|
Kale posted:I still can't get over how 15-20 years ago the Cheney brand was about as bad as it got in the GOP. War hawking, secretiveness, shooting a guy in the face and getting the guy that got shot to apologize and just generally being a well...Dick. And yet nowadays the optics of the day have them cast as the reasonable faction of the GOP that can sit down for an interview and possibly make it through without flagrantly lying or making the whole discussion about petty grievances. Again this is the Cheney family....aka the patriarch of which had his Chief of Staff leak secrets about Valerie Plames husband out of spite when he was VP, so he's no stranger to petty grievance.....and yet he and his daughter are "the good ones" in today's GOP who you'd rather see when her primary over the alternative since there's a chance she might give a gently caress about what happens to the Republic in her lifetime versus whatever horror show Trump endorsed that probably only cares about saddling up for the next culture war. It's like the difference between a petty grievance a year versus a grievance an hour. Cheney and his faction are responsible for a succesfull coup in 2000. and in terms of foreign policy they have far more blood on their hands that Trump has and probably ever will. the difference between the two factions is mostly an aesthetical one, the Cheneys have never care about the Republic and never will, they're just pissed off that Trump has meddled with their legacy.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
some plague rats posted:
You do not actually need to spring into action when you suspect someone may be feeling a moment of happiness or hope. But also, you are basically wrong about Alex Jones. The compensatory damages in this trial (that i am rounding mentally to 4m) are, broadly, reasonable. I would be surprised if even under normal circumstances they were substantially reduced. The punitive cap seems to be either 750k per plaintiff (1.5m) or 750k per plaintiff per offense (4m ish), and under normal circumstances a jury judgement starting at 40m would be somewhat unlikely to not hit the cap. Alex Jones' behavior in and related to the justice system is, to put it mildly, not normal. I will come back to this shortly. This was also in principle the least dangerous of the three immediately pending suits against Jones. Lenny Pozner was even more blatantly ill-done by Alex, and the Connecticut case is eight plaintiffs rather than two. Connecticut has a vague and much, much higher punitive cap (10x or so, by convention), and is also the state where a bunch of toddlers were murdered and Alex Jones said it was a hoax and massively defamed the parents. If we straight up extrapolate from this milder case in Texas with a Texas jury, Alex Jones is going to lose an awful lot of money. The remaining argument is, of course, that we know in our guts that rich men always win and nothing, not even demonstrable facts, matters. Alex Jones has a small problem here. The one thing judges value above all else is the exalted position of judges and their ability to make anyone in their domain do what they want. Most rich people pretend to respect the court's authority and hire lawyers who are capable of not giving their entire phone records to the plaintiff's attorney for him to have fun with. In the initial trial, over years and with approximately infinity second chances, Alex Jones proved himself so completely incapable of minimally complying with court orders that he was slammed with a default judgment. This is not common. In the damages phase, he went on his show when he was supposed to be in court and publicly called the judge a pedophile demon. This is also not common. Even aside from whatever wackiness happens in the future, including but not limited to the consequences of the Onedrivepocalypse, Alex is on the hook for a lot of money and possible further sanctions or charges for his court related bullshit. He has successfully discarded most of the judicial advantages he has as a rich white man, and replaced them with increasingly improbable ways to make judges angry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:You do not actually need to spring into action when you suspect someone may be feeling a moment of happiness or hope. But also, you are basically wrong about Alex Jones. It seems like your argument here boils down to "well he's made judges mad" which, sure, but you've in no way contradicted the assertion that the only consequences he's currently facing are financial, which to a man with his weath and more importantly ongoing revenue streams reaching the mid to high tens of millions every year, may as well be no consequences at all. Assuming he has to pay the max cap on all damages and actually does so, without any appeals or weaselling around or declaring bankruptcy etc, he's going to come out the other side as an extremely wealthy man who's still able to go around being Alex Jones. I don't buy your argument that judges value their "exalted position" above the absolute bedrock foundation of American law, which is "don't inconvenience rich white men", and I don't think even Jones is capable of overturning that, no matter what stupid poo poo he says on his show- he's playacting and everyone knows it, especially anyone who paid attention to his previous trial, where he admitted the whole thing was a charade. I mean basically your whole argument is guesswork and wishcrafting, which is fine, but not actually based on anything concrete yet. I don't think he's going to skate, but my whole argument was that if the only penalty for a crime is financial then it's legal for rich people, and unless I missed something no one is suggesting any charges that would actually, like, throw him in jail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Seems like this is going to happen without any fuckery https://twitter.com/elwasson/status/1556030786146603009
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Seems like this is going to happen without any fuckery Seriously, what did they pay Manchin to make him use his immovable dillhole super powers for sake of good(...?) this time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Seriously, what did they pay Manchin to make him use his immovable dillhole super powers for sake of good(...?) this time? The Manchin Cycle was real all along!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Seriously, what did they pay Manchin to make him use his immovable dillhole super powers for sake of good(...?) this time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm hoping that Schumer just paid him off or whatever so that they can get one thing of significance done before midterms Well, yes, but probably not how you meant https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-bill-could-be-death-blow-biden-anti-drilling-pledge-2022-07-29/ quote:...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
The IRA deal pissed off republicans so loving much that they’re apparently going to go scorched earth on Manchin in 24 so he definitely got a private island or a couple Fortune 500 board positions out of it
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:The IRA deal pissed off republicans so loving much that they’re apparently going to go scorched earth on Manchin in 24 so he definitely got a private island or a couple Fortune 500 board positions out of it
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 01:12
|
|
|
It just passed the Senate. https://mobile.twitter.com/SenatePress/status/1556061658195304450
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:It just passed the Senate. good On balance it has a lot of good stuff in it. I was worried about a Sinema shiv at the last second.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:It just passed the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:It seems like your argument here boils down to "well he's made judges mad" which, sure, but you've in no way contradicted the assertion that the only consequences he's currently facing are financial, which to a man with his weath and more importantly ongoing revenue streams reaching the mid to high tens of millions every year, may as well be no consequences at all. Assuming he has to pay the max cap on all damages and actually does so, without any appeals or weaselling around or declaring bankruptcy etc, he's going to come out the other side as an extremely wealthy man who's still able to go around being Alex Jones. Max cap in all the trials he's facing? I'm not sure the math works out there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:Max cap in all the trials he's facing? I'm not sure the math works out there. According to the tort law reforms. It remains to be seen how he makes it in the Connecticut trial
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
edit* i got got
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:That’s the cloture vote, they still have to do a bunch of debate and then the vote-o-Rama on amendments to the bill Manchin has at least said he'll be voting against all the Republican poison-pill nonsense, so hopefully it'll get through this reasonably intact. Man though, it's honestly hard to believe this is actually happening after talks stalling out so many times before this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:That’s the cloture vote, they still have to do a bunch of debate and then the vote-o-Rama on amendments to the bill That's true, but the cloture vote is the big vote. I don't see anything unusual coming up in the debates or the vote-o-rama. I expect the voting to go party line. That being said, not counting your chickens is always smart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:That's true, but the cloture vote is the big vote. I don't see anything unusual coming up in the debates or the vote-o-rama. I expect the voting to go party line. That being said, not counting your chickens is always smart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
What is a good source for a breakdown of the bill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm hoping that Schumer just paid him off or whatever so that they can get one thing of significance done before midterms The bill supposedly includes a big payout to the oil and gas industry which is presumably why Manchin is suddenly taking a principled stance on it. Which is counterproductive to the bill's stated purpose of investing in Green Energy but y'know, Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 05:55
|
|
|
Looking forward to the 87,000 new IRS agents and taxes on corporate stock buybacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 06:58
|
|
|
Grind time. They're gonna go all night. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/floor_activity_pail.htmhttps://twitter.com/SenateNews/status/1556152715687989248
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Grind time. They're gonna go all night. Vote-o-rama all-night drama! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 07:33
|
|
|
Twibbit posted:The punitive damages are capped to 750,000 in Texas. And juries are not allowed to be told this. So the judge will likely reduce it Can someone explain to me what possible utility there is for this except ensuring that people who have way more money than that will never have to worry about punitive damages?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Can someone explain to me what possible utility there is for this except ensuring that people who have way more money than that will never have to worry about punitive damages? No you figured it out first go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 11:57
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Can someone explain to me what possible utility there is for this except ensuring that people who have way more money than that will never have to worry about punitive damages? The code isn't very hard to crack, yes. It's very conveniently set high enough that it's ruinous to proles and low enough that it's barely an irritant to the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Can someone explain to me what possible utility there is for this except ensuring that people who have way more money than that will never have to worry about punitive damages? Its twofold. Personal injury lawyers almost overwhelmingly vote Democratic and are big donors to the Democratic Party. So Republicans embrace and do their best to pass tort reform, including damage caps to limit their income. (Personal injury lawyers make most of their money on contingency off damage awards, as generally, the people who sue don't have much money) It also has the side effect of letting them boast they're good for business, protecting businesses from "over the top" punitive awards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Its twofold. Personal injury lawyers almost overwhelmingly vote Democratic and are big donors to the Democratic Party. So Republicans embrace and do their best to pass tort reform, including damage caps to limit their income. (Personal injury lawyers make most of their money on contingency off damage awards, as generally, the people who sue don't have much money) Yah there was a push in the 70s and 80s to restrict tort law. Adam Ruins has a good skit on it.. Assholes like John Stosstle ran exposes on how the justice system was burden with nuisance suits and poor businesses couldn't handle it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1556259845573120000?s=21&t=veART49J6xys6w0KJCA2Ow https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1556259847225622529?s=21&t=veART49J6xys6w0KJCA2Ow I wish most of the democrats fought as hard as Bernie does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I wish most of the democrats fought as hard as Bernie does. He's grandstanding. Which is fine, I guess. He's got to do what he's got to do to get reelected. But in these reconciliation vote-a-ramas, the rule the majority follows is you vote against every amendment, whether you support it or not, because they're all potential poison pills. If you've put the majority together, you never know what added to the bill is going to piss somebody off and kill it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Why would expanding Medicare piss off anyone caucuses with the Democratic Party? I know it's a rhetorical question but this exposes the rank hypocrisy of the dems. We rightfully decry all of these informal BS rules when they hurt us, but in this instance the pinky swears are entrenching the status quo. gently caress that poo poo. Expanding Medicare to include dental, vision, etc is only a "poison pill" if you don't believe in those things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
Bernie isn't the only one adding amendments, there's no doubt a lot of political reasons in play when deciding to put something forward or not. It seems like it's inevitably going to be a whole bunch and all are going down in flames so I don't get what the big deal is. 99% of people aren't going to know this is even happening, is this just them being cranky about working on a Sunday or something? My daily social media check-in is showing a lot of people angry at Bernie and I honestly cannot figure out why Grandstanding is good, people like it when people stand up for things they like in a vocal and public way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Bernie isn't the only one adding amendments, there's no doubt a lot of political reasons in play when deciding to put something forward or not. It seems like it's inevitably going to be a whole bunch and all are going down in flames so I don't get what the big deal is. 99% of people aren't going to know this is even happening, is this just them being cranky about working on a Sunday or something? My daily social media check-in is showing a lot of people angry at Bernie and I honestly cannot figure out why Also, i am sure Schumer and Bernie talked about it before on some level. So long as it doesn't sink the bill, Schumer won't care.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
And now the Insulin Price cap is gone. So I guess some changes to the bill are okay, as long as it kills some folks
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
Kalli posted:And now the Insulin Price cap is gone. So I guess some changes to the bill are okay, as long as it kills some folks Hard for diabetics to be an effective lobby when they keep dying from rationing their insulin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Why would expanding Medicare piss off anyone caucuses with the Democratic Party? You just don't take the risk, because, first off, who knows if somebody in the caucus doesn't believe in those things, or thinks it would make the bill too expensive, or is unhappy it's sprung on them without notice. In other words, the question isn't or shouldn't be "Why would expanding Medicare piss off anyone caucusing with the Democratic party". It's "would expanding Medicare endanger any of the 50 no votes, and if not, why wasn't it in the original bill?" I knew people who were involved in the bill to legalize gay marriage in New York in 2011, and that bill was choreographed by the leadership and the sponsors in final debate down to who was allowed to speak, how long they were allowed to speak and what they could say, because they were terrified that the bill's support would fall apart at the last minute and it would die. Kalli posted:And now the Insulin Price cap is gone. So I guess some changes to the bill are okay, as long as it kills some folks That was a Parliamentarian decision. Epicurius fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Aug 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Bernie isn't the only one adding amendments, there's no doubt a lot of political reasons in play when deciding to put something forward or not. It seems like it's inevitably going to be a whole bunch and all are going down in flames so I don't get what the big deal is. 99% of people aren't going to know this is even happening, is this just them being cranky about working on a Sunday or something? My daily social media check-in is showing a lot of people angry at Bernie and I honestly cannot figure out why "Grandstanding" also kind of implies that the person doing it doesn't really believe in what they're doing, but I absolutely believe Bernie does. It's meant to be a dig at his integrity
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Lemming posted:"Grandstanding" also kind of implies that the person doing it doesn't really believe in what they're doing, but I absolutely believe Bernie does. It's meant to be a dig at his integrity That's a fair point, I'm biased to like it and see it as a positive thing so that was probably poor word choice on my part
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Sinema held the bill hostage in exchange for billions in giveaways for her owners and got PRAISE in the media. Sanders agrees to vote yes, proposes some genuinely good amendments that any sane person must agree are good(and don't threaten the passage of the bill at all), and gets vilified. State of our politics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 16:32
|
|