the US if/when that happens.

Also what isn't mentioned, is that there are TONS of these cases in the US, but instead of the government telling the parents that their kid is going to die, it's the hospital administrator telling them that their insurance doesn't cover it, sorry.

Like losing your kids because you're broke is somehow better than losing your kids because there is a finite amount of money to go around and the healthcare system has decided to use the money elsewhere.

In the US, it's your fault the kid can't be saved. In the UK, it's the government's fault. Who gives a shit who's to blame?

edit again: The article has an axe to grind, and that's fine. There is room for criticism of the UK healthcare system, as it's struggling. It's true that one of the children was not allowed to go the US after there were volunteers to treat him free of charge. I don't understand the hows and whys of that and on the surface it is absolutely shitty.

[Daehawk]

1. Why cant a parent be the deciding factor in their own child?

2. The child id positively going to die so why not at least allow parent to try and save their child? What is really harmed here?

The world is so full of stupidity now its difficult for anyone other than mouth breathers to live.

[Rip]

Comes across as an anti-abortion screed. See, if someone as sickly and feeble as Hawking can lead such a productive and successful life, you never know who you're terminating. It might be the next Hawking.

Of course, unmentioned, is that the number of Hawkings we see are 1 per generation, and the number of poverty stricken no other choice criminals we get are in the hundreds of thousands.

But hey, playing the lottery with peoples' lives (including the parent(s)) is totally worth it. Someone has to win powerball, right?

edit: Misread the article at first.

Edit: Also, these kinds of cases are CONSTANTLY in the news in the UK. When the government controls the healthcare system and pays for it, of course the government gets to decide whether "extraordinary" efforts are going to be employed or not.

The government should simply say we can't afford it based on the likelihood of success, but if you can come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed, then we can keep going. Canadians simply cross the border into the US if/when that happens.

Also what isn't mentioned, is that there are TONS of these cases in the US, but instead of the government telling the parents that their kid is going to die, it's the hospital administrator telling them that their insurance doesn't cover it, sorry.

Like losing your kids because you're broke is somehow better than losing your kids because there is a finite amount of money to go around and the healthcare system has decided to use the money elsewhere.

In the US, it's your fault the kid can't be saved. In the UK, it's the government's fault. Who gives a shit who's to blame?

edit again: The article has an axe to grind, and that's fine. There is room for criticism of the UK healthcare system, as it's struggling. It's true that one of the children was not allowed to go the US after there were volunteers to treat him free of charge. I don't understand the hows and whys of that and on the surface it is absolutely shitty.

So what about this part.

Charlie Gard’s condition was potentially treatable by an experimental process in the United States. An American hospital and other organizations were willing to treat him. Supporters gave more than 1.3 million pounds (about $1.8 million) to pay for the travel and treatment.

Charlie’s parents wanted him to have the chance to live. However, the British bureaucracy took time to consider if he could go to the U.S. for treatment. During that bureaucratic process, his condition worsened. Then it was too late.

While the bureaucratic deliberation continued, Charlie’s parents and those who wanted to try to save him were told they had no right to help their own child. The child belonged to the government, and the government would decide whether he had the right to live.

This year, Alfie Evans had international support for an opportunity to live. The “pope’s hospital” – Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome – has offered to treat Alfie (as it did with Charlie). Pope Francis has publicly appealed to the British government to allow the young boy to be taken to Rome.

Doesn't sound like they were asking the government to pay for it, they had raised cash and he was offered Treatment in the U.S and Rome.

[GreenGoo]

I referenced that in my last edit/sentence.

But as I said, the article has an axe to grind, and has worded things in the most damning way possible to make their point.

I suspect, but do not know for a fact, that the child was in the care of a hospital and the doctors therein, and that they simply wouldn't let him out of the hospital because being in the hospital was the only thing keeping him alive and let him live as long as he did. Whether you think it's valid that a patient in a doctor's care can be removed from a hospital by their next of kin is a different story.

There have been cases where medical treatment has been forced on a patient despite the parents wishing otherwise (typically due to religious reasons), so it's not unprecedented that the "government" overrides the parents' wishes, but obviously context matters.

If you want to actually know the answer to your question, you would have to go and read the history of the case, the details from both perspectives, and come to a conclusion for yourself. As with most of what any heavily partisan (what constitutes heavily partisan is up to the reader, I guess) media writes, this article is leading you by the nose to a specific conclusion. The truth is always more complicated than any one article can or even wants to cover.

If you read UK headlines, which I do (but not always the articles) these two kids mentioned have been in the news in the UK for the last..2 years(?) or so. The cases came one after the other (or maybe with a little overlap) so the UK media has written reams and reams on this.

As I said in my previous post, I'm not sure why they didn't release the kid so he could travel to the US. I can think of some, such as the UK doctors not feeling that the "experimental treatment" was based in science and that the hospital/doctors volunteered to treat him for free for the publicity, rather than any realistic expectation to actually help.

I don't know. You don't know. We should probably find out if we're going to continue to discuss this. It could be exactly as the Fox News article suggests, but somehow I just don't think the English are any less human than the rest of us, which would make the conclusion that the government just let the kid die out of red tape and apathy kind of unlikely.

If I bother to find out the details, I'll post them here, with sources. *if*. It's a bit of a big job to research in detail what happened for over a year with a political and medical case that was in the news constantly.

[GreenGoo]

1. Why cant a parent be the deciding factor in their own child?

2. The child id positively going to die so why not at least allow parent to try and save their child? What is really harmed here?

The world is so full of stupidity now its difficult for anyone other than mouth breathers to live.

1. Because parents endanger their childrens' lives all the time. Sometimes badly enough that the government comes and takes them away from the parents.

2. I don't know. Until the US doctors/hospital volunteered, any efforts weren't going to be free. Who gets to decide whether to spend the money or not? The one who is paying. In your country, it's often the insurance company. Welcome to reality.

You often are angry with the world based on headlines and quotes from articles. We all do it, but you seem more prone than most. The world can't be summed up in a headline or even an entire article. Something we should all keep in mind.

[Rip]

Here is the thing. There is a big difference between saying your kid will die without this and although you don't want it we are going to mandate it because we don't want to let your religious or whatever beliefs cause a child harm and saying your kid is going to die and we won't let you take them somewhere else because.....what? Because they will die? Because it won't work? It is just bullcrap.

Once you say you can't help my child then you best get the hell out of my way when I seek someone else to help them. I can't even imagine the extremes I would go through to get my child to the care I believe they needed no matter who or what stood in the way. They don't want to pay for it fine but standing in my way would be blocking the pursuit of happiness for me and my child and I wouldn't stand for it.

[Rip]

1. Why cant a parent be the deciding factor in their own child?

2. The child id positively going to die so why not at least allow parent to try and save their child? What is really harmed here?

The world is so full of stupidity now its difficult for anyone other than mouth breathers to live.

1. Because parents endanger their childrens' lives all the time. Sometimes badly enough that the government comes and takes them away from the parents.

2. I don't know. Until the US doctors/hospital volunteered, any efforts weren't going to be free. Who gets to decide whether to spend the money or not? The one who is paying. In your country, it's often the insurance company. Welcome to reality.

You often are angry with the world based on headlines and quotes from articles. We all do it, but you seem more prone than most. The world can't be summed up in a headline or even an entire article. Something we should all keep in mind.

I have no major issues with them declining to pay for it, but at that point I would remove my child from the hospital even if that meant going through some ass-hat doctors.

[Zarathud]

saying your kid is going to die and we won't let you take them somewhere else because.....what? Because they will die? Because it won't work? It is just bullcrap.

Because the false hope isn't supported by medical science? Or that the risks of treatment outweigh the chance of success? Or the provider is more interested in profit/publicity than care? That's not bullcrap, it's acting in the patient's best interests.

Once you say you can't help my child then you best get the hell out of my way when I seek someone else to help them. I can't even imagine the extremes I would go through to get my child to the care I believe they needed no matter who or what stood in the way.

Says the guy who doesn't believe in insurance and wants the ambulance to leave him to die.