Jump to content

GRHorn

crowd sourced
  • Posts

    6272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GRHorn

  1. Don't care to scroll through pages of people arguing about abortion, but here's a good analysis on why it's a moot point.  Won't stop the scare tactics, but still.

     

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-abortion-scare-campaign-1530573972?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/Xao1AF51wF

    Spoiler

    Some things in politics are predictable—a New Jersey tax increase, a “no” vote by Senator Rand Paul, and an abortion-rights scare campaign every time a Republican President makes a Supreme Court nomination. And sure enough, the predictions of doom for abortion and gay rights began within minutes of Anthony Kennedy’s resignation last week. These predictions are almost certainly wrong.

    ***

    “Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months,” tweeted Jeffrey Toobin, the legal pundit, in a classic of cool, even-handed CNN analysis soon after the resignation news. Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer was almost as definitive. “Whomever the president picks, it is all too likely they’re going to overturn health-care protections and Roe v. Wade,” the 1973 abortion-rights decision, Mr. Schumer declared. “We don’t need to guess."

    The first thing to keep in mind is that this is what Democrats and their media allies always say. They said it in 1987 when Justice Kennedy was nominated. They said it in 1990 about David Souter, again about Clarence Thomas in 1991, John Roberts and Samuel Alito in 2005, and Neil Gorsuch in 2017. They even claimed the Chief Justice might overturn Roe because his wife is a Roman Catholic. Mrs. Roberts is still waiting to write her first opinion.

    The liberal line is always that Roe hangs by a judicial thread, and one more conservative Justice will doom it. Yet Roe still stands after nearly five decades. Our guess is that this will be true even if President Trump nominates another Justice Gorsuch. The reason is the power of stare decisis, or precedent, and how conservatives view the role of the Court in supporting the credibility of the law.

    Start with the Court’s Obergefell ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. The ruling was only 5-4 and Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion with a formidable dissent by Chief Justice Roberts. 

    Yet there’s almost no chance the Chief would reverse Obergefell now. Tens of thousands of gay couples have been married across the U.S. since the ruling. They have changed their lives based on it. Is the Court now going to tell those couples that states can declare their marriages void? Or that their property rights under marriage laws are no longer valid?

    A key part of the Court’s stare decisis calculation is “reliance interests,” or how and how many people have come to rely on a precedent. Chief Justice Roberts cited reliance interests in his Wayfair dissent on state internet sales taxes this term, and its logic is even more compelling for same-sex marriage. 

    A different stare decisis logic applies to Roe, which was one of the Court’s worst rulings but is now 45 years old and embedded in American law. While abortion is still hotly debated, the Court has reinforced the right many times. 

    Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 superseded Roe with its “undue burden” test on states for imposing limits on abortion. In 2016 in Hellerstedt, the Court invoked that test to strike down a Texas law imposing stringent regulations on abortion clinics. In many other cases when the Court has upheld state restrictions, the core right was never challenged.

    Our view, supported by more than a little reporting, is that even though they think Roe was wrongly decided, most of the current conservative Justices would shy from overturning it and handing abortion law entirely to the states. The exception is Justice Clarence Thomas, who has made his intentions clear. 

    Scientific advances have made abortions easy to obtain through medication in the early weeks of pregnancy, and making them illegal would create an enormous social uproar and invite an attack on the Court that Chief Justice Roberts in particular would not want. Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals told us recently that his long-time friend and colleague Antonin Scalia told him before he died that even he would not have sought to overturn Roe today. 

     

    Ah, but didn’t five Justices only last week vote to overturn a 41-year-old First Amendment precedent on coerced speech on union fees? They did, but Abood had long ago become an outlier in the Court’s free-speech jurisprudence. It survived by a single vote even as the Court struck down other examples of speech coerced by governments.

    The same cannot be said about the Court’s abortion precedents. A post-Kennedy Court is likely not to overturn Roe and its successors but it will probably uphold more state restrictions. This won’t please some social conservatives, but it would put U.S. law close to where American public opinion is—keeping abortion legal but making it rarer than it now is.

    ***

    Many on the left and right will disagree with this analysis for different reasons. Conservatives want to believe that Roe can still be repealed in toto, like Plessy v. Ferguson , and we admire their conviction. Liberals want to scare Americans to believe abortion rights are in peril so they can intimidate enough GOP Senators to defeat whoever Mr. Trump nominates to replace Justice Kennedy.

    The headlines are already targeting GOP Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Moore Capito, and abortion is the political cudgel. Ms. Collins said over the weekend that she won’t vote to confirm a nominee who shows “hostility” to Roe. She isn’t likely to face such a choice. 

    No one on Mr. Trump’s list of nominees will claim to want to overturn Roe—and not because they are lying. In their caution and deference to precedent, they will be showing proper conservative respect for the law and the reputation of the Court.

     

    • Like 2
  2. 27 minutes ago, kmac30 said:


    I had to stop reading after paragraph 2. If you have an inherited IRA, the required distributions you get are not tax free. They will be taxed as earned income based on your taxable rates. If you would have taken it all out at one time (10k), it would have been like you making an extra 10k that year. Capital gains are not in this picture.

    You get taxed even if it was a Roth IRA?  

    My accountant is out of the office this week, so I haven't heard from him. 

  3. So I had a distant aunt die recently.  She named my 2 brothers and I as beneficiaries on one of her investment accounts.  It’s a Roth IRA account.  The brokerage is Edward Jones. 

    It’s a decent amount and I plan on moving the majority of it to my kids’ 529 plans.  Of course the broker isn’t thrilled about that and they’ve tried to slow it down every step of the way.  The latest is his claim that they can’t distribute the money straight to us, I first have to set up my own account with them where the money will get transferred and then I can withdraw my 1/3.  Somehow that will cost me $130 and some surveys to fill out etc. At this point it’s more about the principle of them not just releasing the funds.  

    My question here is, is that true that they cant release it without another account being started?  Is there anyway I can avoid giving the brokerage a single penny?  Thanks. 

  4. 40 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:


    They can’t touch the coins or blockchain, but they can hit it at the edges, when it’s converted into currency. That leaves only dark money.

    I think this argument had more viability a year or two ago.  Now you have banks like Goldman Sachs investing in Bitcoin services like Circle.  Goldman is at the peak of the financial system. They have big say in almost any big picture financial decision the government makes. If they’re involved it decreases likelihood of getting shut down. 

    I think banks will continue to embrace it to try to 1) make money and 2) try to control and influence Bitcoin/crypto. My belief/hope is that during their embrace of it that it becomes to entrenched in people’s lives to eliminate. 

  5. 21 minutes ago, scottsins said:

    I heard the photographer being interviewed days before the Time cover was released.  He unequivocally stated that they were NOT separated.  So, you are saying that Time captioned the cover photo “(seen above a young girl is separated from her mother who was seeking asylum)”?

    i just want to know how culpable Time was in committing this alleged fraud.

    Time felt the need to correct it.  It was misleading and meant to amp up the reporting.  

    The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she taken from the scene. The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together

     

    Fine, y’all don’t think that’s a big deal, but it’s just another example of media twisting things for their maximum desired effect, why is almost always in one direction. 

    There’s other more blatant examples like the Vermont story I mentioned.  It goes on and on. 

    • Fuck You 1
  6. 12 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    So FOX providing a forum for known liars (Ollie North and Hannity just to name two more) doesn't reflect on the trustworthiness of FOX News? These liars are regular, celebrated figures on FOX.

    You’re correct.  Fox News is almost worthless. 

  7. 6 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

     


    There is intrinsic value in a currency that can’t be controlled by a govt or printed into inflation or tracked. That is why bitcoin got traction and why millions of venture capital is going into companies in this area. What I can’t reconcile is the fact that the governments can change the rules at any moment to start controlling it. It is a threat to the country’s currency, so sooner or later they will try.

     

    Bitcoin is the token that denominates the value on the network, but it is a software program. Open source with nodes and miners verifying transactions around the world.  Unless the Us govt starts buying miners to gain 51% of the hashing power then they won’t be able to reverse transactions and wreck it.  The Chinese is by far the biggest threat.  The biggest mining Corp is Bitmain out of China and the govt could conceivably force them to possibly do this. That realization is the main reason some people have started to advocate for a mining algorithm change from SHA 256.  

  8. 1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:


     

     


    This seems a good example to show the difference between what conservatives call fake news and Fox News. Photographer takes picture of crying girl and mother stopped by Border Patrol, sees them loaded into van assuming they are to be separated. Turns out they weren't. Time acknowledges the error, as journalist organizations have done for as long as there's been journalism. It doesn't change the fact now accepted by virtually everyone that thousands of children were being separated from their parents. It's just that this wasn't one of them.

    Same issue. Ann Coulter goes on America's #1 source for news and claims the kids being separated from their parents are actually child actors and implores the president not to be swayed by their dramatics. No evidence. No corroboration. No later acknowledgement that further investigation has uncovered zero reasons to believe these children were putting on an act. No retraction.

    One is an error later clarified that does little to change the veracity of the larger story- that thousands of kids were being separated from their kids for misdemeanors or for seeking asylum.

    The other is an intentional unacknowledged falsehood meant to supplant the true story- that these are crisis actors staging a scene that's not really happening.

    https://thegrio.com/2018/06/23/time-magazine-forced-to-clarify-cover-of-crying-migrant-girl/

    http://thehill.com/homenews/media/392774-ann-coulter-calls-immigrant-children-child-actors

     

    Nobody on planet Earth thinks Ann Coulter is serious, impartial, or a journalist.  She’s a pundit, an activist.  That’s the difference.  Time portrays itself as a neutral arbiter of truth. No surprise they ran with something trying to make maximum impact.  And it wasn’t a minor detail. It was the signature image of the situation.  It’s like Twitter. The correction never gets the retweets the falsehoods do. 

    • Like 1
  9. 8 minutes ago, TornACL said:

    So when someone builds an entire platform around dividing people, one should just shut the fuck up about it, lest you further divide people? 

     

    You're cracked. 

    You’re missing the point.  Guess you didn’t watch the video. He acted like Trump defiantly ignored him in some big standoff. He won’t answer to the media!  

    This numbnuts was at the back of the room yelling it while people are clapping.  No way it could be heard. Pure signaling.  

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  10. Here's a more menial example. 

    Wow.  This guy is my hero.  Trump doesn't have the balls to face his stern questioning.  Avoiding the question even.  This is how fascism starts guys.  What a strong member of the #Resistance in our trusted media.  Middle of the road CNN.  The stuff I watch in the airport. 

    Man I wanna see some video of this. 

     

    What a fucking joke.  But that first tweet got 13k retweets, 42k likes.  I wonder how many of you sheep retweeted his brave stand.  

    Misleading. Grandstanding.  Attempting to further divide us.  For what?  Some fucking RTs and trying maintain his profile.  What a bitch. 

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 2
  11. 4 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

    Can you give me an example of a mainstream media outlet (obviously, not including Fox News) purposefully misleading people? With all this "fake news" talk out there, I rarely see reports that are wrong, and the few times they are, they are immediately corrected. 

    Time magazine cover girl.  Vermont utility hacked by "Russian hackers". I don't have time to look up all the examples of media malfeasance, but besides the explicit examples there's the constant angles of what's reported or what's unsaid.  EVERY outlet has an angle.  I just try to look at all stories through that lens. 

  12. 2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

    That just tells me that Goebbe...I mean trump has done a good job with his propaganda. 

     

    So good that his propaganda is working with Dems too?

     

    1 hour ago, Red Five said:

     


    The president of the United States routinely calls the press the enemy of the American people.

     

    Of course it's bad to paint anything with one big brush, but are the elements of the media that routinely mislead people really friends of the American people?  

    The press misleading people is nothing new imo. Nowadays it's just easier to check them on it and since their power has been threatened they're lashing out and acting like fools. 

  13. 16 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    Our president spends his time slamming the US press and the FBI and the DOJ and is spending the Fourth of July in Russia. This is fine.

    The press has done a fine job of killing their own credibility.  Trump has made their worst instincts come out.  Generational damage has been made to their standing. 

    https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

    79% of independents.

    • Like 1
  14. 8 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

    I tell you what is scary. This is not hyperbole for most of them. These half-wits really believe this shit.  

    Yes I believe you’re a drama queen if you reference getting fitted for a Nazi uniform or being sent directly to death camps.  I bet Americans would agree.  That’s all twitter hysteria and signaling.  

  15. 35 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    No.  She was the nominee because from 2012-2015 the Clintons won the organizational battles they lost by default to the vastly superior Obama organization in 2006-2007.  The above is spectator class bullshit.  It's just not how the world actually works. 

    I acknowledge I’m part of the spectator class if that means I haven’t taken part in any elections or campaigning in my life.  What do you mean organizational battles?  Getting Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile into DNC leadership positions?  Was that her doing?  What else are you referencing?

×
×
  • Create New...