[Doug64]

@Pants-of-dog, I'm not sure how you get "must give permission" out of "give encouragement, correction, and help." Would that mean that the men would be required to get the permission of their own "heads" before they make major decisions?

I love how the supreme court is supposed to be this neutral apolitical institution, yet everybody is utterly obsessed with the political leanings of whoever's going to be on it.

That's what you get with Perfectionist judges. When judges rule by what they think the law or constitution ought to mean rather than what it does mean, then what those judges think it ought to mean becomes vitally important. And when you've been advancing your political agenda through Perfectionist judges that share your beliefs in what the law or constitution ought to mean, then judges that rule according to what it does mean become threats.

[ingliz]

Would that mean... ?

Yes

“Your life is not your own. All one’s decisions and dealings become the concern of one’s head, and in turn potentially become known to the leadership.”

— Adrian Reimers, a former member of the group

[Stormsmith]

Well. In addition to not being able to "*like*" posts, I can't start new columns, so i'll start one here:

The NEW YORK TIMES has got hold of President Trump 'S tax returns. 20 years worth.

[Doug64]

Yes

“Your life is not your own. All one’s decisions and dealings become the concern of one’s head, and in turn potentially become known to the leadership.”

— Adrian Reimers, a former member of the group

Again, that doesn’t say that the “head” can do more than give advice. It does say that there are no areas that are off limits for guidance to be given.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog, I'm not sure how you get "must give permission" out of "give encouragement, correction, and help." Would that mean that the men would be required to get the permission of their own "heads" before they make major decisions?

Men probably do require or want the permission of their heads, but the dynamic between two men is probably not so overtly hierarchical since it does not have the same sexism as the relationship between men and women in traditional Christian communities.

This should play well with the conservative religious voter base, and help solidify his support among that voter bloc.

This type of person can also be counted on to support the positions of many traditional Christian communities, many of which run contrary to the feminist agenda of equality.

This would also run the risk of getting rid of some of the victories attained for women that RBG helped make real. While this woman will almost certainly not, for example, rule that women cannot sit on the SCOTUS, she may undo RBG's legacy in ways that deal with religious beliefs

[Julian658]

I'm loving the whole preemptive victomhood narrative from the GOP about how the Dems hate Catholics despite Biden being Catholic and the only Catholic president being Kennedy.

Reactionary thought is all about painting yourself as the victim so you can work the ref and make people feel pity for you until you have enough power to crush them. It's straight up borderline personality disorder made manifest into politics.

I was raised Catholic, and I don't give a shit about your stupid deity. But I know any nominee put forth by the GOP is an insane religious zealot who believes in dumb shit like physically transporting every Jew to Israel just to speed up God destroying the world because then everything will be super great. And that their conception of a perfect afterlife is basically being high as shit on opioids so that you're fine with praising said deity for eternity, but you're not high you're just really into praising a deity as part of his eternal praise choir.

I don't know why people choose to worship insecure demigods but whatever.

Your characterization of Republicans as victims is a bit like a dwarf telling a 7 foot man you are too short.
Or perhaps you are simply projecting (see Freud).

Projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don't like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.

[Rancid]

Projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don't like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.

Nothing wrong with that, I project CONSTANTLY.

[Julian658]

Nothing wrong with that, I project CONSTANTLY.

All of us project. Constantly could be pathologic, but next to the Olympian you are quite normal.

The Olympian has something in common with Trump:

From Unconscious Defense to Conscious Offense
Donald Trump’s penchant for attacking his opponents by projecting onto them his own disavowed personal attributes and apparent self-assessments has been a consistent feature of his rhetorical style and remarked upon by many observers.
http://www.analytic-room.com/essays/pro ... y-senecal/

[Drlee]

@Julian658 Your characterization of Republicans as victims is a bit like a dwarf telling a 7 foot man you are too short.
Or perhaps you are simply projecting (see Freud).

Republicans are victims. The party rhetoric these days is demonstrably false. It is run by a person who pays absolutely no attention to the truth. He has not delivered on a single promise for working class Americans. No wall. No real job growth. No draining the swamp (whatever that means.) Economy in tatters. Deficit soaring during a conservative administration. And that is before covid sent it higher.

Now I am a republican conservative. I got a good deal. The Trump tax cuts have saved me five figures a year. Thank you very much Mr. President. And I have government health insurance so if Obamacare goes away, it will have no effect on me or my immediate family for that matter. But you know that all of those shit-for-brains MAGA hat wearing fools that are at Trump events without a mask, may survive Covid 19 but in its aftermath will be uninsureable for a lifetime. Won't it be fun with all of those Red Hat ROTC cadets find out that if they have a single remaining effect from COVID they are disqualified for military service... Or most government law enforcement.... Or a pilot's license for a long time if ever. But after the new hard right SCOTUS overturns the existing condition mandate and Obamacare in general, it will not be the elected officials who will decide what is right. It will be the insurance companies. And their decisions will not be able to be challenged under law.



Here is something to consider Julian. Just because you are not paranoid does not mean that nobody is out to get you.

[Julian658]

Republicans are victims. The party rhetoric these days is demonstrably false. It is run by a person who pays absolutely no attention to the truth. He has not delivered on a single promise for working class Americans. No wall. No real job growth. No draining the swamp (whatever that means.) Economy in tatters. Deficit soaring during a conservative administration. And that is before covid sent it higher.

Now I am a republican conservative. I got a good deal. The Trump tax cuts have saved me five figures a year. Thank you very much Mr. President. And I have government health insurance so if Obamacare goes away, it will have no effect on me or my immediate family for that matter. But you know that all of those shit-for-brains MAGA hat wearing fools that are at Trump events without a mask, may survive Covid 19 but in its aftermath will be uninsureable for a lifetime. Won't it be fun with all of those Red Hat ROTC cadets find out that if they have a single remaining effect from COVID they are disqualified for military service... Or most government law enforcement.... Or a pilot's license for a long time if ever. But after the new hard right SCOTUS overturns the existing condition mandate and Obamacare in general, it will not be the elected officials who will decide what is right. It will be the insurance companies. And their decisions will not be able to be challenged under law.



Here is something to consider Julian. Just because you are not paranoid does not mean that nobody is out to get you.

My taxes went up with the Trump tax plan. That is all I have to say.

[Drlee]

My taxes went up with the Trump tax plan. That is all I have to say.

Quite possible. But then you likely earn less money than I do. It is as I have said all along. His was a tax cut for the wealthy and for red states.

[Sivad]

likely earn less money than I do

There's good money in babbittry. In addition to being highly lucrative there's also the status and privilege. It's not hard to see why people go into that racket.

[Julian658]

Quite possible. But then you likely earn less money than I do. It is as I have said all along. His was a tax cut for the wealthy and for red states.

You are a federal government employee.

Trump took away my ability to deduct a large chunk of my Real Estate tax and Mortgage interest. That bumped my tax up. I live in the DC metro area and Real Estate is not cheap. People in my shoes pay more taxes.

What are some specific factors that could cause these individuals to experience this increase?
There are a couple of major provisions that will have mattered. Most obviously, the SALT deduction—the amount of your state and local taxes that you can deduct from your federal income taxes—is now capped at $10,000. So, for people who pay a lot of state and local taxes, that is going to cost them money. It was obviously an issue in certain electoral districts, particularly purple districts in blue states, places like California and New Jersey, New York. If you're a high earner in those states, you make enough money that you pay a lot in taxes at the state level and now you also make enough money that itemizing your federal return makes sense. So, if you're in that category, you may have a lost out on the TCJA.

The home mortgage interest deduction was also capped, although I'm not sure how much of those effects should really be felt at this point since it hasn't been very long. There was a change for alimony. I think you probably would have had to get a divorced in the last two months for it to matter. But still, it is a change.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xyq ... ps-tax-cut

[Doug64]

Two pieces of news on the Barrett nomination and the possible Democratic response. First, the timetable:

Graham: Senate Judiciary Committee to vote by Oct. 22 on Barrett nomination

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that the Senate Judiciary Committee will approve Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court by Oct. 22, setting up a timeline that could see President Trump’s pick confirmed before November.

“So, we’ll start on October 12, and more than half of the Supreme Court justices who have had hearings were done within 16 days or less,” Mr. Graham, the committee’s chairman, said on Fox News’ ‘Sunday Morning Futures.’ “We’ll have a day of introduction. We’ll have two days of questioning, Tuesday and Wednesday, and on the 15th we’ll begin to markup, we’ll hold it over for a week, and we’ll report her nomination out of the committee on October 22.”

“Then it will be up to [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell as to what to do with the nomination once it comes out of committee,” the South Carolina Republican added.

And second, whether the Democrats should pack the Supreme Court if they win the Senate and presidency:

Joe Manchin will not support any bid to expand SCOTUS

Sen. Joe Manchin said Sunday he would not support any Democratic push to expand the Supreme Court in retaliation for Republicans quickly replacing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Mr. Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat known for occasionally working with the GOP, said the Senate was designed to be the “saucer that cooled off the hot tea” and radical calls to “pack the court,” as some call it, would undermine that.

“We were supposed to work in a bipartisan [fashion]. And we’ve done that,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “That’s not something that I would support. I can’t support that.”

Some of the left, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, have called for increasing the number of justices in response to what they see as the height of hypocrisy from Republicans for filling a seat during an election cycle after they had refused to do so in 2016.

Currently, the number of justices on the Supreme Court is set by a statute. The size of the court was last changed legally in 1869, from seven to nine.

It's an interesting question, why Manchin has said he won't vote for packing the SC. He does seem to be fairly moderate, though GovTrack--the website I'd normally go to for senators' voting record--has chosen to shut down for the duration (apparently they didn't like Conservatives using their ranking of Kamala Harris against her); he could honestly think that we need to tone it down and packing the Court might instead blow things up even more. He could also be thinking of his next election; it's still four years away and most issues would fade by then, but maybe not this one.

[SpecialOlympian]

You know what will own the libs? Putting a dead eyed Christian sociopath who willl rule against me in every case. Owned, libz.

[SpecialOlympian]

You are a federal government employee.

Trump took away my ability to deduct a large chunk of my Real Estate tax and Mortgage interest. That bumped my tax up. I live in the DC metro area and Real Estate is not cheap. People in my shoes pay more taxes.

What are some specific factors that could cause these individuals to experience this increase?
There are a couple of major provisions that will have mattered. Most obviously, the SALT deduction—the amount of your state and local taxes that you can deduct from your federal income taxes—is now capped at $10,000. So, for people who pay a lot of state and local taxes, that is going to cost them money. It was obviously an issue in certain electoral districts, particularly purple districts in blue states, places like California and New Jersey, New York. If you're a high earner in those states, you make enough money that you pay a lot in taxes at the state level and now you also make enough money that itemizing your federal return makes sense. So, if you're in that category, you may have a lost out on the TCJA.

The home mortgage interest deduction was also capped, although I'm not sure how much of those effects should really be felt at this point since it hasn't been very long. There was a change for alimony. I think you probably would have had to get a divorced in the last two months for it to matter. But still, it is a change.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xyq ... ps-tax-cut

Didn't read any of your bolded text because it GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[Wulfschilde]

ACB is expected to be appointed before the end of October. Winning

Democrats could do a variety of things to prevent the vote, such as run another impeachment but they have said that they aren't willing to do this. Almost as if political will is drying up due to their previous crying wolf impeachment and the Kavanaugh thing. There is more demoralization still to come I bet.

Like I wrote in another thread, Democrats might have stopped all of this in numerous ways (and hurt Trump in the process) if they had not behaved themselves consistently badly during all of the previous opportunities to sit around and be normal.

[Drlee]

You are a federal government employee.

No I am not a government employee.

[Julian658]

No I am not a government employee.

You keep digging a hole! That is what happens when you create a fictitious character that pretends to be a Republican.

You said above:

And I have government health insurance so if Obamacare goes away, it will have no effect on me or my immediate family for that matter.

Are you able to post truthful statements?

[Rich]

Are you able to post truthful statements?

Doesn't @Drlee have VHA?