Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
I don't think they apply in a case where the owner is aware of and consents to an individuals occupancy.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
I am also not familiar with the case law but I would be pretty surprised if the existence of tenant protections meant that every act of renting constituted an agreement that the renter had "control over the occupancy or use of the property." That would functionally make it impossible to rent any second homes issued with conforming loans in states with such protections, which I am skeptical is how this language is understood to operate.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
Note the slight of hand in paragraph 6 of the indictment that you quote, emphasis added:
The loan was originated by OVM Financial under a signed Second Home Rider, which required JAMES, as the sole borrower to occupy and use the property as her secondary residence, and prohibited its use as a timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or agreement that requires her to either rent the property or give any other person any control over the occupancy or use of the property.
I assume it is not in dispute that James did not use the property as a timeshare or other shared ownership arrangement. The critical text does not prohibit James from "renting" the property, it prohibits her from entering into an agreement that requires her to rent it (or to give another control over the occupancy or use of the property). James' behavior is only violation of that paragraph if she went beyond renting and entered into an agreement with her family member that required her to to rent to them or gave the that family member control over the occupancy or use of the property.
Of course, it's also not hard to look up the standard Fannie Mae Second Home Rider which provides, in relevant part:
6. Occupancy. Borrower must occupy and use the Property as Borrower’s second home. Borrower will maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property, including short-term rentals, and will not subject the Property to any timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or to any rental pool or agreement that requires Borrower either to rent the Property or give a management firm or any other person or entity any control over the occupancy or use of the Property. Borrower will keep the Property available primarily as a residence for Borrower’s personal use and enjoyment for at least one year after the date of this Security Instrument, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond Borrower’s control.
Another way the renting may have been legal is if the lender agreed in writing to permit her renting.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7d ago
I have read some fascinating articles recently about how the rise of television and video as a medium more generally is a kind of societal regression from a literate culture to an oral one.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7d ago
Phase 1/2 preliminary results were published in October and Phase 3 results November 20th. Pfizer applied for an EUA the same day the results were announced, which the FDA did not grant until December 11th.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7d ago
The Covid vaccine trials were mysteriously delayed until after the 2020 election. I do not think I need to expound on why that influenced the outcome of that election.
Pfizer started Phase 1/2 trials for the vaccine that would become Cominarty in May 2020 and Phase 2/3 trials in July. Just for a very simple fact you get wrong.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7d ago
As a small point of clarification. The actual budget for FY 2025 (HR 1) was not bipartisan at all, in votes. It was passed via reconciliation which means it did not need 60 votes for cloture in the Senate. No Democrats, in either the House or Senate, voted for cloture or passage on the final bill.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7d ago
The rearward looking CW angle is too obvious; DEI, affirmative action, grade inflation in High Schools and a "no child left behind" attitude. I'd sprinkle on some helicopter-parent pressuring as well. For those of you interested in that angle, I await your hopefully hilarious takes.
How much of that changed over the 2020-2025 period being examined, though? Race based affirmative action has been banned by California's constitution for almost 30 years. Not to mention the Supreme Court's own decision in 2023. No Child Left Behind, as an educational slogan, goes all the way back Bush's first term.
The report itself gives three contributors to the phenomena:
-
Learning loss from the pandemic decreasing students' retention and preparedness.
-
The move away from standardized tests to GPAs making it more difficult for admissions officers to asses student's actual capabilities.
-
For UCSD specifically, a large increase in admission rates for students from LCFF+ schools, which the report describes as:
The subset of California public schools in which more than 75 percent of the school’s total enrollment is composed of students who are identified as either eligible for free or reduced-price meals, or English learners, or foster youth
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9d ago
Who is pretending? I am sure Democrats would have sought to make hay out of it. It's still a thing Republicans could have done. Both Republicans and Democrats have done it in the past. My preference would be to just remove it altogether and have a majority vote for everything. The filibuster is a cancer on US politics.
I guess I do not think (and do not think voters think) assignment of blame like "Republicans are responsible for the shutdown" entails "there is literally nothing Democrats could do to end the shutdown." By this logic no party could ever be responsible for the shutdown, since after all some of its members could vote for a bill to end the shutdown!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9d ago
This is a very strange response. I think, and have long thought, ending the filibuster would be a good thing. I think it is singularly responsible for the erosion of Congress's role in our politics and has been a boon to the growth of presidential power. Even if the Senate did abolish the filibuster that would not come close to making Trump a king. The filibuster was not a significant impediment to Congress for the first 200+ years of our nations history. It's only in the last ~20 or so that it's seriously become a problem.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9d ago
I mean, what does it mean to be responsible for shutting down the government? There was a procedural path for Democrats to end the shutdown (by voting with Republicans). There was a procedural path for Republicans to end the shutdown (without any Democrat votes). There is no path for Democrats to unilaterally end the shutdown (being the minority party). What is the sense in which Democrats are responsible that does not also apply to Republicans?
Feel like this is where I run into the limits of my government research ability and it is frustrating. As best I can tell the legislation being referenced here is H.R. 5371. At least, the last listed action is that the Senate agreed to cloture 60-40 and the breakdown of Senators matches those described. However this bill, per section 106, seems like it only funds the government through November 21st except for specifically named operations. This is in contrast to the Politico article saying it funds most programs for the rest of the year and some only into January. There are limited references to January in that bill and only one to January 31st. Is there some further piece of legislation I need to reference? I also don't see any amendments in the bill history so it's not clear to me why it would need to go back to the House.
ETA:
I think this is the text of the amended HR 5371 that was passed, which does seem to fund through January 2026. Apparently there is also a companion bill.
On the politics side I think this was dumb. The polling I'm aware of seemed to show Democrats winning this fight in the popular consciousness. "It's bad when people's healthcare premiums go up hundreds of dollars" is a very straightforward message. Republicans nuking the filibuster also would have been a great outcome. If not immediately, then in the future. Feels like the closest thing to a concession is the entirely-symbolic later vote on extending the subsidies. Bad political instincts all around.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9d ago
Huh? Democrats (assuming this means voters) are mad that eight Senators voted to end the government shutdown with what seem like no material concessions.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9d ago
There is no contradiction between those two. Republicans could have, at any time, used their Senate majority to end the shutdown by over-ruling the parliamentarian and invoking cloture with less than 60 votes. What actually happened is that eight Democrats voted for cloture so that Republicans didn't have to do that.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
12d ago
Even more recently than that! The big split was only really post-Dobbs. It turns out that once you have skin in the game (abortion can actually be criminalized) people change their mind. I know the phrase arises in the abortion context but I think it is also a synecdoche for a certain kind of politics towards women generally. How many Democrats are talking about how women shouldn't be working outside the home? That we should repeal the 19th amendment? That women's participation in the economy or public life has been bad for society? There is a certain kind of politics that believes women ought to be in positions of legal, social, and economic subordination to men and it is heavily concentrated among Republicans.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
13d ago
Wanting a mate who is already established is reasonable from the female perspective, but also means that in modern society you wind up with either 18 year-olds marrying 30 year-olds, or 30-year olds marrying 30 year-olds. It would indeed be better for 20 year-olds to marry 22 year-olds and then build a life together.
Do you have a source for this data?
According to Pew age gap relationships where the husband is 3+ years older than the wife were much more common historically than they are today. At the time this article was written about 60% of marriages featured a husband that was 3 or more years older than his wife. Only 35% of marriages featured spouses whose age was within 2 years of each other. Those numbers are 40% and 51% respectively as of 2022. It turns out when women have control over who they marry, rather than being coerced by threat of economic destitution, they tend to prefer men around their own age.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
13d ago
Republicans are the party of "your body my choice" and Democrats... aren't. It's not complicated.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
14d ago
If 60ish percent of men vote one way, and 80ish percent of women vote the other, and win, seems like a problem if the men who are in that 60% are ALSO the ones who would be tasked with carrying out/enforcing the laws they expressly disagree with.
What are you envisioning here? Are police going to refuse to make arrests for crimes? What crimes? Prosecutors refuse to file charges? Judges going to toss cases? Are you under the impression all parts of the justice system today think every law they enforce is just? I am very skeptical that is the case.
If fewer than half of the young men buy-in to the ideal of gender equality, what happens to a Democracy that tries to enforce gender equality?
What do you think is going to happen?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
14d ago
So in terms of 'trends,' What do you think eventually happens if young women continue voting for Democrats/lefties in droves... and have extreme intolerance for anyone who doesn't, while young men tack further right?
Complete Democrat political dominance? 80+% of women consistently voting for Democratic party candidates would be a nigh insurmountable electoral advantage.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
14d ago
I am a little surprised by the lack of gender polarization in those numbers, except the 18-29 group. I would have thought it would be a cross-age phenomenon.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
14d ago
Virginia's statewide elections are always off-presidential-year, by state law. Republicans swept all three VA races I mentioned above in the last general election in 2021. It is hardly the case that, at least in recent history, Republicans are incapable of winning statewide offices in VA general elections.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
15d ago
Can you say more about why Earle-Sears was not a serious candidate? She was elected Lieutenant Governor in 2021.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
15d ago
The VA AG race had some uncertainty after some controversial texts from Jay Jones came to light. The GA wins by the Democratic party candidates are the first time D's have won a statewide state position (as opposed to federal) in 20 years. Sherrill was probably the favorite in the NJ Governor race but it's also the first time the same party has had a member elected governor for a third consecutive time in decades. The NYC mayoral race had been closely watched (at least in my political circles) due to disgraced ex-governor Andrew Cuomo's attempt to run for the seat. First in the Dem primary, then as a third party.
Technically the house in question is in Virginia, but I still see a distinction between the language and your description. I don't think James contests her was the legal occupant of the property, but it's not clear to me that being the legal is the same as having control over the occupancy or use. Like, the legal owner can presumably evict the legal occupant, right? Which would seem to entail control over occupancy. Downstream of that it seems like the property owner could also lawfully restrict the legal occupants use of the property. I've had rental agreements that prohibit using the rented property for commercial purposes, for example.
More options
Context Copy link