[shyams]

 helene_t, on 2020-September-27, 18:16, said:

 PassedOut, on 2020-September-25, 19:42, said:

So far as I know, absentee ballots go only to registered voters who've requested them.

Apparently, there are five states who have a history of sending out ballots automatically to registered voters, and five additional states are doing it this time: https://www.reuters....l-idUSKBN2622SZ

Thank you. Interestingly, nine of the 10 "states" sending out unsolicited ballots actually are non-swing states:

Established process for automatic sending of mail-in ballots.
1. Utah: Won by Republicans every time for over 50 years. Trump will definitely win this state.
2. Oregon: Won by Democrats every time since 1988. Almost certain to go to Biden.
3. Washington: Same (Dem since 1988). Definitely a Biden win.
4. Hawaii: Same (Dem since 1988). Definitely a Biden win.
5. Colorado: Has voted blue in the last 3 elections. High probability that Biden will win.

Newly adopting process to automatically send mail-in ballots.
6. Washington D.C.: So deep Blue that it's unreal. Trump is more likely to win a bumper prize on a lottery than win the 3 electoral college votes of DC
7. California: Forget it, Trump. Biden wins this state regardless...
8. Vermont: Again, certain to go Biden's way.
9. New Jersey: Won by Democrats every time since 1992. Almost certain to go to Biden.

10. Nevada: This state has swung between Blue and Red a few times. Some past polls have been close. In 2020, Biden is favoured to win this state.

[y66]

Lily Batchelder, former White House Director said:

A few striking things from the bombshell @nytimes story: Trump's tax returns suggest he has only ever been successful as a showman, not at running actual businesses. Seems like an apt description of his presidency.

https://www.nytimes....pgtype=Homepage

[y66]

Michael Bender at WSJ said:

President Trump declined to say how much he has paid in federal income taxes after a new report alleged that he paid $750 a year in 2016 and 2017, and no income taxes in 10 of the previous 15 years.

“I paid tax,” Mr. Trump said at the White House on Sunday, without providing specifics.

Mr. Trump disputed a report earlier in the day by the New York Times, which attributed its findings to more than two decades of his tax return data. Asked to give the American people an idea of how much he has paid, he said, “I’ve paid a lot, and I’ve paid a lot of state income taxes, too.”

During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly promised to release his tax returns but didn’t, breaking a 40-year tradition of major-party presidential candidates and presidents doing so.

Mr. Trump isn’t required by law to release his tax returns publicly, though no law prevents him from releasing them. He has cited continuing Internal Revenue Service audits as a reason not to disclose his returns. During the campaign, his tax lawyers said he was still under audit for the tax years dating back to 2009. Mr. Trump has repeatedly declined to release specifics about his taxes.

Democrats say the president’s tax returns could shed light on conflicts of interest and the president’s compliance with tax law, and have sued for access to the records. New York prosecutors are also seeking Mr. Trump’s returns as part of a probe into possible bank or insurance fraud.

Mr. Trump paid little to no taxes largely because he reported losing more money than he made in those years, the Times reported.

Between 2010 and 2018, Mr. Trump wrote off some $26 million in consulting fees as a business expense across nearly all of his projects, according to the report, with no detail on the fees.

Some of those fees matched payments that Ivanka Trump, the president’s eldest daughter, reported on financial disclosures when she joined the White House staff. That suggests she may have been treated as a consultant on the same hotel deals that she helped manage as part of her job at her father’s business.

Alan Garten, a spokesperson for the Trump Organization, said the New York Times report was inaccurate and questioned the timing of its publication weeks ahead of the presidential election. “Over the past decade the President has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government,” he said.

The timing is unfortunate.

[Zelandakh]

 y66, on 2020-September-27, 20:28, said:

The timing is unfortunate.

It is also unfortunate for Winston - he is finally going to have to stop calling Dodgy Donald a mobster. After all, the every mob boss alive actually makes a profit.

Long term, the payments to his daughter are a fairly clear legal liability but short term it is probably the $750 figure that will resonate. In any case, every US voter should at least read the NYT Article. How each reacts is then a personal matter. I daresay Trump's 43% will not care and Biden's 52% will be more sure of their position. That generally conservative 5% in the middle though might be influenced. Biden does not need too many of them to end up the winner, absent legal challenges allowing states to use faithless electors or not sending electors at all. It is this kind of possibility that has the rest of the world looking on and collectively shaking their heads.

[y66]

Fun read about the guy who will be making the official calls for Fox News on election night by Ben Smith at NYT.

https://www.nytimes....896ed87b2d9c72a

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-September-28, 05:11, said:

It is also unfortunate for Winston - he is finally going to have to stop calling Dodgy Donald a mobster. After all, the every mob boss alive actually makes a profit.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount mobsterism - after all, Al Capone was sent up the river for tax evasion.

[y66]

Noah Feldman at Bloomberg said:

Like many other liberals, I’m devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, which opened the way for President Donald Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice in his first term. And I’m revolted by the hypocrisy of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s willingness to confirm Trump’s nominee after refusing to even allow a vote on Judge Merrick Garland.

Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question: what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told associates he plans to nominate. And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.

I got to know Barrett more than 20 years ago when we clerked at the Supreme Court during the 1998-99 term. Of the thirty-some clerks that year, all of whom had graduated at the top of their law school classes and done prestigious appellate clerkships before coming to work at the court, Barrett stood out. Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The other was Jenny Martinez, now dean of the Stanford Law School.

When assigned to work on an extremely complex, difficult case, especially one involving a hard-to-comprehend statutory scheme, I would first go to Barrett to explain it to me. Then I would go to Martinez to tell me what I should think about it.

Barrett, a textualist who was working for a textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the ability to bring logic and order to disorder and complexity. You can’t be a good textualist without that, since textualism insists that the law can be understood without reference to legislative history or the aims and context of the statute.

Martinez had the special skill of connecting the tangle of complex strands to a sensible statutory purpose. She clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer, who also believes in pragmatically engaging the question of what a statute is actually trying to do in order to interpret it.

In a world where merit counts, Barrett and Martinez would both be recognized as worthy of serving on the Supreme Court. If a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Senate asked me to recommend a current law professor for the bench, Martinez would be on my short list.

But a Republican is president, and the Senate is Republican. Elections have consequences, and so do justices’ decisions about when or whether to retire. Trump is almost certainly going to get his pick confirmed.

Given that reality, it is better for the republic to have a principled, brilliant lawyer on the bench than a weaker candidate. That’s Barrett.

To add to her merits, Barrett is a sincere, lovely person. I never heard her utter a word that wasn’t thoughtful and kind — including in the heat of real disagreement about important subjects. She will be an ideal colleague. I don’t really believe in “judicial temperament,” because some of the greatest justices were irascible, difficult and mercurial. But if you do believe in an ideal judicial temperament of calm and decorum, rest assured that Barrett has it.

This combination of smart and nice will be scary for liberals. Her old boss, Scalia, did not have the ideal judicial temperament (too much personality, a wicked sense of humor) and managed over the years to alienate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, which may conceivably have helped produce more liberal outcomes as she moved to the left.

Barrett is also a profoundly conservative thinker and a deeply committed Catholic. What of it? Constitutional interpretation draws on the full resources of the human mind. These beliefs should not be treated as disqualifying.

Some might argue that you should want your probable intellectual opponent on the court to be the weakest possible, to help you win. But the Supreme Court is not and should not be a battlefield of winner-take-all political or ideological division.

It would be naïve to deny that there is plenty of politics in constitutional interpretation. There are winners and losers every time the justices take a stance on an important issue of law. Nevertheless, the institutional purpose of the Supreme Court is to find a resolution of political conflicts through reason, interpretation, argument and vote-casting, not pure power politics. It follows that the social purpose of the Supreme Court is best served when justices on all sides of the issues make the strongest possible arguments, and do so in a way that facilitates debate and conversation.

We have a Supreme Court nominee who is a brilliant lawyer, a genuine and good person — and someone who holds views about how to interpret the law that I think are wrong and, in certain respects, misguided. I hope the senators at her hearing treat her with respect.

And when she is confirmed, I am going to accept it as the consequence of the constitutional rules we have and the choices we collectively and individually have made. And I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one — even if I disagree with her all the way.

Let us hope there will be many future appointments to the Supreme Court in the near future who are as qualified to serve as Ms. Barrett appears to be and that a unified government will take note of shyams recent comments and do its part to relieve the Court of its heavy burden.

[y66]

From Gail Collins and Bret Stephens at NYT:

Quote

Bret: Gail, I feel like we’re living in a sci-fi movie, on a dying planet, getting bombarded by at least one giant asteroid a day. Let’s take them one at a time: The Times’s latest scoop on President Trump’s tax returns. On one hand, I’m appalled. On the other, not shocked in the slightest. I mean, it’s not exactly news that Trump’s businesses have usually lost money hand over fist. Your thoughts?

Gail: Well for sure unshocked. But fascinated. It’s great to have this info just as we’re moving into the election. Trump likes to brag that he’s a big-time business genius. But according to the newsroom reporting, he paid $750 in taxes in 2016 and 2017, which I’ll bet is way less than the guy who cuts his lawns.

Bret: He’ll brag that it’s all part of his business genius.

Gail: And for sure I want to talk a lot about the $70,000 deduction for hair styling.

Bret: Comb-overs can be an art, Gail!

Another asteroid: Trump’s declaration last week that there will be no peaceful transition of power. I have to say — and I can’t believe I’m saying this — that it’s getting me to rethink my call to repeal the Second Amendment.

Gail: Bret, don’t go there with the gun thing. The N.R.A. loves nothing more than to argue they need guns to protect themselves from a possible uprising against what Ted Cruz called “government tyranny.” We’ve got enough trouble already.

Bret: Except, in this case, the evil anti-American force is the Republican president. Sorry, go on.

Gail: Looks to me like there are lots of people in powerful positions privately discussing how to get the government back if Trump tries to pull a takeover. Even Mitch McConnell seems horrified. Although if it happened, I’ll bet the ever-practical majority leader would … adjust.

Bret: I can already see the editorial line coming from the right-wing press. It would read roughly as follows: “When the American people elected Donald Trump in 2016, they knew they were voting for a breaker of norms. While we believe it is unfortunate that President Trump has chosen to violate the oldest and most sacred norm in American politics by declaring himself the winner of an election he appears to have lost, it is certainly of a piece with his unique and compelling style. Also, let’s not forget that the taboo against extending presidential terms beyond their traditional bounds was originally violated by a Democratic incumbent — leftist icon Franklin D. Roosevelt….”

Gail: Love it that there are still people chafing about F.D.R. …

Bret: Hey, I have a Wendell Willkie bumper sticker I mean to stick to my rear fender.

As for McConnell, I’m sure he could find a way to get on board this train of self-serving logic, just as he’s found a way to move forward with Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court in a presidential election year, after blocking Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016. Which is another reason we need Joe Biden to win in a landslide. Speaking of which, any hope for one?

Gail: I’ve been telling folks in New York that even though their ballot isn’t really needed to get Biden the state’s electoral votes, it’s important that we have a huge, ginormous national popular vote margin to help make the point that the Democrat really got elected.

Bret: Fine, but victories in three swing states would be better.

Gail: The problem, of course, is our weird system. Biden could get caught up in an electoral vote crisis over a few votes in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin.

And then Donald Trump … what do you think it would take to convince Trump he lost and there was no way out?

Bret: It’s either the 82nd Airborne or someone promises him another reality TV show. In the next one, he can pretend to be a competent president just like he pretended to be a competent businessman in the last one.

But this brings me to our third asteroid: the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. From a political standpoint, I think she was a very canny pick. As a judge and former law professor who is well-versed in Constitutional jurisprudence, she knows the law and won’t present Harriet Miers or Harrold Carswell issues, and she won’t present any Brett Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas issues either. As a rock-solid conservative who clerked for Antonin Scalia, she won’t present any Earl Warren or David Souter issues. And as a devoted Catholic, she might tempt liberals to attack her, foolishly, for her private religious convictions, which is what Dianne Feinstein did in 2017 when she told Barrett in her confirmation hearing for the Appellate seat that “the dogma lives loudly within you.”

My advice to Senate Democrats is to treat her respectfully, question her very closely about the constitutionality of Obamacare, and remember that the Kavanaugh hearings only helped Republicans expand their Senate majority in 2018. What do you think?

Gail: My rational self totally agrees. Barrett is certainly a way, way more sympathetic character than Kavanaugh was. At this point it’s hard to imagine her being blocked.

However, my extremely ticked-off and cranky side just wants to drive home to the public that with this new, 6-3 conservative majority they can wave goodbye not only to abortion rights, but also a ton of other things including protection against gender discrimination and any aggressive federal attempt to beat back climate change.

To be honest, I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that the Senate will vote to confirm Barrett soon. All hope requires believing Mitt Romney will announce he’s voting against her as a matter of principle because we’re so very, very close to a presidential election. What would you say the odds are on that?

Bret: Well, zero, despite my best efforts to convince him otherwise. And with only Susan Collins and maybe Lisa Murkowski opposing the nomination, the G.O.P. appears to have 51 votes to confirm. Even if Mark Kelly wins his special election in Arizona against Martha McSally and is seated in November, Barrett would still win on a 50-50 vote with Mike Pence as the tiebreaker.

All of which is to say, barring something very unexpected, Barrett is going to be confirmed and provide a sixth conservative vote — even if, over time, she winds up shifting John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch a bit further to the left. (They both seem to be moving that way already.) That just means Biden has to win so he might have a chance to appoint Clarence Thomas’s eventual successor and bring the Court back to a 5-4 balance.

Speaking of winning, we have our first presidential debate coming up soon. What’s your advice to Joe?

Gail: Well I do like your theory that Trump has spent so much time painting his opponent as a senile idiot, the bar for beating expectations is pretty low.

Bret: Right. All Biden has to say is, I’m Joe, two plus two is four and 10 times 10 is one hundred, I love my wife, I’m not going to declare war on anyone’s suburb, my economic plan is to cut taxes on the middle class, build a faster Acela and declare the Trump hotel in Washington a toxic-waste dump, I won’t blow up the world and I’m definitely not Donald Trump. Argument over.

Gail: Can I say I’m simultaneously hoping he projects a cheerful, warm personality while beating his opponent to a pulp on issues like health care and the environment?

Bret: It’s very important for Biden to play the Happy Warrior. A few jokes would be great (assuming he doesn’t fumble the punch lines). Above all, he shouldn’t scare away wavering voters, either with a memory lapse or by advocating a far-left position, like free health care for illegal immigrants. He won the Democratic nomination as a moderate and that’s the brand he needs to win the White House.

Gail: What about you? On matters of pure policy — like health care or unions — you may actually agree with Trump more often than Biden, right?

Bret: Well, it isn’t so much that I agree more with Trump — I’m a much more libertarian conservative than this administration when it comes to trade, abortion, legal immigration and international alliances, to mention a few issues. But my disagreements with Biden, as broad as they are, seem fairly trivial given what’s at stake in the election. I’d rather have a president who might sometimes get a bit confused than one who deliberately sows confusion. I’d rather lose more of my paycheck in taxes under Biden than lose more of my democracy in demagogic deceit under Trump. And I’d rather have a president who willingly pays lots of taxes on a relatively low income than one who pays almost no taxes on a high one.

Gail: Ah. That’s why you’re such a great sparring partner. Always with underlying principles.

Bret: Principles is a little too generous, Gail. I just like democracy.

Gail: Good slogan!

Bret: What about you? Do you have any serious policy differences with Biden?

Gail: Back in the day I wanted to see a way more ambitious health care plan, but truly, I’m past the point of caring. I’ll take Biden’s Medicare expansion over Trump’s repeal of protection for people with pre-existing conditions. But I admit that I am looking forward to complaining constantly if Biden is elected.

And you know, Bret, we got into the conversation idea with the expectation it’d be liberal v. conservative. But Trump’s candidacy sort of made us the Gang of Two.

Bret: I just hope we can be part of the Gang of 271 (or more) come November.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2020-September-28, 07:55, said:

From Gail Collins and Bret Stephens at NYT:

From the quoted discussion:
"My advice to Senate Democrats is to treat her respectfully, question her very closely about the constitutionality of Obamacare, and remember that the Kavanaugh hearings only helped Republicans expand their Senate majority in 2018. "

That's pretty much as I see it, I think that I said something akin to it, but less specific, early on.

Maybe a further thought. Some people agree Trump is awful, but they really like the court nominations. Maybe some of them would be open to thinking the monster has served the purpose for which he was brought out, and it is now time to raise a crucifix and send him back to the netherworld.
As far as ObamaCare is concerned there will not be a Supreme Court Ruling that forbids health care support, There might well be a ruling that some aspects of the ACA are unconstitutional. So it would be a good time to argue that we will need to constructively address both legal and practical difficulties of the ACA, and in order to do this we need a lot of elected Dems. At least enough to tell McConnell tio sit down and shut the --- up. I am pretty sure many people can see the need for help in dealing with medical costs, and to think this help is going to come from Trump? There might be some skepticism about this even from those who voted for him in 2016.

As for the 70K deduction for hair styling, forget about the legalities, the IRS will or will not address this. Instead we could focus on whether he got he got his money's worth. Seems that if I spent 70K, or even 7 dollars, I might expect better.

An overall point: Maybe the extent can still be a bit shocking, but clearly Trump is a fraud. Maybe he is a fraud claiming that he is a great businessman, maybe he is a fraud with the IRS, quite possibly both. But we already knew that. It's lie saying McConnell is a hypocritical SOB. Well, sure. And Russia is not our friend. And eating marshmallows by the box (as I did when a child) is bad for you. No kidding, no kidding to all of this. Dumping the marshmallows and dumping Trump. Two very good ideas.

A nice straightforward approach.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2020-September-28, 14:54, said:

From the quoted discussion:
"My advice to Senate Democrats is to treat her respectfully, question her very closely about the constitutionality of Obamacare, and remember that the Kavanaugh hearings only helped Republicans expand their Senate majority in 2018. "

That's pretty much as I see it, I think that I said something akin to it, but less specific, early on.

Maybe a further thought. Some people agree Trump is awful, but they really like the court nominations. Maybe some of them would be open to thinking the monster has served the purpose for which he was brought out, and it is now time to raise a crucifix and send him back to the netherworld.
As far as ObamaCare is concerned there will not be a Supreme Court Ruling that forbids health care support, There might well be a ruling that some aspects of the ACA are unconstitutional. So it would be a good time to argue that we will need to constructively address both legal and practical difficulties of the ACA, and in order to do this we need a lot of elected Dems. At least enough to tell McConnell tio sit down and shut the --- up. I am pretty sure many people can see the need for help in dealing with medical costs, and to think this help is going to come from Trump? There might be some skepticism about this even from those who voted for him in 2016.

As for the 70K deduction for hair styling, forget about the legalities, the IRS will or will not address this. Instead we could focus on whether he got he got his money's worth. Seems that if I spent 70K, or even 7 dollars, I might expect better.

An overall point: Maybe the extent can still be a bit shocking, but clearly Trump is a fraud. Maybe he is a fraud claiming that he is a great businessman, maybe he is a fraud with the IRS, quite possibly both. But we al know that. It's lie saying McConnell is a hypocritical SOB. Well, sure. And Russia is not our friend. And eating marshmallows by the box (as I did when a child) is bad for you. No kidding. Dumping the marshmallows and dumping Trump. Two very good ideas.

A nice straightforward approach.

I cast my ballot today. Took it in person to the state election office and watched it be stamped with the date and go into the box. Surprisingly, there were many there to vote. The ballot itself was odd - but being in a Republican state no surprise. Trump/Pence was first on the ballot. Next down was a candidate I had never hear of. Third place down was Biden/Harris. In total, there were 5 pairs on the ballot running for president.

I bring this up in response to Ken's post because elections matter. It is a shame that Ginsburg did not allow Obama to replace her years ago - but that can't be changed. Neither can we change the fact that this nominee will be appointed. The only thing to do for Democrats is to point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans but an all out attack on the nominee would be futile and damaging to Democrats. We have to suck it up and take our medicine. We were the group who didn't show up in force in 2016 to make sure this didn't happen. We can't bitch about it now.

All we can do now is try to salvage the democratic norms as much as possible and destroy Donald Trump and his brand of Republicanism - or simply help it to self-immolate is more like it.

[y66]

From NYT Evening Briefing:

Quote

Republican lawmakers reacted with nearly complete silence to a New York Times investigation of President Trump’s federal income taxes.

Democrats in the House who have long sought access to the president’s tax records, however, hailed the revelations that he paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 and none at all in 11 of 18 years as proof that their inquiries were justified. Above, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a Senate subway car on Capitol Hill last week.

Mr. Trump initially called the article “totally fake news,” and then shifted to falsely accusing the paper of basing the report on illegally obtained information about his finances.

He lashed out at the suggestion that he is not as wealthy as he has repeatedly claimed to be, insisting — without providing any evidence — that his finances are in very good shape.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said that the report raised national security concerns because the president owes money, possibly to foreign lenders.

Every Republican in congress has chosen, over and over again, to let a criminal ransack the government for years in order to better pursue the higher cause of cutting the corporate income tax and making it harder for people to get health care benefits. -- Matt Yglesias

[y66]

David Frum at The Atlantic said:

For once in his life, Trump seems tongue-tied. His supporters, even those willing to be shameless, have been left to desperately contrive messages of their own. They are not doing a very good job, in part because they must worry about the line that Trump will eventually want them to take, when he finally announces a line. Not many days and hours remain, and Trump has abruptly lost almost any vestige of control over either the game or the clock.

https://www.theatlan...3MDUwMTE4MTk0S0

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania

Nate Cohn said:

Biden leads Trump in Pennsylvania, 49 to 40 percent among likely voters, in a new Times/Siena poll.

The Biden lead, as in other battlegrounds, was driven by a yawning gender gap with women voters, as well as a narrower deficit with men compared to the 2016 election between Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton. Women in the survey preferred the former vice president by 26 percentage points. Men sided with Mr. Trump by a narrower eight-point gap.

Both measures were an improvement for the Democratic nominee over 2016, when Mr. Trump eked out a 44,000-vote win in Pennsylvania, less than one percentage point, by carrying men by 17 points and only losing women by 13 points, according to exit polls.

https://www.nytimes....vania-poll.html

Maybe the other 11% are just waiting for a sign.

[kenberg]

I am feeling chipper this morning, and in that spirit I predict the debate tonight will go well for Biden Bt "go well" I mean that My advice to Senate Democrats is to treat her respectfully, question her very closely about the constitutionality of Obamacare, and remember that the Kavanaugh hearings only helped Republicans expand their Senate majority in 2018. post debate polls will show that a substantial majority will see him as having done better than Trump.

A general thought: Trump is on the ropes from covid, from the financial disclosures, from other matters, and few things look more ridiculous than a bully on the ropes.

A more specific thought. Health care costs must be dealt with. The ACA needs some fixing regardless of the Supreme Court rulings, past and future.. Just what was it Trump said back in 2016? He had a beautiful plan. We would all love it. Time to get to reality.

And a moment for the silly, the 70K for the hair jobs. An old song begins "They say to have her hair done Liz flies all the way to France .." Yes, but Liz looked good.

[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2020-September-29, 06:21, said:

And a moment for the silly, the 70K for the hair jobs. An old song begins "They say to have her hair done Liz flies all the way to France .." Yes, but Liz looked good.

Quote

They say to have her hair done Liz flies all the way to France
And Jackie's seen in a discotheque doin' a brand new dance
And the White House social season should be glittering and gay
But here in Topeka the rain is a fallin'
The faucet is a drippin' and the kids are a bawlin'
One of them a toddlin' and one is a crawlin' and one's on the way
I'm glad that Raquel Welch just signed a million dollar pact
And Debbie's out in Vegas workin' up a brand new act
While the TV's showin' Newlyweds a real fun game to play
But here in Topeka the screen door's a bangin'
The coffee's boilin' over and the wash needs a hangin'
One wants a cookie and one wants a changin' and one's on the way
Now what was I doin' Jimmy get away from there darn there goes the phone
Hello honey what's that you say you're bringin' a few ole Army buddies home
You're callin' from a bar get away from there
No not you honey I was talkin' to the baby wait a minute honey the door bell
Honey could you stop at the market and hello hello well I'll be
The girls in New York City they all march for women's lib
And Better Homes and Gardens shows the modern way to live
And the pill may change the world tomorrow but meanwhile today
Here in Topeka the flies are a buzzin'
The dog is a barkin' and the floor needs a scrubbin'
One needs a spankin' and one needs a huggin' Lord one's on the way
Oh gee I hope it ain't twins again

A pretty good catch here Ken. This song could easily be played at Biden rallies in the Deep South - it pretty much sums up the message he is trying to send.

For tonight I suggest a drinking game - a shot of vodka every time "Hunter" gets said; a shot of tequila for "The Wall"; whisky or scotch for "golf"; and rice wine for "virus" or "covid". I would suggest taking a shot of anything at all every time a clear lie gets told but you would be on the floor well before half way through the debate so perhaps better to steer clear of that.

[y66]

Joan Williams, UC Hastings College of Law prof, makes The Case for Accepting Defeat on Roe which is basically that the fight has already been lost and that Roe was a mistake to begin with that “halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue" (RGB)

Quote

I’m still reluctant to embrace the “overrule and move on” strategy, but moving on may be our only choice. And if abortion stops playing such a role in presidential elections, then Democrats may fare better with the 19 percent of Trump voters who have bipartisan voting habits and warm feelings toward minorities; we know 83 percent of them think the economy is rigged in favor of the rich and 68 percent favor raising taxes on the rich.

Once their presidential vote is not driven by Supreme Court appointments, how many might decide to vote on economic issues? And what greater tribute could there be to R.B.G. than both a legislative restoration of abortion rights, and a new Democratic Party that can win — not just by a hair but by a landslide?

[Zelandakh]

Are you on the list for 2020?

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2020-September-29, 08:46, said:

Joan Williams, UC Hastings College of Law prof, makes The Case for Accepting Defeat on Roe which is basically that the fight has already been lost and that Roe was a mistake to begin with that "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue" (RGB)

I have been a long time supporter of abortion rights, mostly on the grounds that unless I absolutely must, I would prefer not to make moral choices for someone else.. At one time, and perhaps still in some places, religious teaching would forbid using contraception. During my lifetime debates have ranged from whether contraception is moral to whether abortion is moral, and whether the law should impose an answer. I am adopted, born to a 20 year old unmarried farm girl, so if abortion were legal in 1938 there is a fair chance I would not exist. But if birth control were more easily available back then, the same possibility of non-existence applies to many others.

I recall when Barbara Bush died there was a review of various things she had said over the years, one of them being that while she regarded abortion as something she could never do, she had no interest in making that decision for another person. Exactly.

As I have gained more experience with life, there is another reason as well. The rich, and really the well off, "don't have abortions". The young woman goes on vacation somewhere for a while. The hypocrisy is immense. The poor go to back alleys, the well off go on vacation.
This is another of those things that I think is pretty well understood by many.
Sex should be done responsibly, most everyone agrees with that. But it doesn't always go that way, and we could back off a bit when someone has a crisis, unless we can help. And help starts with acknowledging the rights, and the difficulties, of others.

So yes, Joan Williams has a point.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2020-September-29, 10:33, said:

I have been a long time supporter of abortion rights, mostly on the grounds that unless I absolutely must, I would prefer not to make moral choices for someone else.. At one time, and perhaps still in some places, religious teaching would forbid using contraception. During my lifetime debates have ranged from whether contraception is moral to whether abortion is moral, and whether the law should impose an answer. I am adopted, born to a 20 year old unmarried farm girl, so if abortion were legal in 1938 there is a fair chance I would not exist. But if birth control were more easily available back then, the same possibility of non-existence applies to many others.

I recall when Barbara Bush died there was a review of various things she had said over the years, one of them being that while she regarded abortion as something she could never do, she had no interest in making that decision for another person. Exactly.

As I have gained more experience with life, there is another reason as well. The rich, and really the well off, "don't have abortions". The young woman goes on vacation somewhere for a while. The hypocrisy is immense. The poor go to back alleys, the well off go on vacation.
This is another of those things that I think is pretty well understood by many.
Sex should be done responsibly, most everyone agrees with that. But it doesn't always go that way, and we could back off a bit when someone has a crisis, unless we can help. And help starts with acknowledging the rights, and the difficulties, of others.

So yes, Joan Williams has a point.

Utilizing the SCOTUS to determine moral questions is an abandonment by Congress of its responsibilities. The Legislative branch makes laws. It should be quite simple to determine by law if abortion is legal or illegal, which has nothing to do with its moral status. It would only then be the role of the SCOTUS to determine if the federal government can make that law or whether it is a question for each individual state. Either way, at least it would be clear - then those who favor or oppose could try to get it changed their way through means that actually work.

[kenberg]

I see that Joe and Jill Biden paid out about 300K in taxes last year. No doubt DT will explain that they are suckers.

When, oh when, will this be over. Please.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2020-September-29, 17:58, said:

I see that Joe and Jill Biden paid out about 300K in taxes last year. No doubt DT will explain that they are suckers.

When, oh when, will this be over. Please.

What an incredible shite-show. It's professional wrestling of the mouth.