Dobs

Nikki cooked everyone’s goose. That is all.

This isn't Socialism. It's taxation, which every form of government has ever had. This isn't Socialism. It's standard government social spending to provide a service for federal workers. This isn't Socialism, it's literally just paying and benefiting people who work for you. Yes. But not because it is Socialism to have it, but because I believe it's inefficient and people should be able to plan for their retirement without government intrusion, and that it's unconstitutional for the Federal Government to do this anyway. Socialism would be government nationalizing all retirement plans, not just competing with others. Yes. But not because they are Socialism, because I believe any health insurance initiative must be done on the state level. Also, they're horribly inefficient and expensive. Socialism would be government nationalizing all health insurance and banning private insurance (as some in the Democrat Party now propose to do, so we'll get to that in a second). No, though I do oppose all federal mandates and control on education, and support widespread school choice initiatives and competition in education at the state level. Socialism would be total nationalization of all education, banning private schools. No, the government is allowed to own land. Government owning all the land and disallowing private property would be Socialism. Conservation is a noble goal and states should be allowed to lead those efforts. The federal government can also own land for national security purposes. What. At the federal level? Sure. But states are well within their rights to launch welfare programs which are, you guessed it, not socialism. Socialism would be the nationalization of the services which these welfare programs help to pay for (groceries, food, neonatal products). At the federal level? Yes, for all except veterans. Otherwise, states are more than within their power to provide certain groups housing as a form of welfare. Socialism would be government nationalizing all Housing. Not if states want to provide job training for their citizens, of course not. This doesn't even involve government redistributing wealth or owning anything, so this one isn't even close to socialism. Federally? Yes. States are free to impose such regulations. But this is just a regulation of capitalism, socialism would be to seize the means of production and then mandate that wage which is paid. I don't believe these things should be eradicated, but they should absolutely be returned to the states in the places I've suggested. That being said, none of them were actually Socialism. I won't beat the dead horse, but just echo others when they firmly assert that Socialism is not when the government does stuff. It is no more socialism when government spends money than it is fascist when they raise a military, hire a police force, or enforce immigration laws. It's absurd to suggest any of that is Fascist, just as it is to suggest all social spending is Socialist. Socialism is a very specific and pernicious child of Marxism that affirms public ownership of all property, equal distribution of wealth, and central planning of the market. It has been one of the most destructive ideologies in world history, leaving death and peril in its wake across the globe. Now, politicians with perilously Socialist histories (Bernie Sanders who once called for nationalization of countless industries), have planted the seeds of socialism in the heads of the youngest generation. If allowed to germinate in the same way far-right MAGA ideology has, it could wreak havoc just as, if not more, dangerous to the survival of the Republic. But we are not there yet like we are with MAGA, so yes, it is absolutely my number 3. We must nip it in the bud, so to speak, if we are to remain the United States of America, that last best hope for freedom on earth. These are not socialist countries. Don't believe me? Just ask them. And I'm really not sure where you got that idea about Finland. And Canada could certainly do away with its form of socialized healthcare and be better off, I encourage them to do so, but this one facet does not them a Socialist nation make. These are philosophical oxymorons. Socialism (public ownership, distribution, central planning) can only be achieved through force or threat of force. There is no anarchy where there is socialism (that's not necessarily a bad thing), and there certainly is no economic liberty (but this certainly is), a hallmark of libertarianism. It sounds to me like you are a social democrat. This is a perfectly legitimate and fine ideology. It is also a capitalist one. You believe in lots of regulation and government aid to act as scaffolding on a system that is fundamentally still a capitalist economy. We may disagree on a lot of particulars, but we ultimately agree on the foundation upon which nations should be built, capitalist liberal democracy. You and I are ultimately both liberals. We support the liberal world order and we are children of the West and its enlightenment. We have a lot of political daylight between us, but we are the number one enemy of both Fascists and Socialists. They ought to be defeated and returned to the ash heap of history where they belong. Unfortunately, both are on the rise in the United States and Europe, and both must be routed out. Otherwise, the grand project of human liberty and democracy hangs in the balance. So please, do yourself a favor, and don't call yourself a socialist. You might find yourself in unfortunate company.

Ranked: 1. China 2. MAGA 3. Socialism --- The above are immediately pressing threats that need to be dealt with to preserve the Republic --- 4. Climate Change 5. AI --- The above are long-term threats that if not dealt with pose serious risk to the Republic --- 6. Russia --- Russia is a pressing but clearly manageable threat that needs to be continually dealt with --- 7. Wokeness 8. Secularism 9. Conservative Evangelicals --- The above are neither threats nor boons, and they can and have been both depending on how they are wielded. They must be managed and moderated in their impact on the national character --- 10. Establishment Politics --- This is not a threat, this is unironically one of the only things keeping us alive and sane as a country right now, though in a perfect world it would be re-oriented around different values. Maybe after we deal with Socialism and MAGA ---

Yeah don't love Greeley and he was definitely an unnecessary pain in Lincoln's ass, but ultimately I feel his heart was very much in the right place. He could be lower C or high D if I really thought harder about it.

18,750 additional signatures are accepted, bringing Suozzi to a grand total of 31,500. Therefore, ballot access is granted.

The New York Court of Appeals rejects 5,500 signatures for standard errors, accepting the remaining 16,500 and therefore granting ballot access to Governor Cuomo.

If my options are Trump and Biden, I am almost certainly voting for Manchin, though this is less certain than if Hogan were leading the No Labels Ticket. Larry Hogan is just about my dream candidate, and could not in good conscience pass up an opportunity to vote for him. I also very much prefer Joe Manchin to all the other candidates listed and believe we would make a much better President than either Trump or Biden (by a lot), but there is less certainty of my vote for Manchin than there is for Hogan, though it is highly likely.

The New York Court of Appeals finds 4,250 irregularities in the 17,000 signatures collected by Suozzi canvassers, this is not an unusual number, but it does push them slightly below the ballot access mark. The court accepts 12,750 signatures and orders the Suozzi campaign to produce 2,250 more for ballot access. The Zeldin campaign, on the other hand, appears to have bigger problems. The New York Court of Appeals, in reviewing the signatures submitted, find that canvassers in New York City, Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk counties were all provided with signature sheets which were entitled "A Petition to Lower Taxes in New York" and which, ostensibly, asked the signator to lend their name to reducing income tax in the state, never revealing until the authority line at the bottom of the sheet that the "cause" which would reduce taxes was, apparently, electing Lee Zeldin as Governor. Because of this, the Court rules that the signatures collected on those sheets cannot reasonably be presumed to be full endorsements of Lee Zeldin's campaign necessary for gaining ballot access. Following a thorough review of all signatures collected on such sheets, 14,000 have been invalidated on the grounds of impermissible language and a further 1,250 have been invalidated for usual irregularities, while 4,750 have been accepted. The Zeldin campaign shall produce 10,250 more signatures for ballot access.

Good poll. There is no scenario in which Larry Hogan is on the ballot that I do not vote for him, even though I know he cannot win. My vote should act as pressure for both the Democrats and Republicans to court me better. Whichever party gets to roughly Larry's ballpark first (small government, individual liberties, strong foreign policy, law and order, equality under the law, and free markets), I will support. Right now both parties seem hopelessly lost in that goal, with the GOP largely prevailing on two issues (Law and Order and Free Markets), Democrats largely prevailing on two others (Equality under the Law and Strong Foreign Policy) and both parties are hopelessly adrift from small government and individual liberties, though with a slight GOP edge. Sadly, neither party is totally great on any issue because they entertain heinous factions opposed to both issues on which they currently lead (Big Government grifters like Kari Lake plus those who believe Trump is above the law and Pro-Russia/China tankies like Ilhan Omar and others who often also harbor vile anti-semitic sentiments and engage in noxious cancel culture). Until either party can offer a solution that isn't the rank authoritarianism and ego cult of Donald Trump or the inept, socialism-enabling "leadership" of Joe Biden, I am livin' like Larry.

Indiana GOP Primary - May 3rd, 2016 Ted Cruz - 557,493 votes (50.2%) 39 delegates Carly Fiorina - 553,050 votes (49.8%) 15 delegates 1,110,543 votes cast / 54 delegates allocated

State of the Race Post-ACELA Primaries Carly Fiorina walked away from the Northeastern primary states in the clearly dominant position, notching wins across the Eastern Seaboard from Maryland to Rhode Island. The Californian was able to capture majorities in the New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island primaries while winning clear pluralities in Delaware and Pennsylvania. Accordingly, Fiorina's delegate lead has now crested nearly 300 as she hits the 2/3rds mark on her path to the nomination. She is now, officially, the only candidate who can reach 1,237, though this will require strong performances in the remaining contests and heavy support among unbound RNC delegates. Fiorina's coalition of middle and upper-class suburbanites has allowed her to dominate in these Northeastern primaries, with strong support from local endorsers like Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz has vowed to continue on to the convention and, in a rally held in Indianapolis, Indiana this evening, has announced, in a shock, that Ben Carson will be his running mate, should he become the nominee. Dr. Carson was then invited on stage and, with no talk of the crushing defeat for both the Cruz and Carson campaigns, announced that he would suspend his campaign in order to join the Cruz ticket as a candidate for Vice President. The newly-minted Cruz/Carson ticket, the most diverse in the history of a major party, is staking much on Indiana in an effort to stop Fiorina's momentum and force a contested convention. The Fiorina campaign has not responded to this development, and the announcement was in heavy competition with the coverage of Fiorina's 5 wins in the Northeast. Now, as the campaign turns back West for its final leg in May and June, most pundits agree that the campaigns will be on even ground, with some states favoring Cruz/Carson, while the frontrunner Fiorina is favored in others. Candidate Standings - April 27th, 2016 Carly Fiorina - 8,423,164 (32.74%) / 832 delegates (33.66%) Ted Cruz - 7,749,886 (30.12%) / 534 delegates (21.60%) Marco Rubio - 3,296,112 (12.81%) / 207 delegates (8.37%) [withdrawn] Ben Carson - 4,378,745 (16.88%) / 203 delegates (8.21%) [withdrawn, endorsed Cruz] Chris Christie - 1,049,958 (4.08%) / 50 delegates (2.02%) [withdrawn, endorsed Fiorina] John Kasich - 528,693 (2.05%) / 26 delegates (1.05%) [withdrawn, endorsed Fiorina] Others - 303,108 (1.18%) / 7 delegates (0.28%) 25,729,666 votes cast / 2,472 delegates total / 1,237 to win

Rhode Island GOP Primary - April 26th, 2016 Carly Fiorina - 37,336 votes (59.9%) 11 delegates Ted Cruz - 19,198 votes (30.8%) 5 delegates Ben Carson - 5,797 votes (9.3%) 62,331 votes cast / 16 delegates allocated

Pennsylvania GOP Primary - April 26th, 2016 Carly Fiorina - 731,864 votes (45.9%) 54 delegates Ted Cruz - 554,987 votes (34.8%) 10 delegates Ben Carson - 307,734 votes (19.3%) 4 delegates 1,594,475 votes / 68 delegates allocated

Maryland GOP Primary - April 26th, 2016 Carly Fiorina - 255,241 votes (55.6%) 38 delegates Ben Carson - 127,620 votes (27.8%) Ted Cruz - 75,287 votes (16.4%) 459,066 votes cast / 38 delegates allocated

Delaware GOP Primary - April 26th, 2016 Carly Fiorina - 33,548 votes (48.0%) 16 delegates Ted Cruz - 19,011 votes (27.2%) Ben Carson - 17,333 votes (24.8%) 69,892 votes cast / 16 delegates allocated

Connecticut GOP Primary - April 26th, 2016 Carly Fiorina - 128,950 votes (60.4%) 25 delegates Ted Cruz - 61,272 votes (28.7%) Ben Carson - 23,271 votes (10.9%) 213,493 votes cast / 25 delegates allocated

I have decided to treat this as if I were handed a rank-choice ballot election for President. This is my ballot: 1. Mitt Romney 2. George W Bush 3. John McCain 4. John Kasich 5. Gary Johnson 6. Hillary Clinton 7. Ted Cruz 8. Al Gore 9. Rick Santorum 10. Barack Obama 11. Joe Biden 12. John Kerry 13. Howard Dean The following are candidates who I could not bring myself to rank on the ballot (because I believe them to be both national embarrassments and active threats to the republic and thus will never get my vote for Commander-in-Chief in any capacity) but will force myself to do so for the thought experiment: Unranked 1: Donald Trump Unranked 2: Bernie Sanders Unranked 3: Ralph Nader Unranked 4: Jill Stein

New York GOP Primary - April 19th, 2016 Carly Fiorina - 520,709 votes (55.6%) 88 delegates Ted Cruz - 298,752 votes (31.9%) 4 delegates Ben Carson - 117,066 votes (12.5%) 936,527 votes cast / 92 delegates allocated

Candidate Standings - April 13th, 2016 Carly Fiorina - 6,715,516 votes (29.99%) / 600 delegates (24.27%) Ted Cruz - 6,721,379 (30.01%) / 515 delegates (20.83%) Marco Rubio - 3,296,112 (14.72%) / 207 delegates (8.37%) [withdrawn] Ben Carson - 3,779,924 (16.88%) / 199 delegates (8.05%) Chris Christie - 1,049,958 (4.69%) / 50 delegates (2.02%) [withdrawn, endorsed Fiorina] John Kasich - 528,693 (2.36%) / 26 delegates (1.05%) [withdrawn, endorsed Fiorina] Others - 303,108 (1.36%) / 7 delegates (0.28%) 23,331,217 votes cast / 2,472 delegates total / 1,237 to win

Fifteenth GOP Debate - April 12th, 2016 Manhattan, New York Center: Carly Fiorina Center-Right: Ted Cruz Center-Left: Ben Carson --- Convening in Fox News Studio for the fifteenth and final debate, the grizzled field of three remaining candidates have arrived in Manhattan for the week leading up to the crucial New York primary and the contests which will follow it. These contests, featuring delegates awarded in New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, are all viewed as some sort of Fiorina advantage, but the real question remains whether Fiorina will rack up enough support to be significant distance between her and Cruz, and perhaps beat the increasingly likely chance of a contested convention. The debate itself featured particularly strong moments from Fiorina who leaned into Cruz's criticisms of her as a "coastal elite" and earlier remarks about how a New Yorker or Californian could not understand an Iowan, flipping the script and appealing directly to Northeastern voters, hammering her own record on national security, particular her role as a tech CEO following 9/11, she was met with raucous applause for her foreign policy and national security planks, while attempts by Cruz and Carson to appeal to their evangelical base largely fell flat. It is unsurprising that Fiorina walked away from this debate the winner, but this was compounded by the Cruz-Carson lane now seriously shrinking in a region with few voters for the right-flank of the party to go around in the first place, putting serious pressure on the flagging Carson to drop out before it is too late. For the first time in the history of the race, Senator Cruz has directly called for Carson's withdrawal following the fall-out of the debate.

I don't agree with this analysis. But before I go further, how do you define "ideology" and "partisanship" in the context of the Court?

You might argue that the intent of certain founders was to reflect widespread generational change in the Constitution and in law, and indeed, largely, both have done so. When the nation has convulsed in ways that reflect the need for federalized reform, it has delivered us the Reconstruction Amendments, Women's Suffrage, the elimination of the Poll Tax, and more. Tocqueville described those great convulsions as "changes in the national spirit and character," which is the kind of fundamental change necessary to compel a change to the document which fundamentally binds the government from corner to corner. We are, at base, a federal system. This is why it is, and should be, so difficult to bind a change to the entire nation, when those changes can be affected much more easily by those that want them the most in their given subdivisions. But certainly, the document itself has no intention to change itself. This is why the Amendment process is so difficult. To change the Constitution and bind all states requires broad, broad support. Remember, the federal government was never supposed to do nearly as much as it does now, so most of the big questions were intended to be handled at the state level. I am not an original intent theorist, and neither are most originalists. Most originalists subscribe to the "original meaning" school of originalism, which instead looks at what words meant when they were originally penned. Original Intent is at odds with a textualism approach because it constitutes a kind of historical purposivism that starts to try to read the minds of legislators, never a good idea for a court whose purpose is to read law. Original Meaning Originalism commands its subscribers to read the words as they would have been understood by the average, reasonable individual at the time of ratification. Importantly, it does not require you to emulate the mindset of that average, reasonable individual at the time of ratification when trying the meaning of the law against the facts of the case, only when determining the meaning of the law. It does not mean the words cannot change, and it also does not mean their application cannot change in response to new legal stimuli. It simply means that the actual, real meaning, of the words does not. Though I will defend original intent thought from this attack, even though I don't practice it, because I think you're underselling. Original Intent Originalism also does not mean that the words cannot change or that they cannot respond to new legal stimuli. However, I will agree that Original Intent, like most intent-oriented methods of jurisprudence often sacrifice meaning for intent/purpose too much and result in bad law. This isn't an affect of it being originalist in nature, but rather it being intent-oriented. Agree, within reason. There are certain protected classes that get particular protection in certain areas, but all Americans are guaranteed their rights regardless of what they look like or anything else. I do take certain issues with "how they live" because certain lifestyles can legitimately be deemed criminal, and, as a result, their practitioners can have their liberties suspended via due process. No Originalist school of thought conflicts with this mantra. Certainly not original meaning. I'm not sure about an affirmative "right to consume." Certainly, there is a legal right to enter into voluntary contacts and engage in voluntary commerce, but an affirmative right to consume seems to suggest I have a right to force others into contracts with me. Either way, decent analysis of the 9th Amendment here. Though, I would be careful in creating a hierarchy of rights too strict. I've already explained how originalism does no such thing and only commands us to read the law for what it meant at the time of ratification provided said law has not been changed. But in either case, how could a theory of legal interpretation itself be "unconstitutional." There is no Article III prohibition on originalist thought in reading law, so this is a claim most puzzling. Could you point to instances of the Court taking away your right to bear arms or to speech? It seems this court has been among the most aggressive in defending the liberties found in the Bill of Rights. Though, I will concede that it has also done a decent job of remanding the protection of certain "rights" that are not guaranteed at the federal level to instead be adjudicated by the states, as is consistent with the 10th Amendment. Either way, as Ted said, it's never a good idea to advance broad institutional reform because you have an issue with the people currently occupying the institution. I don't think a more political, expanded court would be better regarding the faithful reading of law, quite the opposite. Remember, their charge is not to engage in the political work of legislatures in creating or defining rights, but rather in reading and interpreting those that currently exist. Also, how do you conceive of a constitutional right to "happiness?" We can agree here. So long as there is no clear federal guarantee of a given right or some other constitutional mandate for a certain style of governance, the 10th Amendment is pretty clear that no federal agent, including SCOTUS, should touch it.

Veto as it's violation of the eleventh amendment, such a law would either need to be on the state level (as done in Connecticut.) or as an amendment. Governor Dobb will lampoon the Presidents “selective Constitutionalism” in an essay that points out that Congress clearly has the authority to regulate federal elections and officials and that this law is, of course, not a violation of the 11th. The President is embarrassing himself by grasping for protection under a document he routinely ignores when it suits him.