In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
When he was done, a woman sitting near me said, "I used to think I would enjoy listening to him read a phone book. Not anymore".
I would be curious to hear people identify the most entertaining speakers they ever heard.
I saw Oscar Goodman speak many years ago. This was back during the time when he was mainly known as a very high profile mob lawyer and just before he became mayor of Las Vegas.
He was very entertaining.
I got to hear Warren Buffet speak and meet him in 2010. Took a picture with him with our backs to each other and arms folded and there was a disco ball in the background. It was a wild talk in the wake of the financial crisis, he talked about being on the phone with Hank Paulson at the height of the financial crisis who told him he was just puking in a trash can. This was when I was in business school, he does events for MBA students a few times a year. After the talk he took everyone to lunch. Steak and fries with root beer floats for desert at a local Omaha restaurant. The thing I remember most was when the waitress brought his root beer float he lit up like a 5 year old. Guy is worth billions of dollars and the thing that actually gets him off is a root beer float. It was pretty cool.
I'm always impressed with how many people forget to add the second T the guy's name. Like, Bloomberg guys writing articles saying Warren Buffet invests in downtown Buffet with all you can eat buybacks.
So, now we are learning, from Virginia, that it's ok for Republicans to gerrymander but not democrats. Which really tells me that we no longer have a real judicial system. Just another branch of the fascist right. I mean, we kinda already knew that i guess.
So, now we are learning, from Virginia, that it's ok for Republicans to gerrymander but not democrats. Which really tells me that we no longer have a real judicial system. Just another branch of the fascist right. I mean, we kinda already knew that i guess.
Unlikely the SC will be able to strike down California's ballot initiative though.
"They" are right.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...
“I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”
We'll see.
So, now we are learning, from Virginia, that it's ok for Republicans to gerrymander but not democrats.
Huge if true
So, now we are learning, from Virginia, that it's ok for Republicans to gerrymander but not democrats.
It depends who's in charge at the time in a given place. There's no real distinction between the parties and the hysterical rhetoric they both use is merely what Freud called 'the narcissism of small differences.'
It depends who's in charge at the time in a given place. There's no real distinction between the parties and the hysterical rhetoric they both use is merely what Freud called 'the narcissism of small differences.'
Except we now have a judicial system that is grossly partisan as well. They don't even try anymore.
It depends who's in charge at the time in a given place. There's no real distinction between the parties and the hysterical rhetoric they both use is merely what Freud called 'the narcissism of small differences.'
On June 2nd, Democrat-controlled California will be voting on whether or not to gerrymander. Looks like it will pass.
On June 2nd, Democrat-controlled California will be voting on whether or not to gerrymander. Looks like it will pass.
The Virginia one passed via votes and the fascist court struck it down.
The argument of the court was a fairly technical one that relied on the interpretation of the word “election”. The Virginia constitution requires that such an amendment be proposed prior to the next general election and then codified during the next legislative session after a general election.
The court found that by starting the process while early voting had already began, they deprived those voters of the right to potentially vote out those politicians that were in favor of gerrymandering or vote for ones that were against it.
The state argued that an election is only an election on election day, and that early voting might be part of the election, but only in the sense that an election is the culmination of all the votes cast. In other words, it’s an election when the votes are closed.
The majority’s response was a historical one, pointing out that in the past, which was closer to the time when the requirement was initially codified, that elections could actually be postponed on the day of if not everyone was able to be polled (verbal vote by witness) that wanted to vote, or that had sent in a sworn vote and it arrived late. It was actually an interesting opinion regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
I hope people will actually read it instead of jumping to conclusions. If you have the same ire after reading it, fine, but I think it’s worth reading it and thinking through the arguments. If only for the historical context that the majority opinion provides.
Screw the victims
The Trump administration is nearing an agreement with TikTok to resolve an ongoing lawsuit over alleged child privacy violations in exchange for the social media company paying $400 million that the administration plans to use to fund President Donald Trump's Washington, D.C., "beautification" projects, sources familiar with the discussions told ABC News.
While the Department of Justice regularly reaches settlements with private companies accused of wrongdoing, the proposed TikTok settlement marks a departure from the practice of using the settlement funds to resolve the alleged wrongdoing or compensate victims.
The argument of the court was a fairly technical one that relied on the interpretation of the word “election”. The Virginia constitution requires that such an amendment be proposed prior to the next general election and then codified during the next legislative session after a general election. The court found that by starting the process while early voting had already began, t
Sounds like a whole lot if fascist bullshit to me.
What’s fascist about it exactly?
Discarding something the voters voted on in order to give more power to the party of fascism. Democracy is being chipped away by the courts little by little as demonstrated here.
