They don’t need to do a public trial, just have a bunch of civil cases that take all of his dirty money away. Once he is out of politics, the democrats can ignore him specifically and address the republicans actually in government.
He can shout and bloviate all he wants when he doesn’t hold office, and the Democrats can just say, it is an ongoing FBI and NY state matter.
This. The Dems can get what they want politically without losing an impeachment vote in the senate.
An interesting point here:
Both Nadler and Schiff essentially echoed Pelosi today. They’ll consider impeachment only if the evidence and crimes are a match.
Is it weird that I don’t want Bidden to run because I like him a lot and don’t want him to go through the bullshit that a Trump race would be?
On the other hand I don’t like him a lot and that’s why I don’t want him to run. So high five?
Opponent (also a Democrat) took a hard right, ran a negative campaign against Gallego. Might be a stretch to say there’s a lesson to be learned here, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
Phoenix’s most powerful, wealthy business leaders (including sports moguls) and public safety unions that backed her rival will now have to find a way to work with her.
this is so cool, competent politicians…
That is some biblical level ownage.
I really like the Democratic freshman class. AOC gets much of the publicity (deservedly so), but Katie Porter, Katie Hill and a bunch of others appear to have very bright futures.
We have a terrific bunch of mostly female new leaders.
…You aren’t required by law to state the APR in lending in the USA?
Here’s the thing though, even if it said 520%, does the need suddenly change? Does that mom with a broken car on the side of the road suddenly not have a need to get her car fixed? If she doesn’t have a credit card, and those certainly state APR, it is presumably due to bad credit or maybe she’s maxed it out… the average American just can’t handle financial emergencies. That’s the real problem, telling her it’s 400%+ APR isn’t going to change that.
If there is a default setting for something related to money, wealth or power in the US, you can pretty much assume, unless there has been a huge amount of media attention on a narrow issue, or unless there’s been a specific crusade to reform it, that the default favors the wealthy, moneyed and powerful. Pretty much in all cases.
Our defaults are deeply deeply corrupted by the feedback loop of money and political power. Investors pay lower taxes on their income than workers. Creditors have all sorts of advantages over debtors. Big companies can easily impose arbitration and other requirements. Landlords have many advantages over tenants, and on and on and on.
One of the many things we need to do in the US once we are no longer fighting for the mere survival of our democracy, is to re-examine many of these defaults. Some may not need changing, but many will.
Yes, it does change. To argue that more accurate financial information won’t change financial decisions is simply ludicrous and needs nothing more said.
You honestly think that someone who is desperate enough to go to a PayDay loan to get a 200 dollar repair bill payed so they can go to work and not get fired is going to make a different decision because now she knows a 500% APR? What decision is she going to make then?
There is a reason they call this predatory lending. They’re desperate. They don’t really have other options.
Oh Nesrie, forever unable to see the wood for the trees.
You know why you can’t answer because you don’t have an answer. As typical.
You don’t know shit about the system you’re even talking about or you wouldn’t even need to ask about the APR laws, but suddenly you’re the expert. Yeah… that’s you not me.
I’m not an expert on US legislation. On the flipside, I’m also not moronic enough to argue that giving people better information on the costs of their financial decisions will change nothing.
As an aside, one of the main reasons for bringing in APR laws around the world has been to reduce predatory lending and payday loans. Of course, that can’t be true because you don’t want it to be true.
I didn’t say it changes nothing, but it certainly doesnt’ give that woman more options. I asked you for the scenario Katie Porter is presenting, what would she have that woman do instead. You chose insults instead of discussing it, per usual.
I don’t understand why we’re having this argument when your initial assumption is incorrect. APR disclosure is required. That doesn’t change the fact that: