Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Video explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1bULQWg32g

Article Link here:   "GOP senators warn Bondi not to slow-walk release of Epstein files". "The calls come amid speculation that the Justice Department may cite ongoing investigations or other reasons to hold back material."

"Bondi said Wednesday that “new information” obtained by investigators had spurred the Justice Department to reverse its earlier decision to close investigations related to Epstein."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5614039-justice-department-epstein-documents/

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Unfortunately, I think we have become numb to Trump's un-American and controversial rhetoric. It happens so often, and nothing ever comes of any of it, that we mostly ignore it as the actions of an overgrown man-child.

Well, James,  there is a partial explanation: the continuous propaganda efforts on the part of Faux that deletes the word "illegal" from the Democrats calling on the military to to resist "illegal" orders, i.e. to obey the law,and simply calling out Democrats on behalf of Trump by reporting what he is concerned with is just the president reacting to the messaging to the military from the Democrats to fail to adhere to the orders of their commander-in-chief! What could be more unpatriotic than that! And they do it with righteous indignation!

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

Happy Thanksgiving Rod 🦃

Gobble Gobble!!!

Anybody still left in the forum?...

"Costco filed a lawsuit asking for a full refund of tariffs the warehouse club giant has paid since President Donald Trump imposed “reciprocal” and “fentanyl” tariffs earlier this year."

"Costco’s suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade notes that it might not be able to get the refunds later, even if the Supreme Court upholds lower court rulings that the tariffs are illegal."

“The core Congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution,” the Federal Circuit said in its ruling." “Tariffs are a core Congressional power.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/01/costco-sues-trump-tariffs-trade-supreme-court.html

Originally Posted by James Lacey

The vote to extend ACA subsidies for three years, which Schumer says will take place in the Senate before the year's end, will fail. It's a political stunt to pin more blame for the problem on Republicans. We all know there is no way the GOP will agree to a three-year extension. So, our politicians will continue to dither and attack each other politically, and absolutely nothing will get done about the problem. The cynic in me believes that Democrats will gladly let the current situation continue to ensure that it's a significant issue come the midterm elections.

While it's true that a three year extension would likely fail in a vote, a more likely compromise of a lesser term extension could conceivably pass. That said, here's what the so-called "centrist" Republican congressmen are saying and it lays responsibility for the impasse on their fellow republicans:

"Frustration is mounting among moderate House Republicans as various competing health care plans appear to be going nowhere, with less than 10 working days left on the calendar before millions of Americans see their health insurance premiums spike."  

"A small but animated group of GOP centrists is imploring party leaders to extend the ObamaCare tax credits set to expire at the end of the year. But they’ve run into a wall of opposition from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who’s cold to the idea, and a larger group of conference conservatives, who are openly fighting to have the subsidies end."

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5634256-gop-health-care-plans-frustration/

The fact is James, the GOP has tried repeatedly to end the ACA, and they'll burn the house down to do it. So, as far as assigning responsibility for it, blame the GOP...

There isn't any:    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5632583-republicans-divided-aca-subsidies/

There are, however, "concepts of a plan" so let us consider what those gems entail:   

1. Fund your own "health savings account"--hmm, that one's been around for awhile,  how's that one working for you?

2. Combine with others for collective bargaining with insurance companies to lower their rates--any of you good at negotiations? 

3. Alternately sign up for routine exams, if offered, at your local Costco or Walmart!

4. Decry the affordable care act for the whole problem and blame it all on Biden!

Looks like they're gonna go for option 4...

Meanwhile the red states are gonna take it on the chin with the loss of the ACA subsidies while the blue states, in comparison, are not! (Guess they better line up at Walmart!)

"Red states would likely lose the most under expiring ACA subsidies, due to a larger share of enrollees living in Republican-held congressional districts and states that have not expanded Medicaid. Analysts suggest that ending the enhanced subsidies would disproportionately harm red states, particularly in the South, because a significant number of their residents rely on these plans and would face the largest premium increases, as well as potential job losses in sectors that depend on ACA plans."

"Of the 10 states with the highest share of the population receiving Obamacare subsidies, eight are in the South and voted for President Donald Trump last year. They include Florida, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee and North Carolina. The other two states in the top 10, Utah and Wyoming, are also Republican states."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/gop-states-suffer-biggest-blows-225523374.html

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

The Roberts court is a shill of the MAGA/Project 2025/GOP.

Only enlarging the court to 11 or 13 combined with term limits or age limits*will change this.  

*e.g. here in Canada the age limit is 75.  There is no term limit.

Dave

"The Roberts court is a shill of the MAGA/Project 2025/GOP."


How true, and take another recent example wherein the cons, without much of any "deliberation" other than a few hours over a holiday, decided that the redistricting plan for Texas was kosher. They totally ignored the hours and days worth of analysis of the appeals court that had decided the plan cleary amounted to racial gerrymandering which it obviously does and even ignored an internal justice department document that concluded the same thing. But according to Sammy Alito, it's obviously ONLY partisan gerrymandering and there's nothing to see here...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Incidental disenfranchising of minorities is not illegal if the gerrymandering is motivated by partisan purposes.  The "Texas started it" argument is legally meaningless.   I'd personally prefer not to have partisan gerrymandering, but we do, and according to many, the D's have historically benefited the most from this.  I know that I was personally gerrymandered from R Golden/Lakewood, where I lived at the time. to D Boulder, just so the dominant D's in Colorado were assured one more seat.

Excuse me for not immediately responding to your righteous indignation. I was a trifle busy last night and today after arriving at my observing site:

Temps were summer-like--in the 70s with 30% humidity--then at night fall a rapid decline with temps at freezing a few hours after sunset with 29F during much of the evening (despite the weather forecast of 38F) and 28F at 6:00am. Additionally, humidity, as per my digital gauge, rose to nearly 70% at night but, inexplicably, without dew or frost. 
Despite the good seeing predictions, it was poor to average and while it generally supported the use of my 10mm Ethos, I couldn't go lower than that. I actually used the Ethos exclusively last night for several reasons, and I'm glad that I did.

Transparency was very good so at least that helped and multiple SQM reads were @ 21.16.

Despite the less than ideal predicted conditions, I did have several key takeaways from the evening among the many objects I viewed last night:

1. Cetus: I never seem to get enough time for this constellation so I revisit it anytime I can:  Check your notes and see if you've observed these, both of which were quite impressive last night:

NGC 157: this galaxy is unexpectedly large, bright, and reminded me of a white sail or cotton candy:  https://www.deepskycorner.ch/obj/ngc157.en.php
NGC 247: This one nearly extended a whopping three quarters of the way in the field of my ethos:  https://www.deepskycorner.ch/obj/ngc247.en.php
NGC 246: I'm sure you've seen this one and although ok without a filter, my lumicon 2" 0111 made it appear almost photographic:  https://www.deepskycorner.ch/obj/ngc246.en.php

2. Perseus: NGC 1275: Centered in the Perseus 1 galaxy cluster (Abell 426), this galaxy appears to have its fellow galaxies littered around it in an expanding circle within the field of the ethos:  https://www.astronomy.com/observing/101-must-see-cosmic-objects-ngc-1275/

3. Thor's Helmet: Despite being in the combined lightdome of Santa Clarita and LA, aka "perpetual dawn", the lumicon 0111 worked another miracle, and the bubbly innards, flowing wings and a nebulous cap was a welcome sight.

4. Finally, I awoke just before sunrise and just looking up, it was neat to see Ursa Major overhead with Corvus in its highest position along with Leo ascending into the western sky--it's good to see 'em when you haven't seen them in awhile.

That said, Trump picked his two favorite judges the other day, and, taking a wild guess, I got 'em right before he did! (What are the odds?) Sammy and Clarence! Who would have thought?

Now to Jim and his kvetching: First, he could move to ruby red Colorado Springs, Colorado and live in the same community next to the arch typical Trump supporter we all know and who probably took my advice and joined ICE. Or, Jim could move and be represented by none other than LAUREN BOEBERT. I'm sure she'd love to hear from you. What couldn't be better?
Jim, the point is, YOU HAVE CHOICES! 
What do you want me to do, draw YOU a map?!

Originally Posted by James Brown

Your source is a youngster - a child even.  I value your opinion far more than I value his.  I don't mind saying that I value my own opinion on issues of jurisprudence far more than this activist's opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Myrick

You are old enough to remember the Warren Court issuing progressive opinions one after another.  You probably remember Roe v. Wade when it came out.  You might very well have agreed with the outcome, but at the time, did you consider the Warren Court Shills for the left?  Of course not!  As you probably know, Roe was issued on shaky ground, even liberal icons like Ginsberg acknowledged that.  The Roberts Court has undone some of what the Warren Court did - not because of political bias or shilling.  I could argue that the Warren Court were the actual shills - but I certainly won't.  I am smart enough to see that they were liberal justices applying liberal judicial principals to the thorny issues presented to them.  Times have changed.  Elections have long term consequences.  

I get it that the press and 95% of the electorate applies the same lockstep left/right political motivation to the Court that they apply to elected officials.  The press and 95% of the electorate lack the ability of to discern what is really going on in these Supreme Court cases.  I want you to be part of the 5% that brings some serious consideration to the Court's actions, even if you usually disagree with the outcomes.

"I want you to be part of the 5% that brings some serious consideration to the Court's actions, even if you usually disagree with the outcomes."

Jim, here's my response and I look forward to yours:

1.  If you want that 5% to grow in this case, then I'd argue SCOTUS would need to demonstrate at least the same degree of due-diligence in reviewing the arguments and evidence before the court. Specifically, the days and hours attendant with process that accompanied the review by the appeals court. This surely didn't happen over a holiday that the constituted the time frame in which the case was considered and decided, post haste.

2. What degree of evidence do you see being required to establish racial gerrymandering in the minds of the conservative members of SCOTUS? Given what we've seen thus far, it seems nothing, except an outright proclamation of intentional discrimination, signed in writing, rises to the level necessary for the conservative members of the court to decide otherwise. It seems that we somehow have achieved a perfect world in that these cases before this court have all been shown to be demonstrably politically partisan and nothing else beyond a shadow of a doubt, particularly within the current administration and its GOP minions that follow its orders without question, can possibly be doubted as to their intent. So, again, I really would like to know what SCOTUS would have to see before it to conclude that racial gerrymandering has actually happened?