All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

Just another example of the subversion of the justice system by Republicans.

How so?

Well first, if I see Barack Obama anywhere, I would refer to him as PRESIDENT Obama. You know, that job he held for two terms after he was a Senator.

Second, while I'm aware that former Presidents can still be called 'President So-and-So', it's more the fact that Trump seems to really believe that he still IS the President of the United States. So if he still believes he's President, than there should be no question that he CAN be impeached.

The point on etiquette is that while according to old rules, you're not supposed to refer to former Presidents as President, it's done often enough that it's not a strong argument against Trump.

There would be a Catch-22 at using the argument that it's okay to impeach Trump because he views himself as President, in that it's impossible to do without validating his stated belief that he should have won the election.

The main legal arguments would still be that it's okay to impeach a former official (it was done with Ulysses S Grant's Secretary of War, after the guy retired) and that Senators should view the earlier vote about whether it's okay to impeach as one that settled the question. 55 Senators said it's okay to impeach, so it's okay to impeach. The thing that matters going forward is whether Trump incited an insurrection.

Black people often get bail rescinded and thrown back in jail before trial for much less than these two white privileged terrorists. I think that is the point.
Being allowed to hide from prosecutors and leave the country while indicted is not normal.

There are two different arguments.

One is that people accused of crimes in other jurisdictions, especially anything political, should be afforded the same level of grace. This fits in with the existing bail reform movement.
The other argument is that bail conditions should penalize someone you don't like.

These two views are largely incompatible.

Pedantry was how they said the worst things they said. That's why I called it a "rhetorical flex".



There's no "if"...he is terrible.

He also happens to be white, so he gets a red carpet treatment for killing two people.

Goebbels said that Jews were human in the way that fleas were animals, and that both Jews and fleas should be made harmless the same way.

Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch society, called President Eisenhower a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.”

McCarthy claimed to have a list of 205 communists who worked in the state department. No such list existed.

Pravda was notorious for making up statistics.

Their worst statements were not mere technicalities.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

https://twitter.com/berniesanders/st...427674625?s=21

[numberthirty]

https://twitter.com/berniesanders/st...427674625?s=21

Unbelievable. There are some Dems who want to lower the income eligibility for direct payments from $75,000 to $50,000 for individuals, and $150,000 to $100,000 for couples. In other words, working class people who got checks from Trump would not get them from Biden. Brilliant!

..........

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

..........

Seriously if they let that happen they are going to lose any majorities they gained

[shooshoomanjoe]

..........

Leave it to Bernie to use the GOP book of starting a fire where there isn't one. 8 dems approve of it and I agree with it. If this money is to help out needy people during a pandemic, does a family earning $300k really need $2000? I know I'm sounding like a broken record but I don't think this money should go to anyone that's working, it should go to unemployed people.

Senate vote indicates more targeted stimulus checks for Biden

Senators in both parties have been seeking to begin phasing out checks at $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for joint filers, and ending them entirely for individuals making $75,000 and $150,000 for couples (filers with children and dependents would likely receive more money under this plan). That's a quicker phase-out than some previous proposals and reflects unease in both parties on families earning as much as $300,000 being eligible for stimulus checks.

[MajorHoy]

Leave it to Bernie to use the GOP book of starting a fire where there isn't one. 8 dems approve of it and I agree with it. If this money is to help out needy people during a pandemic, does a family earning $300k really need $2000? I know I'm sounding like a broken record but I don't think this money should go to anyone that's working, it should go to unemployed people.

One thing that doesn't get mentioned in these discussions is where people are living. A family earning $300K in, say, Nebraska, may not have the same expenses as a family earning $300K but living in a major city like NYC or San Francisco.

[Jack Dracula]

Leave it to Bernie to use the GOP book of starting a fire where there isn't one. 8 dems approve of it and I agree with it. If this money is to help out needy people during a pandemic, does a family earning $300k really need $2000? I know I'm sounding like a broken record but I don't think this money should go to anyone that's working, it should go to unemployed people.

Senate vote indicates more targeted stimulus checks for Biden

As someone who's been fortunate enough to not be financially affected (so far), I'd be happy to opt-out of the payment.

[The Cool Thatguy]

As someone who's been fortunate enough to not be financially affected (so far), I'd be happy to opt-out of the payment.

Same here. Though I doubt they'll set something up. Are these things tax exempt?

[AnakinFlair]

Same here. Though I doubt they'll set something up. Are these things tax exempt?

Yes, they are.

[PwrdOn]

Leave it to Bernie to use the GOP book of starting a fire where there isn't one. 8 dems approve of it and I agree with it. If this money is to help out needy people during a pandemic, does a family earning $300k really need $2000? I know I'm sounding like a broken record but I don't think this money should go to anyone that's working, it should go to unemployed people.

Senate vote indicates more targeted stimulus checks for Biden

The stimulus check isn't just for immediate relief, it's supposed to actually stimulate consumer spending and help get the economy back on track. If you restrict them to only the poorest people, then most of it will just go to either rent or paying off debt, which will be helpful in the short term but doesn't really do much to aid the economic recovery. In order to do that, you need to send money to people who aren't in immediate financial distress, and therefore will actually be willing to spend it on stuff, which keeps businesses afloat and creates jobs and all that good stuff.

[4saken1]

Leave it to Bernie to use the GOP book of starting a fire where there isn't one. 8 dems approve of it and I agree with it. If this money is to help out needy people during a pandemic, does a family earning $300k really need $2000? I know I'm sounding like a broken record but I don't think this money should go to anyone that's working, it should go to unemployed people.

Yep. Perhaps if they weren't giving money out to people that don't actually need it, they could afford to get subsequent stimulus checks out sooner to those that do. Unfortunately, politicians need to win Elections and this would piss off a bunch of voters who just want the extra cash but don't actually need it.

[Gray Lensman]

They might also be able to split the difference between the two cutoffs between now and when the final package passes.

[numberthirty]

The stimulus check isn't just for immediate relief, it's supposed to actually stimulate consumer spending and help get the economy back on track. If you restrict them to only the poorest people, then most of it will just go to either rent or paying off debt, which will be helpful in the short term but doesn't really do much to aid the economic recovery. In order to do that, you need to send money to people who aren't in immediate financial distress, and therefore will actually be willing to spend it on stuff, which keeps businesses afloat and creates jobs and all that good stuff.

Yep.

It's like folks haven't heard about reasonably well off folks placing regular "Take Out..." orders from mom-and-pops just to keep them in business.

"Basics 101..." sort of stuff when it comes to keeping a certain section of an economy afloat.

For all of the times that this thread tends to knock the GOP, there is a lot of stuff being said that lines up with what I've heard Republicans saying for the last couple of weeks.

[Jack Dracula]

The stimulus check isn't just for immediate relief, it's supposed to actually stimulate consumer spending and help get the economy back on track. If you restrict them to only the poorest people, then most of it will just go to either rent or paying off debt, which will be helpful in the short term but doesn't really do much to aid the economic recovery. In order to do that, you need to send money to people who aren't in immediate financial distress, and therefore will actually be willing to spend it on stuff, which keeps businesses afloat and creates jobs and all that good stuff.

With an impending eviction crisis, I'd think using it to pay rent or a mortgage is kind of the point.
What many who don't need the money are likely to do is just put it in the bank or an IRA. If they don't do that, they'll give it to charity.

[JackDaw]

Yep.

It's like folks haven't heard about reasonably well off folks placing regular "Take Out..." orders from mom-and-pops just to keep them in business.

"Basics 101..." sort of stuff when it comes to keeping a certain section of an economy afloat.

For all of the times that this thread tends to knock the GOP, there is a lot of stuff being said that lines up with what I've heard Republicans saying for the last couple of weeks.

I know that conditions vary between UK and US..but all the people I know in UK who have stayed in jobs throughout the pandemic have actually been financially better off than iusual.

That’s been for a mix of reasons...working from home saves travel costs,etc, and there has been less to spend money on. Once (if?) vaccinations allow a return to normal life there is going to be a lot of money spent anyhow.

I actually think there is a strong case for concentrating help on people that have lost jobs. Are conditions really that different in US?