HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rgbecker » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Mon Oct 2, 2006, 10:23 PM
Number of posts: 4,446

Journal Archives

Chauvin Trial: Will the Prosecution need to show motive?

If so, what will they claim? Maybe this was covered in the opening statements, but I missed that.

I've seen mention of an earlier encounter at bouncing/security jobs and of course racism...what else? Showing off to the street "crowd"?

Chauvin Trial: First thing Chauvin does is grab Floyd by the neck with both hands.

Then he throws his camera under the car and holds Floyd in blood choke with left hand at carotid artery while pushing with his left shoulder on his head.

Chauvin then sees Tao on drivers side of car, tries to subdue Floyd for additional 3 or 4 seconds then stops the pressure. Removes Floyd from car and puts his neck under his knee until he is asked to remove it by the paramedic, so paramedic can reach the carotid artery to check pulse.

Here is the evidence straight from the officer's cameras:

Chauvin's camera showing very first contact with Floyd. [link:?t=27297|

Tao's camera showing view from drivers side/rear door: 7:15:26 (actual time: 20:18:28)


Chauvin throws camera off, right hand moving from chest downward, at 20:18:32 (Actual time on officer's camera), Notice his reaction upon seeing Tao at open door across car. Left arm around neck.

A couple of minutes of video pretty much lays out the case...in my mind.

Here's a good run down of all that's in the Georgia Voting law.

Besides the "No food or drinks" rule, I think the control of the make up of the Elections Board by the legislature is the biggest concern.
Control will clearly go to the party in control of the state houses: GOP.


Perhaps, like me, you've seen the recent reports about banning transsexuals from school sports.

Here's a report to get you the information you need about the issue. In summary, it's as rare as voter fraud.


More right wing crap talk.

Here's a Cuomo Timeline.

I hope Cuomo hangs in there. These allegations don't amount to sexual harassment even though, if true, they don't reflect well on Cuomo's social skills. The Second accuser, Bennett, loses some credibility in my opinion by her actions concerning job prospects. And wouldn't her statement that she had been sexually assaulted to Cuomo be expected to lead to discussion and questions about her feelings about sex?

I agree with Cuomo and Franklin, that these accusations should be investigated before verdicts are declared. Otherwise, there will never be an end to the harassment nor the accusations.


I Predict pro-golf will allow carts to accommodate Tiger Woods.

Every course has em, why bother the tradition if it counts out the sport's Master?

Just spouting off about something I know nothing about.

After Schoen's Senate appearance it has become very clear why Epstein committed suicide. n/t

Zoom Meeting Bombing. Anybody?

Where I live there have recently been several public municipal/local government meetings/hearings that have had to be abandoned because one of the "Attendees" started shouting obscenities and somehow drawing on other's screenshots. I haven't witnessed it but have read now of about 5 meetings where this has happened. This seems to be anti government people acting out.

Officials are looking into how to remedy the situation.

Has anyone else heard of such a thing? Is this common? What can be done?

Thanks for your input.

Here's another take on the filibuster...makes it very clear.

This is from a private newsletter.

Why the filibuster must end.

Several readers have asked me to comment on the filibuster rule in the Senate. I will give my layman’s view below, but I recommend that you first read the excellent analysis by Professor Heather Cox Richardson. Professor Richardson brings a dispassionate and historical perspective to the issue of the filibuster. I, on the other hand, am unconstrained by scholarly temperance and will discuss the matter with more outrage and personal bias.

First, why does the filibuster rule matter? In short, it gives the minority party in the Senate an effective veto over legislation proposed by the majority party. In its modern form, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to cut-off debate and bring a bill to the floor for a vote. As a practical matter, that means that Republicans can defeat (or stall) much of Biden’s agenda. Although the filibuster rule can be abolished with a majority vote (51), Democrats don’t have 51 votes because Democratic Senator Joe Manchin has said he will not support elimination of the filibuster. See The Hill, “Manchin vows that he won't vote to kill filibuster 'under any condition'.”

The filibuster is simply a rule of the Senate—not a law or a constitutional requirement—that prescribes the number of Senators who must vote to end debate on a bill, thereby allowing a final vote on the floor of the Senate. See NYTimes, “The Senate Filibuster, Explained.” Here’s the problem with filibuster: The Framers of the Constitution, who were wealthy men with property or businesses, did not trust the general population to rule wisely. In addition, the less populated agrarian states did not trust the more populated industrial states. Sound familiar? To remedy this, the Framers created two chambers of Congress. The House of Representatives was roughly proportional to population (putting aside issues such as slavery, lack of women’s suffrage, and property requirements). The Senate, on the other hand, was designed to provide equal representation to states, without regard to population in the states. It was a necessary compromise to enact the Constitution.

In other words, the Senate is an undemocratic institution by design. The structure of the Senate effectively grants veto power to a small segment of the U.S. population. A bill that needs 51 votes to pass in the Senate can be defeated by states representing approximately 20% of the population. But a vote that needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster can be blocked by states representing approximately 10% of the population. (These numbers are based on population ranking without regard to the party affiliation in the Senate; actual results may vary.) Thus, the filibuster is an anti-democratic rule layered on top of an institution that is undemocratic by design.

The filibuster serves no good purpose. For most of its existence, the filibuster has been used by small Southern states to block civil rights legislation. Republicans cry crocodile tears and claim that the filibuster is necessary to protect “the rights of the minority” in the Senate. Hogwash! The very existence of the Senate protects the rights of the minority as shown by the percentages above. The filibuster is an agreement made when the Senate was effectively a private club of wealthy white men. It is long past time to eliminate the filibuster. But we may have to wait until 2022 to gain more seats in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster.

Another Bernie sighting.


Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 Next »