The Untested Self-Pardon
Plus: Hunter's guns, AI replacing dating, East German cars, and more...

Delay tactics: Former President Donald Trump is currently dealing with the hush-money/falsifying business records case before him, in which he may be convicted and serve some time in prison. It is also not impossible that he will serve some amount of time in jail beforehand if he violates the judge's gag order again.
But the other three criminal cases before him look increasingly like they will be delayed until after the presidential election in November, in part due to the fact that Trump's legal team has been successfully pushing them off until later.
"If Trump wins, he could appoint Justice Department officials to make the two federal cases against him go away," notes Axios, referring to the cases involving conspiracy to overturn election results and mishandling of classified documents. There would still be the Georgia case—concerning the overturning of election results—to contend with, but that case has been roiled by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' conflict of interest scandal. And, in terms of the first two federal cases, legal experts are torn on whether Trump would be able to pardon himself.
"The answer is open in part because no president except Trump has ever been charged with a crime," reports Axios. "But it's also the result of a failure on Congress's part to prohibit the potential practice through a constitutional amendment, though some members of Congress have tried to do so."
Hunter's guns: "A federal judge in Delaware denied Hunter Biden's bid to throw out his felony gun charges on Thursday, rejecting arguments from the president's son that the federal prohibition on owning guns while using illegal drugs is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment," reports Politico.
Biden the younger was charged in 2023 with buying a gun while using illegal drugs—he notoriously had a crack cocaine problem at the time of the purchase, in 2018—as well as lying about the drug use on a government form while buying the weapon.
"Separately, a federal appeals court panel ruled against Biden earlier Thursday in another bid to have the charges against him tossed," reports Politico. "The two decisions appear to clear the way for his case to head to trial on June 3, though his defense team can still pursue further appeals."
"Hunter Biden's multiplying gun charges threaten the right to arms and the right to trial," wrote Reason's Jacob Sullum last year. "Survey data suggest that millions of gun owners are guilty of violating 18 USC 922(g)(3) because they consume arbitrarily proscribed intoxicants (mainly marijuana). Yet fewer than 150 Americans are prosecuted for that crime each year. Even when gun buyers (including people who are disqualified for other reasons, such as felony records) are caught lying on Form 4473, they are rarely prosecuted." It's almost like an example is being made of Hunter Biden, whose legal argument is in stark opposition to the Biden administration's position on the matter.
Scenes from New York: Inside the city's effort to remove severely mentally ill people from subway cars. We discussed this with Peter Moskos, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and former Baltimore cop, on Just Asking Questions #15, ("What does good policing look like?").
QUICK HITS
- My friend Mike Solana, head honcho of Pirate Wires, interviewed Jack Dorsey. "In a rare, far-reaching interview, what follows is a missing chapter of internet history that sheds light not only on Bluesky, but Twitter, X, and the past five years of censorship and backlash," writes Solana. "Because of vulnerabilities designed into the technology, social media, in its current, centralized form, can't survive the global war on speech. The future will be decentralized, or it won't be free."
- "Retiring early is becoming the norm as the share of US workers planning to work beyond age 62 continues to retreat, extending a downshift that started with the pandemic," reports Bloomberg, based on Federal Reserve Bank of New York data.
- In the future, your AI concierge will date other AI concierges and get back to you with a filtered list of who to actually meet. (I'm not reflexively anti-AI, but this strikes me as a bit dark, undervaluing both chemistry and dissimilarity.)
Bumble founder Whitney Wolfe Herd says the future of dating is having your AI date other people's AI and recommend the best matches for you to meet pic.twitter.com/9GEEvpuiKZ
— Tsarathustra (@tsarnick) May 10, 2024
- "There is broad agreement that the US housing market needs more homes," writes Conor Sen at Bloomberg. "There is also broad agreement that affordability needs to improve. But it doesn't necessarily follow that we should build more affordable homes."
- Innovation in textiles!
- Thailand's about-face on legal pot throws entrepreneurs for a loop.
- You can keep your "modest prosperity"; I'll take a dynamic, growing, highly prosperous society, the likes of which the world has never known before:
ah, yes, "modest prosperity" (being put on a waitlist for 10-13 years to receive a shitty car) is what I aim for https://t.co/yRZzGd6YDY
— Liz Wolfe (@LizWolfeReason) May 9, 2024
- I believe in him:
I offer to eat 5 more brain worms and still beat President Trump and President Biden in a debate.
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) May 8, 2024
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Untested Self-Pardon
He'll go blind in there!
May cause myocardtis
The issue isn't lawfare and political prosecutions of the left, the real issue is someone not being convicted of said lawfare.
"Can you believe Hank Rearden declared himself innocent?" - Reality continuing to make Rand's thin parody look astoundingly lifelike.
She even nailed the train obsession somehow.
That was easy. Socialists have always loved trains.
The NERVE of Trump’s legal team to allow political considerations into the strategy in all these legal proceedings…
You can't say it would cause madness because he's already there.
🙂
😉
Oh so edgy. The emojis is what puts you over the top, not your daily crowing about your atheism or being pansexual (which seems to be bisexual with extra steps to everyone else) but the emojis on every single post.
You forgot to add: "Pah-don me while I play the grah-nd pi-ah-no!"
🙂
😉
If Trump wins, he could appoint Justice Department officials to make the two federal cases against him go away...
Checks and balances and other checks and different balances FTW.
If
TrumpBiden wins, he could appoint Justice Department officials tomake the twoconcoct federal cases againsthim go awayhis political enemies...If Trump wins, he could appoint Justice Department officials to make the two federal cases against him go away
How many heads will explode ?
Not enough.
The word is "would", not "could".
I would expect nothing less from Trump.
Thank God Biden would never appoint politically friendly people to the DOJ to run cover for him and his family.
That's (D)ifferent!
"Thank God Biden would never appoint politically friendly people to the DOJ to run cover for him and his family."
You mean like the federal charges against Hunter that continue to be vigorously pursued by the government with zero interference from Joe Biden? It was literally discussed in this article.
No, originally the DoJ tried to give him a plum deal that would have absolved him of any other crimes he committed. The only decided to prosecute after a judge called them out for the special treatment and killed their sweetheart deal. Again, you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge on the subject you feel it necessary to try and issue gotchas on.
A federal judge in Delaware denied Hunter Biden's bid to throw out his felony gun charges on Thursday, rejecting arguments from the president's son that the federal prohibition on owning guns while using illegal drugs is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment...
TEAM HUNTER, 100%
Gotta say, I'm with Joe and Hunter on this one. The bribes and pay to play not so much though.
Yeah, it would be great if Hunter fought this and got it ruled unconstitutional. Unfortunately most likely he’ll just get pardoned by his dad and everyone else will still be ruled by this.
Democracy!, right?
I was told going to court was Insurrection
He is fighting it, isn't he?
I don't think Joe will pardon him. (Nor do I think he will get a lengthy sentence if convicted.)
He's only fighting now because the sweetheart plea deal got torpedoed by a federal judge and called out for the excessive special treatment Hunter was getting.
Joe? Joe and Hunter are on opposite sides. Joe pushed for the law Hunter is fighting
“Yet fewer than 150 Americans are prosecuted for that crime each year.”
And how many are prosecuted for allegedly inflating the value of their property, even though the banks in question had no problem with it?
Even if he had valued his property accurately, the banks would still do their own assessment. Due diligence is a thing.
It is a thing, but in the statist mind, only a government agency can possibly do that.
Google suggests that many people get prosecuted for different types of loan fraud every year.
Trump wasn't prosecuted criminally for doing that, however, so you're really asking the wrong question.
He was prosecuted civilly by the state of New York for causing himself to pay more property taxes?
That seems, illogical.
"I offer to eat 5 more brain worms and still beat President Trump and President Biden in a debate."
Has Trump given this guy a nickname like "Sleepy Biden" or "Little Rubio"? Wormy Bob?
I hope he goes with "Wormy Bob".
I really hope Bobby leans into that one. Imagine him dragging his ass across the stage at a rally wormy Labrador style.
Announce Earthworm Jim will be his running mate?
Wormy Bob Jr.
And Statist politicians have the nerve to accuse Capitalism of spawning a "race to the bottom."
As much as I like RFK Jr., arguing is Trump's forte and there's no way a guy that sounds like worn bearings is going to beat him.
arguing is Trump’s forte
Donnie can't argue, you moron. All he does is name-call and lie. And Biden is senile. There won't be a "debate". It will be just two old fucks flinging shit.
Trump will win, and you will cry.
Biden "won" their last debate, idiot. Not on merit but because he didn't puke and Donnie acted like a deranged baboon.
If you mean the election - yeah. Fatass is 6-5 favorite right now.
"Donnie can’t argue, you moron. All he does is name-call and lie."
No, but that is certainly what you do here, pedo. The hypocrisy from you is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Donnie can’t argue, you moron. All he does is name-call and lie.
If I've learned anything from these comments, it's that debate is for losers. The way to win an argument is with lies and name-calling, but most importantly with accusations of hypocrisy. Once you've labeled your opponent a hypocrite you win, because everything they say is now wrong.
Maybe because you admit you won’t click links to educate yourself.
And reminder, it was you who admitted they would disagree with someone just because you hated them.
"If I’ve learned anything from these comments"
If you'd learned anything from the comments it should have been to actually read what you're responding to, that white-knighting for Buttplug will burn you every time, to not troll and shitpost drunk and then blame Tulpa, and finally, the importance of self awareness.
Phillip J Fry.
“I offer to eat 5 more brain worms and still beat President Trump and President Biden in a debate.” - RFK Jr, 2024 presidential election.
Do you remember where you were when the USA hit peak retard?
Oh, if my time in the Army taught me anything, it can and likely will get worse.
I offer to eat 5 more brain worms and still beat President Trump and President Biden in a debate.
He knows the brain worms will die of hunger.
I too offer to eat 5 more brain worms and still beat President Trump and President Biden in a debate. We should all eat 5 brain worms and beat President Trump and President Biden in a debate. You aren't really a true independent unless you eat 5 brain worms and beat President Trump and President Biden in debate.
Sounds like you long since have.
...as well as lying about the drug use on a government form while buying the weapon.
HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT
You know who else lied on a government form?
The FBI?
I'll take the 5th.
Information Retrieval?
Even when gun buyers (including people who are disqualified for other reasons, such as felony records) are caught lying on Form 4473, they are rarely prosecuted.
None of us can't bank on that. Biden The Younger shouldn't have, either.
Until Hunter Biden, no gun laws were used to make an example of anyone ever.
Certainly not the Branch Davidians.
Nor Lon Horiuchi or Gaige Grosskreutz.
Including the 150 people a year that they admit are prosecuted for this very thing. One of them being Hunter isn't so much singling out versus prosecuting a very public open and shut case of that very thing. Obviously, if his father wasn't Biden and they weren't gun grabbing Democrats this case probably wouldn't have gone to court though, one must admit that's likely at the very least.
Most people don't get prosecuted for this because they are never caught though. It's kind of hard to prove a violation of this particular statute one might imagine, but since Hunter is a 'public figure' and has more of a paper trail than the average dolt this is where you end up.
It's not that I agree with the legislation in particular, although frankly not being on drugs is a reasonable expectation for a gun owner, but the hypocrisy of the Biden's to restrict everyone else's freedom while giving themselves a pass is about as disgusting as it gets.
Biden not being reelected would be punishment enough in my book, especially since he'll likely be dead or obviously impaired enough that even the Democrats wouldn't nominate him after a 4 year break.
open and shut case
This is the part that gets me about it too. Even if we lived in an alternate universe where you could still pick up a BAR at Sears the same day, almost certainly there would be boilerplate “You aren’t coked out of your mind and going to do something stupid, illegal, or both right after I sell you this gun.” documents to waive Sears’ liability (of course it would probably go more like “I [insert purchaser’s name here] am of sound mind and clear though…”).
And even if that went to court there would be cases of the weapons collector who had one too many brandies before clicking “Buy Now” on gunbroker for the umptieth time and the dispensary owner who borrowed his brother’s handgun to defend his business from BLM property liberation squads. Hunter doesn’t fall into any of those 'not intended by the spirit' categories. He would still be *the* example of the coked up guy in the middle of a domestic dispute that you shouldn’t be selling to.
What is more important, putting the spotlight on an unconstitutional law and possibly getting it changed, or punishing a Biden?
What is more important, not manufacturing unconstitutional fake laws or imprisoning a Trump?
Despite the lies you and your buddies tell every day, I don’t support either of those things.
Now answer my question. Would you rather the unconstitutional laws that Hunter is being charged with be repealed, or leave them in place so you can feel good about a Biden going to prison?
You sure don't like reading the thread, do you?
Mother's Lament 25 mins ago
Gotta say, I’m with Joe and Hunter on this one. The bribes and pay to play not so much though.
I don't read every comment, no.
HA HA HA
Or any book.
You don’t read anything that could interfere with your narratives.
He doesn't read anything that isn't associated with ABV.
"I don’t read every comment"
Including many of the ones you reply to. Trolling ain't easy, I get it.
Except that that wasn't one of the comments I replied to. Lying is easy, I get it.
"Mother's Lament 5 hours ago
What is more important, not manufacturing unconstitutional fake laws or imprisoning a Trump?"
"sarcasmic 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Despite the lies you and your buddies tell every day, I don’t support either of those things.
Now answer my question. Would you rather the unconstitutional laws that Hunter is being charged with be repealed, or leave them in place so you can feel good about a Biden going to prison?"
Oh sarckles...
Surprised he didn't claim to have you muted.
He peeks a lot.
His browser logs him out a lot
You were just defending the J6 prosecutions yesterday. Attacking those against them. This is a defense retard.
https://reason.com/podcast/2024/05/09/nico-perrino-when-does-protesting-become-a-crime/?comments=true#comment-10554297
And I have dozens of others.
sarcasmic 2 years ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Charges of trespassing, vandalism and interfering with government business are sufficient. No need to add political crimes to the list.
Interference was the 20 year felony retard.
Reposting for you-know-who:
You were just defending the J6 prosecutions yesterday. Attacking those against them. This is a defense retard.
https://reason.com/podcast/2024/05/09/nico-perrino-when-does-protesting-become-a-crime/?comments=true#comment-10554297
And I have dozens of others.
sarcasmic 2 years ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Charges of trespassing, vandalism and interfering with government business are sufficient. No need to add political crimes to the list.
Interference was the 20 year felony retard.
Jesse’s illogic makes my head hurt. Takes non sequitur to a new level.
Umm. I posted your words.
So no mute anymore?
"Jesse’s illogic makes my head hurt. Takes non sequitur to a new level."
Nothing he said was illogical or irrelevant, unless you mean what you said was illogical because he posted you verbatim. And please, FFS, learn what non sequitur means.
Non sequitur is a word. It is found in books with other words. It has many meanings being a word. -Kamala and sarc.
His claim that I attacked people against the J6 prosecutions, even if it were true, does not equal defense of the prosecutions. It does not follow, which is what non sequitur means. Saying the fans of a particular sports team are a bunch of assholes does not equal support for any other team. Just means they’re a bunch of assholes. You know, does not follow. I’m sure Jesse would disagree and claim saying fans of his favorite sports team are a bunch of cunts equals total support for their rivals. But he’s dishonest and not very bright so that’s expected. You’re a lot smarter than him. So you should know better. Then again you're also a liar, so you probably know better but won't admit it.
It's all right there in the link.
This?
sarcasmic 1 day ago
You sure? Because that would mean some of the J6 martyrs were criminals. Isn’t that blasphemy?
sarcasmic 22 hours ago
Well that is certainly the implication when they’re described as peaceful tourists turned political prisoners.
Not sure how an honest person with a brain interprets that to mean support for the J6 prosecutions. That excuses Jesse, but you have a brain.
Regardless you ignore my point. As expected.
So answer this, if I say the fans of your favorite sports team suck, does it follow that I want that team’s rivals to win?
Because while it's true that I think the defenders of those charged for their actions on J6 are a bunch of idiots, I said from the very beginning that a bunch of yahoos milling about is not an insurrection. The obvious implication is that if it was not an insurrection, then the defendants shouldn't be treated like insurrectionists. So that's hardly support for the prosecutions.
I can see how someone would consider: “Well that is certainly the implication when they’re described as peaceful tourists turned political prisoners.” In response to “ I really don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim that no Jan 6 protesters committed any crimes.” an attack on their position. Especially since no one here has argued that anyone who destroyed property or assaulted people shouldn’t be prosecuted.
Just my $0.10 (damn inflation)
Sarc, are you this dumb? You attack anybody AGAINST the j6 prosecution. Often before anyone attacks those prosecutions.
As for Trump do want the links showing you agree with charging Trump in every case except the Manhattan trial (and even that came after a year of criticism right after the NYT even admitted it was bullshit)?
You even defend Biden not getting charged for the same fucking act despite having documents for 40 years and telling his ghostwriter he knowingly had the documents.
Who honestly do you think you're fucking fooling besides yourself?
You have been for literally every political prosecution. Attacking and in your words mocking those pointing out the political nature. You even mock the death of a woman shot by Capitol Police defending it as a blind shot.
Youre honestly a leftist piece of shit. And yes I can back these assertions up with YOUR words.
"Would you rather the unconstitutional laws that Hunter is being charged with be repealed, or leave them in place so you can feel good about a Biden going to prison?"
Sarc, are you familiar with the term false alternative?
Did the Bidens commit any crimes?
And let's not pretend Hunter is doing something based on principal. He didny fight the law until caught. Joe has been trying to criminalize guns for decades.
I can do both. I know that’s confusing to you. Poor sarc, such a simpleton.
After the last eight years of "no one is above the law" being rammed down our throats based on "novel" prosecutorial interpretations of said law, you can take your spotlight and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
So you'll wipe your ass with the Constitution if it means getting revenge. There's an expression about that. Something about cutting off your nose...
Spare me theatrics.
The Constitution, or at least the principles it ostensibly represents, was already rendered toilet paper, as I pointed out. Nobody who isn't three sheets to the wind already on a Friday morning thinks for a second that the law will be repealed or ruled unconstitutional, rather than Hunter Biden just getting a blatant pass. So, no, I don't root for Hunter Biden on this.
Are you asserting political prosecutions are constitutional?
Try this: people who don't respect the Constitution don't get Constitutional protection.
Does that include the guy who said “I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president”?
Unless you think that means the person who said it recognizes and respects constitutional limits on presidential power.
Does refusing to accept the outcome of the election count as respecting the Constitution? What about trying to change those results?
Youre actually still pushing the liberal narrative lie? He was talking explicitly about political appointment firings. You’ve been told this and shown the actual speech dozens of times. But you continue to lie with the leftist narrative.
But NOT a leftist.
OK, what would you do if you concluded that the election was significantly fraudulent?
Are we discussing Trump or a bog standard D?
Sarc
Oh. Then trust the government. Have faith in institutions.
I would need actual evidence to arrive at that conclusion.
I mean actual evidence. Claims of “the proof is over there I swear but they won’t let me go looking for it but I swear it’s there just let me look” or "no proof is proof of a coverup" doesn’t count.
You have been given evidence from court cases, to affidavits, to statistical analysis. What you demand is evidence only the state controls. The state who is actively criminalizing those who seek evidence.
I think he was banking on Biden the Decrepit getting him out of one more jam.
I’d put money on it.
I won't take it. The real bet is which day (to the hour) when daddy issues his pardon?
He will mean to do it on his last day in office, but he will forget .
Epic.
Their whole shitty family would need a pardon of the Democrats didn’t own the Justice Department.
Inside the city's effort to remove severely mentally ill people from subway cars.
New plan: Bring back mental asylums but house them in the last two cars of every subway train.
Hmm, that might be a plot for a movie...
The Taking of Arkham 123
Very much like that Snowpiercer movie.
Retiring early is becoming the norm as the share of US workers planning to work beyond age 62 continues to retreat,
Gotta grab that social security money before they go broke.
The future will be decentralized, or it won't be free.
The government will keeps its hands off that, just like it's staying hands-off with crypto.
Retiring early is becoming the norm as the share of US workers planning to work beyond age 62 continues to retreat...
Quiet quitting? Never-shut-up-about-it retiring.
My last year at my last job might as well have been quiet quitting. We got to work from home a year before COVID made it more common, but in exchange, I went from one 15-minute meeting a week to two hours every day, starting two hours after I started working, and separated by half an hour. The half an hour was useless work time, so I effectively spent 2.5 hours every mid-day listening to pointy headed bosses in Zoom and reading, and the rest of the day was shot; no one can recover from so much idle burrocratic blather and resume working.
Then I had two bosses for a while, and I don't mean a boss and her boss, I mean two immediate bosses who kept giving me conflicting tasks, and when I pointed this out, they'd just say "you figure it out". One task couldn't be started for three weeks while waiting for another person to finish some other task, and they told me "just wait then" and stop filing bug reports or fixing bugs we don't tell you to fix.
I eventually realized this was just how it worked and coasted that last year or so before finally moving on to something more interesting. But it pretty unnerving at first, not knowing what was going on.
If it is possible to work from home, then surely it is possible to retire at the office.
"Then I had two bosses for a while, and I don’t mean a boss and her boss, I mean two immediate bosses who kept giving me conflicting tasks"
Damn, that is some Office Space shit.
"Eight, Bob. So that means that when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled; that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."
It's funny as hell now, but sure wasn't at the time. Part of me was even wondering if the company would go under from that kind of inefficiency, but the stuff we were selling had long lead times and I figured I had time to exit gracefully, and it did work out that way.
And just who exactly is this person who can afford to retire when groceries, power, rent, interest, and everything else is going up, even exponentially?
People who didn’t piss away their paychecks on stupid shit.
Or people who are satisfied with living like peasants.
Really? I was assured that retired boomers have all the money.
Sure, counting equity in paid-off houses. But they forget to mention that it's not much good to sell your home and get all that equity and have no place to live.
Yeah, nobody downsizes
Except at current rates, etc downsizing will likely eat up a good portion of your equity, if you can even find a buyer who can actually afford to purchase a larger place in today's market.
Like catalytic converters, such as I had to do twice in a year thanks to the crime wave of the 2020s?
At least where I live in NorCal, more and more seniors are filling up jobs in places like Costco, Home Depot, restaurants, etc.
Probably a combination of inflation and young people not wanting to work.
*Ding! Ding! Ding!* We have a winner!
I retired at 56. Civil Service, baby.
I'm not reflexively anti-AI, but this strikes me as a bit dark, undervaluing both chemistry and dissimilarity.
Not that I've used a dating app recently, but it sounds retardedly out of touch with the current web/virtual dating experience.
At least, my understanding is that the environment is already chock full of fake 304s looking for all the 666 guys and neither side needs more of the other.
Fat single moms and chicks with too much makeup.
Is that who you’re getting matched with?
That’s on a good day
How many athiest pansexuals?
Yeah, a good few of them too.
Pansexual...
For some reason this always makes me think of someone fucking goats (or being fucked by goats).
Mostly, yeah. The pool isn't too deep in SW New Hampshire.
The new thing seems to be African and SE Asian women lying about their location so they show up on local searches.
I guess Russian brides are uncool these days.
Asians are the new hot.
Hot headed. Not unlike the soulless redheads.
AI can't possibly make it worse.
IDK, seems a bit like saying vast stretches of scorched Earth between the burning lakes of sulfur couldn't make Hell any worse either to me.
A pardon is not an acquittal it is forgiveness. So, in issuing a self- pardon a President would be accepting that he is guilty and then forgiving his own offenses. Nice deal if a person can get it.
Really appreciate your expert legal analysis
He definitely shouldn't do that. It would be way more prudent to face trial on made-up horseshit in federal court to prove his innocence. Especially in DC where they voted like 96/4 for Biden. You idiots never change and never admit to being shills for more state power.
He’s a parody.
Is parody code for retard?
Not exactly, but the percent chance he’s a parody is the inverse chance he’s retarded.
Yes.
Not surprisingly not true.
Lorance v. Commandant, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-3055
Stuff your Burdick dicta.
What is a Burdick?
This is exactly NOT what a pardon is. Courts and juries can absolutely get it wrong, and pardons exist entirely for the purpose of addressing such failures.
Saying a pardon is an admission makes it clear that you, and anyone else who says that, does not know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Needs repeating:
"Courts and juries can absolutely get it wrong, and pardons exist entirely for the purpose of addressing such failures."
And therefore a much better plan would be to simply direct the DoJ to withdraw the federal charges, for the explicitly stated reason that on further investigation they have determined the defendant is factually innocent. Might have to fire or reassign several levels of civil servants to get it done.
As for the state charges, declare them to be a state attempt to overthrow the elected US government and therefore insurrection and rebellion. Threaten to apply precedents set in 1861 and 1865 on how to deal with it. This one doesn't even need the DoJ, just an executive order.
Of course this plan, like the pardon plan, depends on winning the election.
You sound like the kind of person that would assume someone is guilty just because they are in court.
The sarc position.
Taking a case to court is not a simple matter so I take it seriously. By the way what percentage of people do you think are wrongly convicted in court. There will be a few but I am also guessing they have court appointed defense attorneys. If you have you own attorneys getting top dollar and you are convicted, then I am assuming you are likely guilty.
Especially when it is Jack Smith leading the charge right?
https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-130/mcdonnell-v-united-states/
Whoops. He even got the liberal justices to ask what the fuck.
If only they made a new law, charged hunter with it, then imidiatly retract the law
Better yet, do it then throw a fit because someone uses the same bullshit to go after them.
It will be hilarious if he ends up in the can from breaking a drug law his old man wrote.
We're making an example alright... an example of irony.
Is irony the same as double standards?
I don't mean to get too grandiose, but the charges against Hunter are the most obvious political persecution since they burned Joan of Arc at the stake for wearing men's clothes and picking up a sword.
The charges against Hunter are common law application. The fact he tried to use that charge, go through diversion, and then dismiss all the other charges was political. That’s what the DoJ tried to do. Hunter was treated differently.
I dont agree with the law. But equality of the law is a far more important issue.
Well justice would be served if the US congress, like the state of New York, retroactively suspended the statutes of limitation and prosecuted Hunter for all of the crimes the DOJ allowed to lapse. He can plead it down to a 50 year sentence and the gun charges can be dropped. I mean they got Trump that way. Or would Liz complain that Hunter is being singled out.
Tell me what he did again.
1.) Paid a women to have sex with him. Check
2.) used his family connections so he could get paid more than he would otherwise be worth.
Anything else?
Are you talking about Hunter?
It would writing false information on a form. How much do you care about that?
{chortle}
That’s what you fucking birds are screaming about? God. Part of having a relaxed view of the world like I have is not giving a shit about every little thing a person you disagree with politically is up to. You should try it.
Yet, here you are arguing about those exact things.
Did you see my post about Emily Willis below. Way more interested in that. TBH, do I really care that Trump paid off a porn star with money he got from people too stupid to realize what a fraud he is? No, not really, it’s his money so good for him. Do I think it’s fucking hilarious that he has to sit in a courtroom and hear what a terrible and uninspiring lover he is? Yep, that shit is great.
Is that not giving a shit about every little thing a person you disagree with politically is up to?
I think not.
Do I think it’s fucking hilarious that he has to sit in a courtroom and hear what a terrible and uninspiring lover he is? Yep, that shit is great.
So . . . you don't think he committed any crime, but you do approve of his public shaming by the court?
Based on this comment, and several others they've posted, I'm assuming in a battle of the wits they're unarmed.
Just another fascist leftist popping up out of the blue.
used his family connections so he could get paid more than he would otherwise be worth.
Do you not suppose the people “overpaying“ him didn’t expect some sort of return on their investment? Are you totally unaware of how things work?
Yeah, totally. So? We live in a capitalist society full of nepotism. Would you prefer something more centrally planned so we could deal with this corruption and nepotism. Ok, I’m game.
Central planning isn’t going to solve any problems.
Said no socialist/Democrat/elite expert ever.
Would you prefer something more centrally planned so we could deal with this corruption and nepotism.
lol, wut?
You think giving people like the Bidens more centralized control would solve corruption and nepotism?
Seriously?
You really are a fucking idiot aren't you? Centrally planned economies rely on nepotism and have far more nepotism than any capitalist system. Above you admit Trump didn't commit a crime but are cheering him having to sit through a sham trial so he can be shamed and just before that you claimed not to care about scoring points on political enemies. Not only an idiot but not even fucking consistent.
I made no such admission. I don’t know enough about the legal merits to comment one way or the other. I’m just saying that it’s fun to watch this Palm Beach scumbag and tub of guts fume and sweat in a courtroom. My wife, who is a lawyer, is more informed and tells me that any other defendant in the country would be facing jail time if they behaved this way in a courtroom in the face of a gag order. But, again, INAL.
His behavior in court is not evidence of the charges being sound. And you actually did admit such 'No, not really, it’s his money so good for him.' You really are to stupid to realize this is an exculpatory statement which admit his actions weren't criminal. Like I said, you're a fucking moron.
Also, BTW, 'my wife, who is a lawyer' is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority, idiot.
Also, labeling someone you dislike as a fat, palm beach scum, who you like watching squirm, is fairly the opposite of well adjusted. Just FYI.
*note, I'm not claiming to be well adjusted. I'm fucking pissed at fuckers like who are destroying this country with your rabid anti-liberty stances, outright bigotry against those who are your political rivals, and your so called progressive attitudes which actually are far more regressive and have far more in common with the most despotic regimes in history, than they do with enlightenment founded states based on freedom and liberty. But I doubt, like most the morons, you haven't actually studied history, but go on what other people tell you (generally activists telling a twisted version of history).
Day one that trump is in office he should charge Obama for murder
Red state AGs should charge him with whatever they can come up with yesterday.
Missouri AG is trying to go after the DoJ and WH for coordination of all the prosecutions.
" . . . in part due to the fact that Trump's legal team has been successfully pushing them off until later."
In part due to uncovering the unethical, illegal actions of the government actors.
The what now?
— Reason
seriously what the fuck is behind the why at this place?
Meh. Skip the articles and go right to the comments.
What Playboy and Reason have in common - no one actually reads the articles, even if they claim they do.
In larger part, because Trump can throw a virtually unlimited amount of donor money at them.
Unlimited? You’re a fucking moron. He has to use donor money to respond to charges based on flimsy evidence and now it’s coming out rampant, unethical behavior of political opponents who utilized the justice system to punish him for daring to run against them. Trump made me physically ill in 2016, and generally queasy in 2020 (didn't vote for him either time). This year I’m going to joyfully vote for him because of people like you, whose actions are so despotic that you deserve Trump good and hard and then repeat.
And if somehow Biden manages to win, especially if it's the result of any of these self evidently politically driven cases, I think it's all over but the shooting. I don't think the Republic can survive Biden winning.
The Republic is already dead. What are you seeing today are it's final spasms before transitioning to pure authoritarianism.
It can and will survive in it's current zombie state even if Biden wins, and it won't actually change even if Trump wins.
The next inevitable financial crash could very well break the camels back. Those are usually the moments when the rachet tightens the most, and there isn't much slack left to tighten.
Generally speaking it's not the financial trouble, but the sense that the rules only apply to the people while not applying to the ruling class that results in revolts. It wasn't the financial troubles that finally sparked the French Revolution but the sense the government didn't care. The American economy was actually growing when the revolt broke out here (the same with the American Civil War). The English Civil War, there was a full generation of economic troubles, it was only when Charles made decisions that people perceived as anti-protestant and pro-catholic. The English Peasants economic power had actually increased, but it was the crowns extravagant spending while trying to enforce laws that aimed to take away the peasants new found economic power (as a result of severe man power shortages brought upon by almost a century of plague outbreaks) that sparked the Peasant's Revolt. At the time of the Fenestration of Prague, that sparked the 30 years War, Bohemia actually was economically stable, but it was sparked by the Emperor's counter-reformation policies (and his predecessors' policies regarding the same thing) that was the spark that lit that pan. Generally speaking that it takes an economic troubles to cause rebellion is not strongly supported by the historical evidence. Also, as a rule, it's also a falsehood that economic downturns lead to war. It's generally quite the opposite in fact.
The myth that economic hardships causes war is largely due to the perception caused by WW2 occurring generally close to the depression, but in reality, just about all the European countries had actually recovered by the start of the war, and the two aggressors, (Germany and Italy) had actually been among the first to recover. The US lagged in recovery (largely because contrary to popular fiction, the New Deal actually slowed recovery in the US) but by 1939, the economy was actually improving also. And by 1941, had largely recovered.
Historically speaking, generally during economic hardships, most people are to busy trying to survive to rebel. But when economic conditions improve, people begin to demand a return of liberties etc, and if those are denied, that's when they rebel. A hungry person is not worried about liberties.
And even during the 17th century, with it's fairly ubiquitous economic hardships and a plethora of natural disasters, it wasn't generally speaking the peasants, who were most economically at risk and fragile, who revolted, generally, but instead an emerging fairly economically stable middle class, or even elites, that revolted.
There is a great need for affordable houses and people have the ability to make more affordable houses. What seems to be lacking is the incentive. I not really sure what is the problem. Is it that people want too much, that zoning laws incentive less affordable housing, that building costs incentives bigger houses, or that builders and mortgage providers want more profit per unit?
There isn’t a huge pile of unsold houses, therefore they must all be affordable already.
When I say this to my progressive neighbors I get blank stares in response.
The problem with making affordable houses is that it's illegal. Try building something affordable that is up to code. It's not possible.
Yeah, building codes are a big part of it. Especially now that more and more energy efficiency stuff keeps getting added, as well as other stuff that really has nothing to do with basic safety and durability. I think this stuff would be best handled through insurance markets, but if codes were just about basic safety and construction practices they would be a lot more tolerable.
Sorry but I think this is an incorrect generalization. My wife and I both grew up in three-bedroom ranch houses, one bathroom, a living room, an eat-in kitchen, an unfinished basement. There is nothing to say that you could not build these houses today and they could easily be built to code. I just don't see anyone building these and I wonder why?
There is nothing to say that you could not build these houses today and they could easily be built to code. I just don’t see anyone building these and I wonder why?
Pretty sure that that is incorrect. My understanding is that you can buy and live in a house that's not up to code, but any new construction has to be approved by a petty tyrant enforcing a long list of building requirements.
You can still build a reasonably sized, easy to build house like that, sure. But it would cost a hell of a lot more than it would have 40 years ago (adjusted for inflation) simply because of all the extra shit that is required by code now.
And I don't know where you live, but I do still see modestly sized houses being built.
When I moved to Houston in 2003, plenty of developers built a range of houses (with a range of prices). In general, house sizes and prices dropped as a function of distance from the metro center. That range was at least a factor of 10.
IMO much of the whining about "affordable houses" means "cheap houses in the place I want to live".
How much of that price was the land?
Land ranged from unobtainable close in (and that led to frequent knock-down purchases) to very cheap in the metro fringe areas. And that's the point.
If government rules make new construction unaffordable, then the price of the land is a moot point.
The price of land is never moot idiot.
Moot idiot is a good label for Sarc.
He’s going to see them in concert at a hip little venue and tell us all about it.
This, but its also location dependent. CA no way, anywhere - 10k in Solar panels alone make "affordable housing" undesirable/attainable - is someone dropping 100s of thousands on a bungalow. Now in Detroit, 10k gets you the whole house.
10k in Solar panels alone make “affordable housing” undesirable/attainable
And don't forget the mandatory EV charger.
But remember, only charge your EV during approved hours.
Could you be a bit more specific in saying that codes are the reason for price increases because I just don't think that is the case. Now I agree there some price increases. I would suspect the largest are in windows which now are required to be significantly more energy efficient. Wall construction would shift from 2x4 to 2x6 and the extra space would require more insulation. On the other side construction techniques are significantly more efficient bringing cost savings. I don't see codes adding more cost that adding dining rooms, family rooms, and two or more additional bathrooms. All that additional space means more lumber, windows, plumbing and electrical.
Sounds like you see an opportunity to fill a need in the market.
You should start building these homes you envision. Let us know how it turns out.
That's like asking what specific regulations drive up the price of a car. From ABS to cameras to emissions requirements... there's too many to count.
Well, just the things you mention are not insignificant. And there are extra compliance costs for the energy efficiency stuff too. Compliance is a big cost and the codes are only growing.
As many are pointing out, it's a lot of little things, touching virtually every element of construction - the tape, the mud, the paint, the wire, the electrical components, the plumbing components, water heaters, climate control, drainage, landscaping, etc.
But the thing that you're really missing is that the single biggest cost in any construction project is labor. By far. Part is that the way the code is written and enforced a lot more labor is required than 50 years ago, including office labor to deal with compliance on both the code end and the labor law end.
Plus you've also generally got huge up front costs to get any sort of development approved. People don't generally build new single houses - they build whole developments at once and there is a long, long period of wrangling with your local Authorities Having Jurisdiction of what city services you're going to have to backfill and subsidize in order to get permission to build your housing.
I just don’t see anyone building these and I wonder why?
No real demand for such a place is the logical answer.
When government regulations add the same amount to the cost of every house, the percentage increase is less for expensive houses. People who could afford $100K, can't afford $150K, but people who could afford $300K can stretch to $350K.
It's the same reasoning behind the evils of all those corporate regulations. Having to hire a dozen compliance lawyers and all their associated staff is easier for a big national bank than a regional bank, and impossible for a small bank with one office.
Check the price of a sheet of plywood back then and now.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=iGeN
Except for a couple spikes, one recently, it looks like it's been on a downward trend.
"Percent changes in the price index measure the inflation rate between any two time periods. The most common inflation metric is the percent change from one year ago. It can also represent the buying habits of urban consumers."
Just look at that drop in the Carter era when they changed the way inflation was calculated.
Translation: I don't like the data so I'm going to attack the source.
That’s not a translation at all.
TV: check the price.
Sarc: Except for a couple spikes, one recently, it looks like it’s been on a downward trend.
Ml: thats inflation data
Sarc: you didnt look at the data.
Irony: inflation was always positive so prices continue to increase the entire time sample.
Sarc. Are you fucking retarded?
Yes, Sarc is fucking retarded here. I think he's been hanging around Pluggo too much.
"Translation: I don’t like the data so I’m going to attack the source."
Sometime I swear you're a badly programmed bot. I literally attacked the fucking data directly and never said a single word about the source.
Right there in black and white: "look at that drop in the Carter era when they changed the way inflation was calculated."
Seriously, are you just fucking with us now? Are you really just Tucker Carlson parodying a borderline-illiterate, low-info, CNN-watching boomer?
It still seems fair to say that there has been a general downward trend relative to overall prices since the mid 90s, aside from the last several years when shit went crazy. And if inflation in general has been understated, wouldn't that mean that lumber prices have increased even less relative to other goods?
I honestly don't buy it as I generally do house construction projects every 2 years through a contractor. Materials have gone way up since 2019. As seen here.
https://www.nahb.org/blog/2022/04/building-materials-prices-start-2022-with-8-percent-increase
So don't buy the STLFed data.
Why would I check plywood as most houses today use OSB rather than plywood? Plywood would go into cabinets or as underlayment but little else.
Well, check the price of your favorite sheet goods, whatever they are.
Because plywood is ridiculously expensive, not because OSB is any better.
Part of it is zoning and codes. But, I'd suggest the lion's share is monetary policy. Real estate, including residential real estate, is an asset. And asset price inflation has been an underlying theme of Fed policy for the last decade and a half. Remember the "wealth effect" of spurring consumption though escalating home prices and stock markets? Well, there's your affordability.
Depends if you are talking about buying a house or building one. What you are talking about doesn't really account for the cost of construction.
No, it doesn't. But, land isn't manna from heaven, is it?
No, but we were talking about construction costs, I think. And land isn't super expensive everywhere. Or wasn't a few years ago. Even if you have land already or find some reasonably priced, you are still looking at $100k to build a pretty modest house.
Yeah, builders lack the proper incentive, the one where they try to minimize the return on investment, or, even better, lose money on their operations.
Idiot.
So, is what you are saying is that building a smaller more affordable house for the buyer would not be affordable for the builder? Is that correct?
They wouldn’t be profitable. But if you think otherwise , you should start building them.
You think Moderidiot4ever has the ability to do that? (Or to understand?)
"or that builders and mortgage providers want more profit per unit?"
Liar4ever's last sentence gives him away. Why not just come out and say it? "Greedy Capitalists just want evil profit. Building smaller homes doesn't generate the profit they crave."
Another smarmy Statist who won't argue from an honest position.
Liar4ever’s last sentence gives him away. Why not just come out and say it? “Greedy Capitalists just want evil profit. Building smaller homes doesn’t generate the profit they crave.”
What's interesting is that Ford, Chevy, and Dodge all got rid of their sedans specifically because the margin of profit was too low for their tastes. They make big bucks off of their truck sales and decided to just stick with those high-profit vehicles.
That worked great during the pandemic when the supply and demand caused prices to rocket. They're getting bit in the ass now with plummeting sales because people aren't intent on spending $70K for a basic bitch half-ton.
Don't forget that the ICE trucks have to subsidize the EV sales. Ford lost $130,000 for each one of those in Q1 2024.
So, is what you are saying is that building a smaller more affordable house for the buyer would not be affordable for the builder? Is that correct?
Correct. If you're going to build smaller, more affordable housing, you build lots of it. One-offs are for rich people. That's just the way of the world, as they say.
“A federal judge in Delaware denied Hunter Biden’s bid to throw out his felony gun charges on Thursday, rejecting arguments from the president’s son that the federal prohibition on owning guns while using illegal drugs is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,”
Which is more important, the Constitution or locking up the hated son of the hated president? Principles or principals? Right or right-wing? Quite the dilemma.
Said they guy who cheered on the jailing of j6 protesters.
This is amusing. Seeing as you defend novel political prosecutions as just, yet here claim normal execution of the law is not.
You already posted this upthread. Still drunk from last night?
Locking up Hunter Biden or forcing a federal judge into a position to overrule the constitutionality of such a federal prohibition? Either outcome is a win. Make the Dems abide by their own laws or make them scuttle them.
Make the Dems abide by their own laws...
I'm not sure what that means. What make them "their" laws? Didn't Nixon create the DEA?
And then no gun or drug laws ever changed.
Youre a fucking idiot.
"It's almost like an example is being made of Hunter Biden, whose legal argument isa in stark opposition to the Biden administration's position on the matter."
Do not play the fool. Joe Biden has been a drug warrior and gun grabber for decades, and you well know that.
I’m not a libertarian so I do think there should be sensible prohibitions on the purchase of guns— although I’m not for an outright ban. What I think is great here is watching libertarian gun nuts make arguments that someone should be prosecuted for not having their papers straight while purchasing a gun and making arguments that one’s consumption of “illegal” drugs should disqualify them from obtaining them. Please— by all means— do continue.
sensible prohibitions
Woof, the slippery slope of all slippery slopes.
As in, people on crack shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun and should be prosecuted (ok, lightly) if they lie about their drug use. I thought you’d like that one.
You really shouldn't do your own thinking, you're obviously not well equipped to do so.
As in, people on crack shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun and should be prosecuted (ok, lightly) if they lie about their drug use.
What about people who drink alcohol, which has a much, much, much stronger correlation with violent crime?
What about people who drink alcohol, which has a much, much, much stronger correlation with violent crime?
Not to mention actually causes over twice as many deaths. But bring that up and the handwaving starts.
The point is ALWAYS to grab guns. Everything else is just a smokescreen.
Obviously the point is that the person who broke those laws is part of a family of people who push those same laws.
"Part of a family"? A more dramatic way of saying his father did that.
Sons should be punished for the sins of their fathers--it's in the Trump Bible.
What the actual fuck? Joe didn't lie on the form (but he co-authored and still brags about passing the law that the form results from). Fuck, did that make any sense in your addled brain?
Obviously the point is that the person who broke those laws is part of a family of people who
pushwrote those same laws.What I think is great here is watching libertarian gun nuts make arguments that someone should be prosecuted for not having their papers straight while purchasing a gun and making arguments that one’s consumption of “illegal” drugs should disqualify them from obtaining them.
We see what we want to see, I guess. I see a bunch of people arguing that the son of the President shouldn't get special treatment for breaking laws that anyone else would be jailed for breaking.
I think if you were to look up and down the page you'd find a fair amount of support for the idea that Hunter's team's arguments that this law is unconstitutional are sound. Along with a fair amount of skepticism that anyone on his team actually believes that or that the end result will be anything like either finding this law unconstitutional or holding Biden to account the way any other citizen would be.
I think it is ironic that Joe co wrote the law, that bans you from owning a gun if using illegal drugs, and forces everyone to fill out a form stating you don't use drugs before purchasing a gun, and now his son is being held accountable under the law his father still brags about writing and getting passed as a senator. Doesn't mean I agree the law, just enjoy the poetic justice involved.
There is a pretty juicy chunk of schadenfreude involved, for sure.
Also, there's the principle that if anyone should be held to the law, it's the family and friends of the people who write the laws. Otherwise, there's a perception that the law applies to everyone but the ruling class. Which is rather poisonous to the concept of blind justice.
We see what we want to see, I guess. I see a bunch of people arguing that the son of the President shouldn’t get special treatment for breaking laws that anyone else would be jailed for breaking.
That would be the case if the people you see want to give Hunter a pass while leaving the laws on the books. But I don't see anyone arguing that. I see people seeing a possible opportunity to challenge the laws themselves so that nobody else has to be jailed for breaking them. I also see Trump supporters absolutely rejecting that idea because they'd like keep unjust and unconstitutional laws on the books if the result is someone they hate going to prison. Principals, not principles.
That would be the case if the people you see want to give Hunter a pass while leaving the laws on the books. But I don’t see anyone arguing that.
Really? No one?
I also see Trump supporters absolutely rejecting that idea because they’d like keep unjust and unconstitutional laws on the books if the result is someone they hate going to prison.
Sure, but that's not what Well Adjusted Biden Guy was saying, nor was it what I was responding to.
"That would be the case if the people you see want to give Hunter a pass while leaving the laws on the books. But I don’t see anyone arguing that."
I am pretty sure that Joe Biden and other Dems are looking for that result.
“I also see Trump supporters absolutely rejecting that idea because they’d like keep unjust and unconstitutional laws on the books if the result is someone they hate going to prison.”
Who? See, this is why you’re such a disgusting, dishonest piece of shit. You tried TWICE to bait people into this position and no one fell for it. You’re filth.
In other words the new leftist here lies like most of the other leftists here. Or he’s a sock of a previous leftist that had to change his name because he’d become a joke.
Or he’s a sock of a previous leftist that had to change his name because he’d become a joke.
This is my guess.
I'd buy into the "principles over principals" thing --- if it did not ONLY apply when it impacts the Left. The moment it impacts the Left, it becomes a problem.
Fuck that.
At a point, Leftists need to be forced to abide by laws they demand we pass.
So… principals over principles, essentially.
No, fairness is a principle.
Well, let's see who wrote the law and still brags about that laws passage, which makes all us peons possibly face the same criminal charges his son is facing for breaking a law his father wrote? Would you prefer Hunter get away with it, but the other 150 or so that get prosecuted each year for similarly lying on the form his father helped require all of us to fill out under threat of prosecution. It isn't that the law is good, but rather the son of the person who wrote should not be able to escape prosecution that everyone else is hypothetically accountable for. It may not be fair, but if your dad wrote the actual law your charged with breaking, if anyone should be charged it's the family of the person who wrote the law, largely to avoid any sense that there's a different set of rules for the 'ruling class'.
You should take a break.
“Peter Thiel was trapped inside a student debating hall by pro-Palestine protesters accusing him of genocide”
Sigh. Things have gone downhill in the world. Where’s a good Palestinian suicide bomber when you need one? They were all over the place back in the hood ol’ 90s
The good old days.
Move to Gaza, and you can be back in the bomber hood.
No thanks. Those guys remind me of the type of religious fanatics you’d find in Arkansas. Although, come to think of it, the replacement as of late of the Islamic fundamentalist by right-wing fanatics and school shooters is really weak sauce tbh. Your fellow traveler gun nut anti-government enthusiasts really aren’t that good at blowing shit up compared to Al Queda. Not that I’m complaining.
Those guys remind me of the type of religious fanatics you’d find in Arkansas.
Because you hear about them murdering and raping in neighboring states all the time.
Yeah, those American MAGA fundamentalists are always launching rockets at the elite Blue enclaves and threatening to kill them all and bulldoze their bodies into the sea.
I wonder if Biden Guy gets an erotic thrill from shit-posting.
Your fellow traveler gun nut anti-government enthusiasts really aren’t that good at blowing shit up compared to Al Queda.
Wait . . . are they anti-government, or are they fascist?
I get so confused.
You're just a hateful bigot aren't you? You claim to be well adjusted but then you condemn all religious people in a rural state of hateful rhetoric. Rather you realize it or not (and I'm betting it's not, because bigots like you lack self awareness) you're a bigger bigot than the people your demonstrating your bigotry against.
That might be because aside from some lone nutjobs, the American right isn't really into blowing shit up. Except for fun when it doesn't hurt anyone. And I don't think you will insult many people here by calling them anti-government gun nuts. Though I prefer "firearms enthusiast".
I'm okay with gun nuts. But I generally don't mind coarse, and base language. I'm also a personal liberty nut. A pro-constition nut. An unapologetic fanboy and believer in the superiority of enlightenment, humanism, and English Common Law and the Magna Carta. And fully embrace how they helped shape America as a state that (at least used to) attempted (quite often very imperfectly, Jim Crow laws, etc) to place personal liberty above group welfare.
Someone should strap your joke to a belt and run through the protesters with it.
Obviously, I don’t want Peter Thiel blown up or hurt. I’d just like him to get stuck— preferably under a Hamas suicide bomb— while he lolz about poor people getting bombed by the IDF. Is that ok? I’m not a bloodthirsty monster.
No, you're a bigot.
It’s Jeff, so yeah.
Not Jeff, since he claims to be married to an adult woman. I think we’ve pretty well established that ain’t how Jeffy rolls. Possibly KAR, ask him about Mormons to find out for sure (if I'm not mistaken KAR also rolls in the same crowd as Jeffy though).
Obviously, I don’t want Peter Thiel blown up or hurt. I’d just like him to get stuck— preferably under a Hamas suicide bomb— while he lolz about poor people getting bombed by the IDF. Is that ok?
As long as you and your fellow leftists are stuck there with him.
Sigh. Things have gone downhill in the world. Where’s a good Palestinian suicide bomber when you need one?
Ah, wishing violent death on people whose politics you don't like. How Well Adjusted of you.
Do you know what a joke is? Live a little, ok?
Do you know what a joke is?
Why yes, yes I do. I'm not sure what the relevance is here, though.
Do you know what bigotry is? If not look in the mirror.
Wait… hold on. I think I’ve got something more appropriate…
Can one of these college protesters just take one for the team and throw Peter Thiel into a wood chipper?
Does that work better?
Does that work better?
At making you seem Well Adjusted?
No.
By well adjusted he obviously thinks that means bigotry towards the wrong type of people and his definition of the wrong type of people are the ones he's bigoted against, which is justified, ergo it's not bigotry, see?
Is bigotry against assholes really bigotry?
Since it’s your opinion who is the asshole, and asshole is completely subjective, and appears to enconpass any one you disagree with, yes it’s the textbook definition of bigotry you bigoted asshole. btw the Nazis would and did use very similar arguments as did the supporters of Jim Crow. It’s’s not bigotry because x people deserve it has been the excuse of the worst bigots in history. The fact that you actually posted this argument as a response to you being called out as a bigot, demonstrates first your lack of self awareness. Second you inability to understand this actually supports rather than contradicts the argument that you're a bigot. And third not to realize this is almost the exact same argument Hitler used to justify his actions against anyone he disagreed with, that the Ottoman's used almost word for word this argument to justify their bigoted persecution and genocide of the Armenians and that many slave owners in the antebellum south and post bellum these same ex slave owners used similar arguments to justify Jim Crow laws, demonstrates a willful and terminal case of complete lack of self awareness.
And yes, I said idiots like you piss me the fuck off, because you're stupidity and undeserved smugness is destroying the liberties this country was founded on, and you're to stupid to realize it. That doesn't mean I think you're less of a human being, or that I would wish a suicide bomber on you, though. Like you did. Nor am I trying to justify myself by claiming a moral high ground like you are. And it's quite possible that my reaction to your stupidity, could also be arguably label as a form of bigotry, and likely does contain some hypocrisy. But at least I'm self aware enough to understand that.
Additionally, I think it's less bigotry than what you said about all Christians in Arkansas, which is denigrate an entire class, where as I specifically called out activities that pisses me off. It isn't the people, but their actions that pisses me off. And it isn't any certain characterization or identity that pisses me off, it's the actions that pisses me off. It's their actions I disagree with, not their identity. Which I believe is a big difference from you, and why You're very much a bigot, whereas, you could argue my statement is bigoted but the argument is actually extremly weak. But, hey I'm opened to the idea that at least some of my anger is the result of some subconscious bigotry against people who believe in regressive ideals and the destruction of enlightenment philosophy.
Is bigotry against assholes really bigotry?
Is circular logic really circular?
Are non-sequiturs really non-sequiturs?
Do you believe you're being clever? If so, you're sadly mistaken.
Are non-sequiturs really non-sequiturs?
Yes, as you just now proved.
Now, on the topic of questions that assume the truth of their conclusions . . . .
Russia launches missile, drone and artillery strikes on Kharkiv amid signs Putin looks to grab Ukraine's second-biggest city - as woman who became the 'face of the war' says 'we fear we'll all die'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13403195/Russia-launches-missile-drone-artillery-strikes-Kharkiv-amid-signs-Putin-looks-grab-Ukraines-second-biggest-city-woman-face-war-says-fear-die.html
If Ukraine would just listen to Trump and appease Putin with some territory, the war would be over. Putin's good for it, and appeasement has never gone wrong.
This is the price they pay for laundering money for the Biden crime family.
Is that what Trump says? I honestly have no idea. But I do think that's the best resolution on the table at this point. I don't see how Ukraine can possibly win without US getting fully involved in a war with Russia. And that seems like about the worst thing that could happen.
Is that what Trump says? I honestly have no idea.
Pretty sure. Maybe one of the grey boxes can answer.
But I do think that’s the best resolution on the table at this point.
I would agree if I thought Putin would honor his end of the bargain.
I don’t see how Ukraine can possibly win...
Me neither. I think they're going to lose no matter what.
So you make a bald and ignorant assertion? Lol.
If they are going to lose why continue to fund it? He'll even if Ukraine could win, why fund it?
Why fund it? Hah.
Met up with a friend from a US defense contractor last week. His group had been on idle for a few months, but last week the aid bill got passed, meaning the Ukrainians can renew their company’s contract, so now they’re back into staffing up, buying supplies, and flying people out to Kiev.
Surely you don’t want our defense industry to start layoffs, do you?
The problem is the funding to arm Ukraine still has a cost. Old supplies are going out. Assets are being transferred. Now the US has to spend to restock their own armaments. It isnt magically cost free.
And what has been given to Ukraine is generally lower tier weapons. So you end up in situations where new development to counter emerging threats aren’t being funded as they spend money on artillery, new stingers, etc.
Likewise this funding also goes to paying salaries, pensions, etc to Ukraine.
The entire dem narrative that this investment goes to the US is pure bullshit.
If they forced you to send your car to Ukraine, do you claim a win for the US since you have to buy a new car in the US for yourself?
I think there might have been some sarcasm there.
Hard to tell with many in Congress using that exact argument.
Yes they are.
It’s a stupid justification. Nevertheless there are plenty of voters and donors here who stand to profit from the aid package, even after the administration/corruption overhead as the money passes through the Ukraine.
How much of that money do you think "passes through Ukraine"?
Uhm, even it's only 1%, that isn't the argument you think it is, moron.
If they forced you to send your car to Ukraine, do you claim a win for the US since you have to buy a new car in the US for yourself?
Depends, has the US made IC engines obsolete and illegal? In that case you may make out by not having to pay a union government licensed contractor to destroy your car when the cost of shipping to Ukraine is far less.
Gently tap the glass, the needle might be stuck on your sarcasm detector.
(But the conversation with the colleague really did happen.)
Which do you think goes to Ukraine, the cash or the car?
Both moron. Both, look at the bill that was passed it includes both weapons and funds fuckhead.
Really you have no clue what you're talking about do you? Because you keep embarrassing yourself by your lack of knowledge. We've been sending weapons, plus money to prop up their government all along moron.
"Pretty sure. Maybe one of the grey boxes can answer."
"Ask me about my mute list (please ask me about my mute list)"
As I've said before, it's not difficult to figure out. Look at who's desperate pleas for attention go unanswered and you'll have your answer.
Again, the grey boxes know more than sarc does.
More projection lol.
Nobody's desperate for your attention. They're making fun of you, not trying to engage with you.
Threads always seem better when sarc is passed out not trying to throw shit.
Is that what you call it when the girls lie and accuse me of saying things they know I didn't say in a desperate attempt to goad me into defending myself?
Word for word citations while just below you refuse to defend your own assertions lol.
Poor sarc. Always the victim.
Nobody's lying about you. You have a shitty memory and you lie to yourself.
Awe, poor sarc.
Did Russia invade someone under Trump?
Your TDS is amazing.
Sara uses TDS as a cover for extreme stupidity and bald-faced lies.
“If Ukraine would just listen to Trump and appease Putin with some territory, the war would be over”
It’s not rUsSiaN pRopAgaNdA to note that until the 1950’s a lot of that territory was Russian – for hundreds of years and to some extent since the beginning. And was populated by native Russians who the Azov Brigades were oppressing.
But keep on repeating Neocon chickenhawk propaganda you picked up on CNN.
Also, I realize you’re trolling, but when did Trump say that?
Nothing screams defending democracy than sending billions to a country that canceled it's elections, has an actor/comedian/grifter installed as president by our neocons, and has brigades of nazis out there fighting for them.
Neocons? That's a funny way of spelling CIA.
I wouldn't even call Zelensky a grifter. It's pretty clear he's never actually run the country since he took office. He's been getting his marching orders from the State Department from Day 1.
His career as an actor was more of a joke by the US than anything else--"LOL, see, Putin's guy was so bad the Ukrainians preferred a comedian over a politician!" Someone like him is going to be a lot more pliable than someone like, say, Vitali Klitschko.
I know you trust Putin because Donald and Tucker say he’s a swell guy, but I don’t share that view.
when did Trump say that?
Saw that earlier this week. Don't remember exactly where.
Cite? On either claim.
You know what. Fuck your lies.
“And by the way I should just say at the outset, I’ve been accused of being pro-Putin, and I’m not,” he argued Tuesday during an appearance on Glenn Beck’s BlazeTV+ program. “And if I was, that’s OK, too. I’m an adult man, an American citizen, I can like or dislike anyone I want. I can have any opinion I want.”
.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4480390-tucker-carlson-argument-not-pro-putin/
Sarc is incapable of comprehending that others can form their own opinions on topics by having actual knowledge of the topic. Because he forms his opinions based off narratives he’s given, he assumes everyone else does. He’s very dumb.
If you didn't think the mute button was some sort of punishment, you'd know that links were posted refuting that below you.
Fucktard.
Which US president oversaw the Crimea adventure?
If Ukraine would just listen to Trump and appease Putin with some territory, the war would be over.
Trump doesn’t even factor into this–Biden already indicated before the invasion that he wouldn’t push back on something limited. I suspect if Putin had just settled for taking the Donbas, everyone would have shrugged their shoulders since that was a separatist province. These people want their Crimean resort hotels back a hell of a lot more than they give a shit about the pro-Russia Donbas residents.
Putin overstepped and tried to take Kiev, and that activated everyone’s almonds.
Well, there's the whole "erasure of Ukrainian identity" thing Putler's now gone with, which gives the war a more sinister edge.
Uhm, you do know that any separate Ukrainian identity from Russia is mostly a modern invention, and never one that was widely accepted by either the Russians or Ukrainians, don't you? Additionally, do you think calling him Putler was clever? Really? Considering the Ukrainian have no shit literal neo-Nazi volunteer brigades fighting for them.
Well, there’s the whole “erasure of Ukrainian identity” thing Putler’s now gone with
LOL, you guys don't even believe in "national identity," the fuck you think you're kidding here?
Besides the difference in identity is about the same as the difference between Austrian and Germans. Which largely is only a thing because the allies forbid Austria from becoming part of Germany (which was their wish after they lost their empire) in 1919.
Most of the people I know retiring at 62 are doing it because their employer is not much interested in keeping them around. They employer is just biding time till they can replace the person with a younger person, usually one that costs less.
That’s some funny shit right there.
If the employer expresses their disinterest by offering impressively generous incentives to retire, it's a good deal for everyone. Here they offered a one time lump sum of half a year's pay on top of the pension plan, and two colleagues took it.
But a third colleague held out, hoping next time they would get so desperate to open positions that they'd up it to a full year. He held out for more than ten years, that offer never came again, and finally he got decrepit enough he had to retire with no lump sum at all.
Wait, so the dude passed on a half year of pay, but collected his salary for ten more years? And he retired “decrepit” because he wouldn’t quit without a lousy half year of salary to go with his pension?
What a ridiculous story. What point are you trying to make here? Take the buyout and then what? Get another job? Live the good life on 6 months of pay for 10 years?
That’s loser thinking. Are you poor?
Also one that is not here legally, as a general rule.
And just how many people do you know retiring at 62?
Actually lots. I did a technical job, chemist, basic middle class employment. Most of the people I know retired at 62 or earlier. The people I know who have retired later are generally professional lawyers or upper management. For these people age is not a factor and it is often easy to continue working. The other side are poorer people who cannot afford to retire till or after 65. BTW - I know a number of people that have retired at 62 to take other jobs. They are not really working for money but more often for something to do. People who have worked for 40 or 50 years sometimes don't know how to do nothing.
Adam Kredo
@Kredo0
SCOOP: Day Before Biden Announced Freeze on Arms Sales to Israel, Admin Issued Sanctions Waiver Allowing Arms Sales to Hamas-ally Qatar, Lebanon, Iraq -- Waiver bypasses sanctions on weapon sales to countries that boycott Israel https://freebeacon.com/national-security/day-before-biden-admin-announced-it-would-withhold-weapons-from-israel-it-issued-sanctions-waiver-to-allow-arms-sales-to-qatar-and-lebanon/
They offered more than 10% to the big guy.
If by “more than 10% to the big guy” you mean “more than 6% to the party in some swing states in an election year”, yes.
Maybe money came from somewhere else to push deals to Qatar, Lebanon, and Iraq but, otherwise, I’m hard pressed to believe that those three countries’ financial… uh… might… superseded the amount of… uh… {{{other money}}}.
Isn’t withholding weapons sales for political gain an impeachable offense?
This is (D)ifferent.
Totally (D)ifferent
Not according to no less than 100% of the voting Republican House members during Trump's first impeachment.
Not that it would stop them from voting exactly the opposite way next time.
Oh gee, some Republicans don't like Trump, what a point of proof that is. Really?
New report out of the UK shows rampant immigration doesn't actually increase GDO by a measurable value but does increase government spending and inflation.
https://cps.org.uk/research/taking-back-control/
I like how all the open borders rascals here compare 19th century immigration, where the immigrants had to get here on their own and support themselves, with the current welfare and free shit fiesta.
We got good immigrants when we vetted them, so we don't need to vet them.
And 30% of the immigrants went back
I'm an open borders guy. But I'm also all for the NAP. Bringing immigrants here who don't like the culture is against my interpretation of the NAP. Enticing immigrants here with sweet sweet taxpayer money is against the NAP.
As usual, government is the root of the problem.
Most libertarians are open borders sans a welfare state. But that's not what we have. There are roughly 170M taxpayers having their money taken, their shared public goods utilized, and other negative externalities as violations of the NAP.
Until those issues are resolved open borders is not happening.
… open borders is not happening.
Oh, but it is.
I'd say properly secured elections at all levels is also a necessary condition.
Agreed. Democrats just voted against not counting illegals in apportionment yesterday.
The double negative has me confused, but I'm assuming they don't want illegals counted for apportionment? Not that there's any good way to count them, anyway, so mostly moot.
Serious question: how long can open-border libertarians tolerate an influx of anti-libertarian, pro-state immigrants?
When they care more about globalist ideals than actual liberty they can go on forever.
You mean they weren’t handing out free smart phones, prepaid debit cards and free housing in the 19th century? Those barbarians!
I think there is some causality both ways there. The government spending attracts more immigrants who come for free shit rather than an opportunity to work and improve their lives that way. And the huge influx makes the government programs cost even more.
Outside of the US, until about 15 years ago most countries required some sort of economic investment to migrate. Canada was famous for the 100k investments required. Sweden requires still around a 5k investment. The Visas required one to hold a job or invest.
But new migration doesn't require these things. Immigrants have no investments for the countries they enter. But they do have expectations as what they can get from said countries.
Yeah, some President some day will get credit for fixing the broken immigration system.
Donnie - Fail
Sleepy Joe - Fail
Still laughing about "Mexico paying for giant wall" bullshit.
Yeah, it's not like Trump's border plans weren't tied up in court for every frivolous reason that could pop into you guys heads.
But they do have expectations as what they can get from said countries.
And you said they weren't invested!
An Open Society is an Unstable Society.
I offer to eat 5 more brain worms and still beat President Trump and President Biden in a debate.
Proscribed by the Handicapper General, no doubt.
Another book that progressives have on their societal planning reference shelf.
"Jacobin defending the Berlin Wall"
Chemjeff as a long-form essay.
You mean self-styled communists love walls to keep their people in? Who, exactly, is surprised by this?
Worry free = slave labor we don't have to look and can ignore because the Chinese aren't white.
China Rules the Green Economy. Here’s Why That’s a Problem for Biden.
Beijing’s dominance raises economic and security concerns, and tensions will be high as top climate diplomats meet this week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/climate/china-us-podesta-liu.html
In an ideal world, where the clean energy transition was the top priority, they would be on friendlier terms. Maybe affordable Chinese-made electric vehicles would be widely sold in America, instead of being viewed as an economic threat. Or there would be less need to dig a lithium mine at an environmentally sensitive site in Nevada, because lithium, which is essential for batteries, could be bought worry-free from China, which controls the world’s supply.
Joe is headed in the opposite direction
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-10/biden-poised-to-impose-tariffs-on-china-evs-strategic-sectors?srnd=homepage-americas
China green economy fueled by slave labor and coal
In an ideal world, where the clean energy transition was the top priority, they would be on friendlier terms. Maybe affordable Chinese-made electric vehicles would be widely sold in America, instead of being viewed as an economic threat.
Mandated electric vehicles, free of Trump Tariffs. Win Win.
Biden tariffs, see above
In an ideal world, where the clean energy transition was the top priority, it would be a lot easier to reduce Hamas' carbon footprint.
I'd love to believe these people can't all be this stupid but we get things like "$0.5B on his campaign means he could've given every American $1M!".
BUT UNIONS!!!
Or there would be less need to dig a lithium mine at an environmentally sensitive site in Nevada, because lithium, which is essential for batteries, could be bought worry-free from China, which controls the world’s supply.
Hilarious since 'environmentally sensitive' basically boils down to anywhere in the United States borders, but magically it isn't so sensitive all over the rest of the planet.
If eco-nuts were serious, they would be demanding we go to war with China and damn the cost in human lives today. After all, it's the survival of the species...at least according to them.
It's how you know they are utterly unserious and are being led by the nose by far smarter people with far more nefarious purposes.
https://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
The first evidence of this is apparent in December 1972, in Chomksy's introduction for Cambodia in the Southeast Asia War by Malcolm Caldwell and Lek Tan. In the introduction, Chomsky writes, quite rightly, "The misery and destruction for which Nixon and Kissinger bear direct responsibility are crimes that can never be forgotten." He then continues:
"By the impulse it has given to the revolutionary forces, this vicious attack may have also prepared the ground, as some observers believe, not only for national liberation but also for a new era of economic development and social justice."(5)
It's totally nixons fault polpot killed 25% of the population
It’s ok when it is their own people.
Polpot, died under house arrest. Well played sir.
“The misery and destruction for which Nixon and Kissinger bear direct responsibility are crimes that can never be forgotten.”
Something, something, Johnson...
That's (D)ifferent!
Something, something the North Vietnamese invading Cambodian sovereign territory to enforce their government on the south, which destabilized the Cambodian government even before Johnson got a war boner.
Nixon just chose not to ignore the North Vietnamese blatant invasion of Cambodian territory to support their invasion of South Vietnam.
No, no. Vietnam was a peaceful paradise before 1958.
And Afghanistan was a peaceful country before 2001. And the Islamic conquest of the Byzantine Empire, and Spain was completely peaceful and mutual.
And the idea of slavery was invented by Europeans and only targeted Africans and didn't exist until the 16th century.
And Charles Martel was a war criminal for attacking the peaceful Muslims who were just coming on a diplomatic mission.
Biden Announces New $3.3 Billion Wisconsin AI Data Center...and It's the Ultimate Jab at Trump. Microsoft is building a new data center at the exact same location that former president Donald Trump once touted would be the "eighth wonder of the world."
https://www.inc.com/melissa-angell/biden-announces-new-33-billion-wisconsin-ai-data-centerand-its-ultimate-jab-at-trump.html
#BidenManufacturingBoom
How much in tax dollars is that going to cost?
Donald Trump once touted would be the “eighth wonder of the world
Sounds like it may come true
and It’s the Ultimate Jab at Trump.
THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN!!!
Who said they would never get the Trump jab?
I am curious: is this more of Pluggo hating BOTH Biden and Trump?
It's hard to keep count.
Everyone who insisted that the rest of us get it when it became the sleepy joe clot shot.
'Former President Donald Trump is currently dealing with the hush-money/falsifying business records case before him, in which he may be convicted and serve some time in prison. It is also not impossible that he will serve some amount of time in jail beforehand if he violates the judge's gag order again.'
OK, what is the ratio of people who think seeing Trump in prison orange (Double Orange Man?) certifies his moral ineligibility for office to people who will see a political martyr?
That ratio, roughly 45/43, gets measured every week by numerous polling firms, since it’s precisely equal to the presidential polling.
The 10-11% left over are people who correctly understand that he’s a political martyr AND morally ineligible.
Putting expenses in the wrong column in company books is “immoral”.
Calling legal expenses legal expenses is also immoral.
Not at all. Calling a payment to a lawyer a legal expense is fine, especially since the main purpose of books is to keep track of which bills got paid and when.
Since it wasn’t a campaign expense there was no need to call it one, and I think we all know that if Trump called it a campaign expense Bragg would have tried to prosecute him for NOT calling it a personal/legal expense. When the story broke I read liberal commentators salivating over the fact that he could be busted no matter what he called it.
My opinion about his moral unsuitability is completely independent of the so-called hush money.
The problem with morality is that there are so many moral systems that exist that are, at least in some cases, entirely mutually exclusive. There is no one moral system one is required to abide by in America, and a recent Pakistani immigrant might take issue with all kinds of things we think are moral or immoral.
I'd be curious which modern (or hell, historical) Presidents qualify as 'moral' though. Some are certainly better at lying about it than others.
I’d be curious which modern (or hell, historical) Presidents qualify as ‘moral’ though.
Washington?
Other than, I got nothing.
Fair, while he had his own issues (namely the Whiskey Rebellion, off the top of my head) he at least set a precedent for two terms that was honored right up until FDR decided he wanted to make a bid for king.
Fortunately, death put a stop to that.
I guess Calvin did an ok job too, mostly just by not doing much at all. Reading about him gives the impression that was intentional, though, so credit where credit is due.
morally ineligible.
Explain
As BYODB so elegantly explained, there are many moral systems. Trump just doesn’t happen to be acceptable in the one I try to follow.
I don’t care about the women, the business records, or the documents whether classified or not, and I don’t think he has direct responsibility for January 6th.
The issue is an ego so gigantic and pathological that he’s literally incapable of understanding the concept of any objective higher than his own desires, conceiving that just maybe he didn’t get the most votes, or being even nominally reciprocal on personal loyalty.
Many of us were brought up to think of ourselves as no more important than other people, to accept losses with manful dignity, and to understand that loyalty needs to be both reciprocal and earned.
Perhaps you think that’s sissy sucker weak loser stuff, a lot of people do.
I don't disagree. Trump is not a person I would willingly spend time with. Then again, I wouldn't want to spend time with Churchill either but he did the job he was hired to do one supposes.
In short, morality is not something we should probably expect from those who seek power and it's dangerous to assume anyone in power is at all moral. That's how you get Presidents like FDR, Kennedy, or Obama.
Something, something ‘persecuting with the approval of their conscience.'
The odds are not good for Trump. Americans reflexively defer to authority rather than rebel against it. A spell behind bars would break Trump. He's a frail old man who's in decline, after a lifetime of indulgence the most frivolous whims. He'll be a shell of himself and a sorry sight when they let him out.
Tell us more about your fanfic.
Some people do well after a spell in prison, and sadly some don't. Joe Orton was sent to prison with his lover Kenneth Halliwell for defacing library books. On release, Orton went on to become a successful playwright, the toast of London's West End. Halliwell sunk into despondency and eventually murder suicide.
the fever dreams are taking hold
Control your enthusiasm.
A long list of stuff that could happen to interfere with your plan:
– All kinds of appeals, both of various glitches during the trial, and the underlying “crime” that enhanced the records violation to a felony.
– A mistrial, including one engineered by Trump himself.
– A hung jury. It only takes one.
– Probation. After all, even if you accept every single thing the prosecution claims, it remains a non-violent bookkeeping crime in which nobody had their money stolen, for a person without a prior record. I bet most people in that category in NY get probation. Or even just a fine.
– Worst case, he can leave the country before being taken into custody, which does not take him off the ballot, make him ineligble to receive electoral votes, or prevent him from taking the oath of office if he wins. Taking office would give him many additional tools and options.
- Worst worst case, I think he'd do better in prison than the average person. He's not the type to wallow in regrets or reflection about what he could have done differently. He'll be plotting his comeback at the end of the sentence, which is highly unlikely to be more than months long.
"various glitches during the trial"
I wouldn't count on them all going the way of advancing Trump. The trial itself is a stressful and humiliating ordeal. His adversaries, like Stormy Daniels, are sharp, on their toes and ready and willing to twist the knife. Trump is a frail old man in decline. If it makes you feel any better I doubt any of the candidates would come off better.
That’s funny
We wouldn't be discussing this trial unless it were so funny. We're all enjoying, to be sure. But Trump has been gagged and forced to attend and do the bidding of judges and lawyers who are not as rich and famous or important as he is. It must be agonizing. His discomfiture will surely take its toll. Trump is a frail old man in decline.
""We’re all enjoying, to be sure.""
I've never enjoyed watching a prosecutor doggedly go after anyone.
Pitbull overzealous prosecutors that like charge stacking should be a thing of the past. Doesn't matter who their target is. This is something the left and I had in common at one time. The difference between me and them is I'm not going to let hate change my mind about prosecutorial reform.
"Pitbull overzealous prosecutors that like charge stacking should be a thing of the past. "
Overzealous? They've been dragging out these prosecutions for years now. They don't look like they'll be finished before election day. They are playing right into Trump's hand. Still, Trump is a frail old man on the decline. I don't think he has the physical or mental strength to come out ahead.
"Doesn’t matter who their target is. "
You don't really believe that, do you? Faux naivete is not persuading anyone.
lol, is Misconstrueman back to being parody after all?
If you think Trump will emerge from the ordeal stronger rather than weaker, make your case. But you won't, will you. You know I am right. And it hurts you too much to admit it.
Never-mind all the blow-hard complete BS pointless and evidence-less accusations. The real ?crime? is at the top of the DNC platform … He “hollowed out our public institutions!” pg3 pr4.
'It's almost like an example is being made of Hunter Biden, whose legal argument is in stark opposition to the Biden administration's position on the matter.'
Is that like lawfare or something?
"an example is being made of Hunter Biden"
That is unfortunate. Hunter is the only one of the Biden administration I have any respect for. Clearly a man who insists on living life to the full as he strives for the brass ring, while not giving a toss for his puny, resentful detractors.
living life to the full as he strives for the brass ring
Like living in a penthouse with hot women and getting elected president?
America is a great nation. Even the son of a president can aspire to the office.
"Clearly a man who insists on living life to the full as he strives for the brass ring, while not giving a toss for his puny, resentful detractors."
So you must love Trump too, huh?
"So you must love Trump too, huh?"
Certainly. He is by far the most entertaining celebrity to ever win the presidency. Nobody holds a candle to him. That he spent his term in such pursuits as attempting to buy Greenland shows just how seriously he took his official responsibilities.
Because nobody ever purchased a country before.
TDS seems to make you guys dumber and more ignorant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_the_United_States_to_purchase_Greenland
Despite the name, Trump would surely be disappointed by Greenland's golf courses.
It sounded better than Roughland.
Holy fuck. Did you just say you respect Hunter? Even most committed Biden supporters try to wish Hunter into the cornfield.
Apparently you are OK with the fact that he also does not give a toss for basic legal and moral fundamentals, and is happy to screw (literally) his family and friends.
Joe Biden is a dithering holocaust denier. His son is an improvement. You perhaps prefer the father. There's no accounting for taste.
“does not give a toss for basic legal and moral fundamentals, and is happy to screw (literally) his family and friends.”
He is an artist. A true artist has to be willing to sacrifice everything, family and friends included.
""A true artist has to be willing to sacrifice everything, family and friends included."'
So we can add artists to the list of things you don' t know.
I am not a true artist. Hence my esteem for those who are. They work at a higher level, I know that much, and are beyond your obsession with fairness, equality and your hypocritical morality. Look at Woody Allen, perhaps America's greatest living film maker. You despise him, right? Do you think he stopped, even for a minute, to consider your disapproval while raping his wife's adopted children?
‘It’s almost like an example is being made of Hunter Biden, whose legal argument is in stark opposition to the Biden administration’s position on the matter.’
Um no. This indictment is just another get out of jail free card. Apparently Liz is blissfully unaware that the DOJ let the clock run out on numerous tax and FARA crimes and got caught red handed by a federal judge trying to slip an immunity deal past her in the footnotes. This is basically a serial killer being charged with involuntary manslaughter.
And yet, hardly anyone is ever prosecuted for doing what he allegedly did.
But people are charged and his dad wrote the fucking law they are charged under. If anyone should not receive deference it's the family of the guy wrote the fucking law. Not because of poetic justice so much as not to support an idea that the law isn't applied to the self proclaimed ruling class.
Jacobin defending the Berlin Wall
I swear to God if ONE commenter says "the mask is slipping" I'm going to squeak.
The USSR made a stupid mistake dividing up Berlin and handing most of it off to allied countries who had no role in taking it. They got nothing but tsuris in return. In another world, the Soviets would have been given half of Tokyo to wall off allow Japan's more than capable communist commissars to rule.
Except USSR had literally nothing to do with the defeat of Japan. You cannot argue that the US and UK had no role in the defeat of Germany.
"Except USSR had literally nothing to do with the defeat of Japan. "
USSR declared war in the last days of WWII. They seized four islands, the Northern Territories, which they colonized and hold to this day.
"You cannot argue that the US and UK had no role in the defeat of Germany."
I wouldn't argue that. I'd argue that France had no role in the defeat of Germany. France, unlike Netherlands, Belgium etc, actually surrendered to Germany, essentially without a fight, shortly after hostilities began. Canada played a bigger role in Germany's defeat than France did, yet received no slice of the Berlin pie. France got the same reward for their lack of a role in Austria. They received a slice of Vienna for their surrender.
Stalin, of course, was a masterful statesman and strategist. His decisions on Berlin led to decades of cold war conflict and tension.
Stalin, of course, was a masterful statesman and strategist.
I’m sure the people he killed feel otherwise.
Stalin was not a 'people person.' Great statesmen rarely are.
USSR declared war in the last days of WWII. They seized four islands, the Northern Territories, which they colonized and hold to this day.
Is that why Japan surrendered?
"Is that why Japan surrendered?"
Japan was a Fascist regime. Naturally they preferred to be ruled by a sympathetic USA rather than a Communist power that had already started to gobble up Japanese territory.
So you're saying that's why Japan surrendered?
He's saying, "please mute me".
"So you’re saying that’s why Japan surrendered?"
They surrendered because they were defeated. Japan had invaded China long before and still hadn't managed to secure it from Mao's insurgents, even with Nationalist cooperation. The homeland population starving and reduced to eating dogs and cats. Their navy was finished and pretty much any confrontation with the Allies was a disaster.
The Japanese fascists were faced with a decision to continue the war and watch their islands being gobbled up one after the other by the Red Army, or surrender to the Americans, who were sympathetic, even to the extent of allowing the emperor to remain on the throne in his lavish palace. If you think the Communists would have gone so far to appease the leaders of a defeated nation, you are delusional. I suggest you read up on how the Communists treated their own monarchs. It's truly a gruesome story.
I suggest you read up on how the Communists treated their own monarchs. It’s truly a gruesome story.
Yup.
So, just to clarify, you’re saying that the Japanese surrendered because the Soviets took a few northern islands in the final days of the war, and not because of the years-long US/UK campaign in the South Pacific culminating in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
" you’re saying that the Japanese surrendered because the Soviets took a few northern islands in the final days of the war"
I am saying again that Japan surrendered because they lost the war. They were defeated. It didn't matter if they lost Okinawa, Guam, China, Korea, or Manchuria. But when the home islands started to fall and be occupied by foreign powers, it was time to surrender.
"and not because of the years-long US/UK campaign in the South Pacific culminating in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?"
The US campaign was responsible for the destruction of the navy, including Hiroshima, a huge navy base, and Nagasaki, home to Mitsubishi ship yards. The Japanese army was bled dry by Mao's insurgents and confined to the major cities. It was a tough lesson: to conquer China, one must first conquer the world.
Japan was wise enough to see that the US was preferred power to surrender to. Granted, the US operates dozens of military bases all over Japan, but today Japan has sovereignty, even over Okinawa. I've already mentioned the fate of Japan's Northern Territories. I'd be happy to remind you if you didn't catch it the first time.
I am saying again that Japan surrendered because they lost the war.
Well, maybe now, but what you started off saying is "In another world, the Soviets would have been given half of Tokyo to wall off allow Japan’s more than capable communist commissars to rule."
Which inspired the perfectly reasonable question of "why," when the USSR had even less role in inspiring the Japanese to surrender than they did in taking Germany?
"Which inspired the perfectly reasonable question of “why,”
Because Japan was an axis power, like Germany. If Germany's capital was to be divided up and handed out to defeated powers like France, why shouldn't Tokyo be any different? The USSR was among the victorious powers. They probably played a much greater role in the defeat of Japan than the French did in Germany. In fact, among Berlin's most determined defenders were French volunteers for the Waffen SS. France uniquely surrendered to the Nazis, unlike Denmark, Poland and others which never formally surrendered.
They probably played a much greater role in the defeat of Japan than the French did in Germany.
This is objectively untrue, given the French resistance movement.
And why do you keep pivoting to France when the question was about why you are dismissing the role of the US and the UK and pretending that it was solely the USSR who took Berlin and then conceded part of it to non-participating allies like the US and the UK?
"And why do you keep pivoting to France"
I thought I explained that. Just that France was given a slice of Berlin and Vienna despite playing no role in their taking. US and UK were given a slice each despite playing only an indirect role.
The French resistance was mostly Socialist or Communist or even Jews. France's right wing volunteered to serve Hitler. Have you read Ian Fleming's first novel Casino Royale? Pretty good book but it's ironic that Bond's opposite number in the French secret service was certainly a Nazi collaborator. The villain, Le Chifre, an Albanian (?) was a corrupt communist with a stellar record in the French resistance. (I think Bond would have been the better spy if he had turned Le Chifre rather than organize his demise, but Fleming was a real spy so I have to defer.)
https://libgen.is/fiction/317171181EDE8C5A0A60F775FE7A262D
In any case, the French Resistance is mostly a creation of Hollywood. Once the war was over, they came out in full force, brutalizing women and shaving their heads for sleeping with the enemy. I admire more the Czech resistance, who managed to take down the number two of the SS.
"And why do you keep pivoting to France when the question was about why you are dismissing the role of the US and the UK and pretending that it was solely the USSR who took Berlin and then conceded part of it to non-participating allies like the US and the UK?"
I explained this elsewhere. It's a rhetorical device called hyperbole.
I explained this elsewhere. It’s a rhetorical device called hyperbole.
No it isn't. Hyperbole is when you deliberately overstate something. What you're doing is called "changing the subject" (i.e. non-sequitur) and "attacking a straw man" in that it's been pointed out to you that the only reason Soviet tanks ever touched Berlin is because the other Allies stood back and let them. But you keep wanting to talk about France, for some reason, in addition to pretending that the Soviets "allowing" other Allies to occupy Berlin was some gesture of magnanimity.
Recall that your "hyperbole" was "The USSR made a stupid mistake dividing up Berlin and handing most of it off to allied countries who had no role in taking it" when the actual situation was much closer to the exact opposite of that.
"Hyperbole is when you deliberately overstate something. "
I overstated the US and UK lack of a role in the Soviet's taking of Berlin. Is that what's really bothering you? The lady doth protest too much, methinks. I'm not saying you're a lady. I'm sure you are a man and a manly man at that. It's a quote from the Bard, (William Shakespeare) in his masterpiece Hamlet.
If there are any other rhetorical devices you object to, or perhaps misspelled words or poor use of punctuation marks, don't hold back.
I overstated the US and UK lack of a role in the Soviet’s taking of Berlin.
In the sense that saying "the US didn't fight in the American Revolution, it was actually the Native Americans who won that war" is "overstating" the lack of a US role in the American Revolution.
If there are any other rhetorical devices you object to, or perhaps misspelled words or poor use of punctuation marks, don’t hold back.
Given how generous you are with your own criticisms of people's spelling, word choices, and rhetorical flourishes I assumed that you appreciated the feedback. I may have been wrong.
"I assumed that you appreciated the feedback."
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the attention you've lavished on my comments. I just hoped you'd have something of substance to add. Something more than tendentious rewordings of comments I've written. As I said, I find this rude and disrespectful.
My favorite story about negotiations with the Japanese in the leadup to their surrender, the Americans told the Japanese delegation: "Japan has two futures, one speaks Russian."
It was a pretty easy choice.
"USSR declared war in the last days of WWII."
Oh, the last days of the war, you say? Well, I stand corrected. They were clutch.
"They seized four islands, the Northern Territories, which they colonized and hold to this day."
WHAT? They seized islands from a country that the US had been obliterating for years? Indeed, proven incorrect. USSR was a KEY part of the war against Japan. Their WEEK of being in a war that had being on for 4 years was the turning point, no doubt
"I wouldn’t argue that. I’d argue that France had no role in the defeat of Germany. France, unlike Netherlands, Belgium etc, actually surrendered to Germany, essentially without a fight, shortly after hostilities began."
The Allies gave France a part of THEIR part of Germany. USSR gave nothing. And, yes, the Allies were morons to give France anything. Does not have a thing to do with the USSR one way or the other.
"WHAT? They seized islands from a country that the US had been obliterating for years? "
Yes, there are 4 islands north of Hokkaido they call the Northern Territories which USSR seized in the last days of the war. Also there was action in Manchuria. I met an old woman incidentally, who had been part of Japan's efforts to colonize Manchuria. When confronted with letters of the Roman alphabet, the one we're all familiar with, she pronounced them as though they were Cyrillic. I haven't been to Japan for a while, but right wingers in Japan used to drive around the cities of Japan in deafeningly loud sound trucks bemoaning Russia's actions. The same bunch had nothing but good praise for Americans.
You might like Murakami Haruki's The Wind Up Bird Chronicle. It's by far his greatest work, and concerns in part Soviet/Japanese conflict in Manchuria.
https://libgen.is/fiction/81FCCA0DF2FA01A74FA79D8A292D5869
"USSR was a KEY part of the war against Japan. Their WEEK of being in a war that had being on for 4 years was the turning point, no doubt"
As were Mao's insurgents. They had been responsible for tying down Japan's army and confining them to the cities for years, not weeks.
As were Mao’s insurgents. They had been responsible for tying down Japan’s army and confining them to the cities for years, not weeks.
So you agree that even the Red Chinese had more to do with Japan's defeat than the Soviets did.
By the by, what was Chiang Kai-shek doing during the war?
"So you agree that even the Red Chinese had more to do with Japan’s defeat than the Soviets did."
I'm not sure. The Chinese waged a years long guerilla war against the Nationalists, and later Japan. The Soviets supplied them with aid while Soviet confrontations with Japan involved modern equipment in traditional battles - tanks, artillery etc. This is where Marshal Zhukov's early victories against Japan (actually in Mongolia) first caught Stalin's eye. I haven't looked into the question you're asking so, no, I don't agree. But I'm ready to be convinced if you have an argument either way.
"By the by, what was Chiang Kai-shek doing during the war?"
Aside from reneging on his unified front promises to the Communists? Very little.
I haven’t looked into the question you’re asking so, no, I don’t agree.
That's weird, because just now you were really confident that they'd contributed much more than France did in the struggle against Germany.
And I'm not sure I'm clear on the criteria by which Mao's troops counted as resistance fighters but Chiang's didn't. Can you clarify? Because the only difference I see between them is what ideological label they slapped onto their power fantasies.
"That’s weird, because just now you were really confident that they’d contributed much more than France did in the struggle against Germany. "
It's not that weird. Whatever role China played in the defeat of Japan, it was partly thanks to Soviet aid and support.
"And I’m not sure I’m clear on the criteria by which Mao’s troops counted as resistance fighters but Chiang’s didn’t."
Chiang Kai Shek showed more interest in fighting Communists than the Japanese Fascists, is all. That's not resisting the Japanese. But instead prosecuting a civil war.
About France, it didn't contribute to the defeat of Germany or the taking of Berlin. France surrendered to Germany early in the war, so yes, pick almost any country among the allies, and we can say the same thing about them being more of a factor than France in the defeat of Germany or the downfall of Berlin. Thanks to the brave airmen of Squadron 201, for example, even Mexico contributed more to the defeat of Germany than the French. A few decades ago there was a TV series of rather questionable taste: Hogan's Heroes. The main character Colonel Klink, was always worried about a transfer to the Russian Front, where certain death awaited him. His fondest desire? A transfer to Paris, France, where there was champagne, fine gourmet cooking, beautiful girls and no danger. A silly American sitcom told you all this years ago. Where were you?
"Yes, there are 4 islands north of Hokkaido they call the Northern Territories which USSR seized in the last days of the war."
USSR was the Italy of the War in the Pacific. Taking the scraps when better armies already did the work.
The only thing the Russian army has ever done, legitimately, is sacrifice so many more troops than their opponents had. Stalingrad was more Hitler being a military idiot than the Soviets being terribly effective at the whole military thing.
"You might like Murakami Haruki’s The Wind Up Bird Chronicle. It’s by far his greatest work, and concerns in part Soviet/Japanese conflict in Manchuria"
Hmm, what is that word after the "/" following the ".is" in that web address?
Seems like it says "fiction".
"As were Mao’s insurgents. They had been responsible for tying down Japan’s army and confining them to the cities for years, not weeks."
This has what to do, exactly, with the USSR having any claim to a piece of Tokyo?
"USSR was the Italy of the War in the Pacific."
Japan was also involved in Mongolia, a land locked nation sandwiched between USSR and China, far from any significant body of water. Also China and Manchuria.
"Hmm, what is that word after the “/” following the “.is” in that web address?"
It is indeed. A link to a book you might enjoy if you are interested in Japan's 'non pacific' war.
"This has what to do, exactly, with the USSR having any claim to a piece of Tokyo?"
Japan was an axis power, like Germany. Tokyo was and remains the capital. Berlin was divided and administered by several different powers. Tokyo wasn't divided, and in fact the emperor remained on his throne even after the war. I see a strange asymmetry here, which perhaps you don't. Think about it.
It shows that the USA was dramatically better ruling a country alone then a consortium of countries was. It's not exactly a novel observation.
But why would the USSR be deserving of ANY piece of Tokyo? You seemed to question the US and UK getting any piece of Berlin in spite of actually fighting for years but the USSR certainly seems, in your eyes, to deserve Tokyo despite "fighting" for a week.
"But why would the USSR be deserving of ANY piece of Tokyo? "
Tokyo was an axis power, USSR was an ally.
"USSR certainly seems, in your eyes, to deserve Tokyo despite “fighting” for a week."
USSR had fought longer than a week. Read your history books. Someone's been leading you astray.
Patton had to be stopped by Eisenhower, because the deal between FDR/Truman and stalin was made to let stalin take berlin.
^
Stalin didn't stop Marshal Zhukov as his troops raped and pillaged their way through Germany.
"stalin was made to let stalin take berlin."
Remind me, who was the superior statesman and strategist?
Stalin didn’t stop Marshal Zhukov as his troops raped and pillaged their way through Germany.
True. But the American troops that were on their way to Berlin were stopped by FDR's folks in order to let Stalin's people take Berlin, as had been agreed.
"were stopped by FDR’s folks in order to let Stalin’s people take Berlin, as had been agreed."
Remind me, who was the superior stateman and strategist?
Chirchill
Chirchull was astute enough to know what Hitler was all about long before his Tory cronies and the royals were. I think he probably had the measure of FDR and Stalin, too.
Remind me, who was the superior stateman and strategist?
Seems like a pretty subjective judgment call, and one that really doesn't have anything to do with the question at hand.
" doesn’t have anything to do with the question at hand."
You are correct. The question concerns the Berlin Wall. It was constructed under Khrushchev's orders. As you might suspect, Khrushchev was no master mind statesman. He's remembered for pounding his shoe for attention at the UN. In the politburo he had to rely on Molotov to explain the joking and banter to him.
The question concerns the Berlin Wall.
Yes, regarding which you said:
"The USSR made a stupid mistake dividing up Berlin and handing most of it off to allied countries who had no role in taking it."
I think the question that is being asked of you is what your basis is for asserting that the US and the UK had no role in taking Berlin.
"asserting that the US and the UK had no role in taking Berlin."
It was Russian tanks that rolled into Berlin. If it were otherwise, I would have written otherwise. The division of Berlin led to all sorts of cold war dramas, including a widespread and crippling fear of nuclear war. The world would have been better off without it.
The world would have been better off without it.
Agreed.
But why do you keep pretending that the US and the UK had no role in taking Berlin, when the US army literally had to be held back to allow the Soviet tanks to roll in?
"But why do you keep pretending that the US and the UK had no role in taking Berlin,"
It's called hyperbole, an exaggeration to emphasize a point. It's a bit of rhetorical trickery is all. No need to glom on to it at the expense of all the non-hyperbolic points I make.
The US, UK and USSR were allies. And the US and UK did indeed play a role in the fall of Berlin. They also can take some credit for Germany's defeat at Stalingrad, again without a US tank or soldier getting anywhere near the place. The US and UK fought bravely in the Pacific, North Africa and Western Europe without significant participation of the USSR. Why not take pride in these achievements instead of the stolen valor of claiming victory over Berlin?
It’s called hyperbole, an exaggeration to emphasize a point. It’s a bit of rhetorical trickery is all. No need to glom on to it at the expense of all the non-hyperbolic points I make.
So you're saying you don't like it when someone nitpicks some point out of what you said and persistently ignores the rest of it?
Huh.
"So you’re saying ..."
You keep telling me what I'm saying. It's not necessary. I am fully aware of what I've written, and I don't need your tendentious rewordings to remind me. It's rude and disrespectful.
I don't mean to upset you with hyperbole, it's simply exaggeration to make a point. You surely must have come across this and similar rhetorical devices in the past. Pretending not to understand them is a cheap and low down trick that doesn't fool anyone, but only signals the intellectual poverty of whatever point you are trying to make.
You keep telling me what I’m saying.
No, I keep asking you to clarify what you're saying, because you insist on using rhetorical tricks that you then walk back later, leaving it very unclear what it is you're trying to say.
Pretending not to understand them is a cheap and low down trick that doesn’t fool anyone, but only signals the intellectual poverty of whatever point you are trying to make.
Yeah, in case this wasn't clear, I was pointing out that this is what you yourself do in essentially every post, and have for years and years.
I'd let you back off of your initial assertion that the Soviets were the lone force that took Berlin and that they made a mistake allowing other Allies to participate in the post-war administration of Germany, but there's not even a coherent position adjacent to that position. Even with your assertions that you didn't really mean what you said, it is quite challenging to figure out what you did mean.
"leaving it very unclear what it is you’re trying to say."
That's one of my little ways. Rather than stating what I think is the obvious, ie it was the USSR that conquered Berlin, I like to phrase things in a way that causes my readers to pause and think a little for themselves.
"I think the question that is being asked of you is what your basis is for asserting that the US and the UK had no role in taking Berlin."
I've answered it several times. If you don't like my answers, make one up for yourself you do like. I think we've reached the point where I'm ready to give you my permission to do so.
FDR was a borderline dying husk of a man.
He's like Biden today. Precious little difference, honestly.
"FDR was a borderline dying husk of a man."
He was smart enough not to go to war against the USSR. They'd been fighting for several years by this point and were getting good. It seems that Russians are always lousy at the start of any conflict, and over the years get stronger and more formidable. Doesn't this pattern stretch back to the days of Napoleon, and continue to Ukraine today?
"in which he may be convicted and serve some time in prison."
I don't see Trump doing well in prison. It would break his spirit and destroy his health. I can see a deal in the making. Trump avoids prison in exchange for giving up his presidential aspirations. Everyone is happy.
Everyone happy? I predict modest levels of civil unrest if that happened. Nothing world ending but several weeks of incidents dominating the news cycle.
By agreeing to the “deal”, Alvin Bragg would be essentially admitting that all his legal arguments were crap and it was all about taking down a presidential candidate. But he seems completely shameless so maybe he’s fine with that. Might even bask in it.
" I predict modest levels of civil unrest if that happened."
Trump seems to attract more than his fair share of nut cases. Most normal people with a full stomach aren't going to put themselves at risk for him. Look at the thousands who stormed the capital on Jan. 6. Only one was willing to put her life on the line to stop the steal and hang Mike Pence.
Look at the thousands who stormed the capital on Jan. 6. Only one was willing to put her life on the line to stop the steal and hang Mike Pence.
The FBI and the DHS? You haven't been paying attention to the congressional investigations, have you?
Want to make a guess about who erected the phony gallows to "Hang Mike Pence" on the lawn the day before? Here's a hint. After putting them up they are caught on camera all going over to the FBI cafeteria. And even though they are all clearly identifiable, mysteriously there are no charges.
Want to make a guess about the identity of the guy who was caught clearly and identifiably on many cameras placing the pipebombs? To this day he also remains uncharged.
Want to make a guess about the identity of the guy who was caught clearly and identifiably on many cameras breaking the windows at the capitol? To this day he remains uncharged.
Want to talk about the ONLY guy who was caught clearly and identifiably on many cameras calling to overthrow and attack congress that day, while everyone called him a fed? The FBI and J6 committee refused to charge him, and when their hand was finally forced, it was the softest of misdemeanors with no actual punishment.
"You haven’t been paying attention to the congressional investigations, have you?"
No. I'm sick and tired of their bullshit. I admire your tenacity.
"Want to make a guess about who erected the phony gallows"
Want to make a guess about who didn't tear them down, but allowed them to remain and become a symbol for the sad crowd of failed insurrectionists?
"To this day he also remains uncharged."
Agents provocateur, wouldn't you say? It shows the state feared the movement and took it seriously. They took it a lot more seriously than the Jan. 6th protestors took themselves with their ridiculous costumes and posturing. Aren't you embarrassed by them? As I said, thousands of protestors, and only one was willing to pay the ultimate price. A bad show, all around.
""No. I’m sick and tired of their bullshit.""
Something I was burned out on by 2017.
No. I’m sick and tired of their bullshit. I admire your tenacity.
Funny how that wasn't your opinion for the Hollywood produced, J6 Kangaroo Court clown show, which hid evidence from defendants, hid evidence from the public, destroyed evidence they were required to retain, and featured a whopping twenty-six perjuries by their own witnesses.
Also, funny how you're sick and tired of evidence of fraud, election interference, threats against elected officials, and acts of insurrection by the top echelons of the FBI and DHS. If you were libertarian this might have made you raise an eyebrow.
"Funny how that wasn’t your opinion for the Hollywood produced, J6 Kangaroo Court clown show,"
A good number of these participants plead guilty. Again, a sign of fecklessness on their part. Did Hitler plead guilty for his role in the Munich Putsch? Of course not, and he went to jail without complaint and took his punishment like a man.
"If you were libertarian this might have made you raise an eyebrow."
I'm not a Libertarian, which may be why I take all the things that shock and surprise you for granted. Grow up and open your eyes is my advice.
You seem to have quite the fascist hard-on, mtrue.
I just expect Fascists to behave like Fascists. Insurrectionists, even failed insurrectionists, to behave like insurrectionists.
No wonder you failed life.
Why don't you mention his name?
Joe Biden
Not everyone
They'd have to shut down a WIDE swath of the prison given that the Secret Service is in charge of his protection and they trump the state laws on this.
So, they'd have to release numerous violent criminals...to get Trump on a crime that is not a crime and passed the statute of limitations to boot.
'Scenes from New York: Inside the city's effort to remove severely mentally ill people from subway cars.'
How about from tent cities on college campuses?
What the fuck happened to Emily Willis? Very sad. What a loss!
'"Retiring early is becoming the norm as the share of US workers planning to work beyond age 62 continues to retreat, extending a downshift that started with the pandemic," reports Bloomberg, based on Federal Reserve Bank of New York data.'
62? I hear the new cool thing is 32.
If you're REALLY cool, you never have a job in the first place.
"There is broad agreement that the US housing market needs more homes," writes Conor Sen at Bloomberg. "There is also broad agreement that affordability needs to improve. But it doesn't necessarily follow that we should build more affordable homes."
No chance that people who "deserve" homes can increase their productivity and income?
In the future, your AI concierge will date other AI concierges and get back to you with a filtered list of who to actually meet. (I'm not reflexively anti-AI, but this strikes me as a bit dark, undervaluing both chemistry and dissimilarity.)
Prediction: Women's happiness index will continue to decline, even more sharply than it did after the sexual revolution, it'll be men's fault, and Men will continue to care less and less.
Will female AI concierges be able to revoke consent 6 mos. after waking up hungover in bed with other AI concierges the morning after agreeing to go out for ‘just a couple of drinks’?
Will male AI concierges be able to express the idea "I wouldn't even rape this woman." or will that sort of thing get lobotomized from their language model?
"The future will be decentralized, or it won't be free."
This is probably true for much more than just social media platforms. I suspect that the choke points on private economic activities currently known as "banks" will evolve into decentralized technologies similar to "blockchain" or "bitcoin" and that political activities will evolve away from "the two-party system" into decentralized proportional representation and ranked-choice election systems. The Speaker of the House, for example, will no longer be able to bulldoze all opposition when xhe faces several different caucuses with shifting alliances based on significantly differing political agendas.
So even worse.
decentralized technologies similar to “blockchain” or “bitcoin”
Kinda hard to read between all the "scare quotes", but FFS! Once again, the whole idea of a "blockchain" is that every transaction is traceable back to the central authority the protocol for exchange is agreed upon by the majority contributors or stakeholders. The technology is inherently *not* decentralized. It's not even as decentralized as the fucking Post Office, where every letter you send doesn't get routed through, approved by, and encoded into some master ledger somewhere before getting sent out for delivery. Banks, unable to track the dollars you have in your pocket, are more decentralized.
It's so decentralized that two major exchanges had their head honcho put in prison for shenanigans.
And things get really fun when a former chief regulator says one crypto is "sufficiently decentralized" because the owners, mining, and dev teams are vaguely, but sufficiently, independent and another coin/chain developer starts calling for *more* regulation of crypto in order to weed out the insufficiently decentralized currencies.
As I said elsewhere, AFAICT, it's a piece of performative mathematical artwork to convince people that you can use a zero-knowledge protocol to disprove a zero-knowledge proof.
mad.casual - I'm not an expert on blockchain or banking, thus the "scare" quotes. The point of decentralization is to protect the privacy of people making financial transactions and reduce the tools available to honest or unscrupulous officials in tracking the transactions. If decentralized is not the correct terminology, then I stand corrected. But the Canadian government cracked down on the Trucker Convoy Protests by freezing their bank accounts. It is much harder for them to crack down on bitcoin platforms but almost impossible for them to track down individual transactions within the bitcoin networks. What objection do you make to my assertions here? And, by the way, the Post Office sends me a daily summary of my incoming mail, complete with images of the actual items which, presumably, allows them to automatically sort the mail by zip code. What century are you living in?
"It is much harder for them to crack down on bitcoin platforms but almost impossible for them to track down individual transactions within the bitcoin networks. "
Haven't investigators had much better success in targeting bitcoin exchanges, where bitcoin is traded for actual money? Sam Bankman Fried, for example?
Well Sam was the operator of the exchange and was “targeted” for fraud in the form of a pyramid scheme. I don’t recall any mention of tracking any transactions by any of the customers of the exchange. The question here seems to me to be: “Is it harder for government agents to detect and document ‘illegal’ transactions using bitcoins and blockchain technology than it is for them to regulate banks and use “wiretap” authorizations?” If privacy is easier to maintain with bitcoin blockchain transactions, avoiding detection by government investigators, making it more difficult to identify the parties to the transactions and the source and destination of the funds; and preventing access to evidence of unapproved activities, then that will increase over time as more and more people want to avoid government attention. Many Chinese citizens, for example, are already apparently avoiding Chicom surveillance that way.
I think I understand about the privacy of bitcoin transactions. I believe though this privacy disappears when bitcoins are inevitably exchanged for real, actual money. I'm not as knowledgeable about these things as I should be. One question I've never been able to figure out is RSA encryption. I understand the principles, it's extremely elegant and I've played around with it with 2 or 3 digit primes, but to make it work in the practical world, we need something like a secret 200 digit prime number to get us started. Where do these prime numbers come from and if they come from an outside provider, how can we be sure they are secret?
"Yet fewer than 150 Americans are prosecuted for that crime each year. Even when gun buyers (including people who are disqualified for other reasons, such as felony records) are caught lying on Form 4473, they are rarely prosecuted." It's almost like an example is being made of Hunter Biden, whose legal argument is in stark opposition to the Biden administration's position on the matter."
Prosecuting Hunter might be the surest way to change Biden's nd the Democrat's position on the issue. Leaving a law which can be selctively abused seems a bad idea.
Ah, "good" lawfare, you mean?
More like "every cloud has a silver lining?"
159 people are charged every year, not 1 person every 100 years.
How many are found to have lied on the form and don’t face prosecution? Do you suppose it’s not that many, and 150 represents a significant percentage of that number?
How many people a year are charged with beastiality, or abuse of a corpse? Probably less than 150, and also probably a very high percentage of the cases uncovered.
“Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. He knew the reason. It was because of the atmosphere of hockey−fields and cold baths and community hikes and general clean−mindedness which she managed to carry about with her. He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones. It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy.”
― George Orwell, 1984
https://www.city-journal.org/article/hysterics-for-hamas
The female tilt among anti-Israel student protesters is an underappreciated aspect of the pro-Hamas campus hysteria. True, when activists need muscle (to echo University of Missouri professor Melissa Click’s immortal call during the 2015 Black Lives Matter protests), males are mobilized to smash windows and doors or hurl projectiles at the police, for example. But the faces behind the masks and before the cameras are disproportionately female, as seen in this recent gem from the Princeton demonstrations.
Why the apparent gender gap? One possible reason is that women constitute majorities of both student bodies and the metastasizing student-services bureaucracies that cater to them. Another is the sex skew in majors. The hard sciences and economics, whose students are less likely to take days or weeks out from their classes to party (correction: “stand against genocide”) in cool North Face tents, are still majority male. The humanities and soft social sciences, the fields where you might even get extra credit for your intersectional activism, are majority female.
It was not too long ago when administrators started bringing in therapy dogs to campus libraries and dining halls to help a female-heavy student body cope with psychic distress, especially after the election of Donald Trump. “Trigger warnings” were implemented to protect female students from Ovid’s Metamorphoses and other great works of literature. Campus discourse and its media echo chamber rang with accounts of the mental-health crisis on campus, whose alleged sufferers were overwhelmingly female.
Par for the course, then, when the editors at the Columbia Law Review (majority female) adopted the rhetoric of trauma in demanding that Columbia Law School hand out a universal pass for Spring 2024 coursework. A May 1 action by the New York Police Department to evict violent trespassers from an administration building had left them, they wrote, “highly emotional,” “irrevocably shaken,” “unwell,” and “unable to focus”—in other words, displaying all the symptoms of Victorian neurasthenia.
Actually, the pro-Hamas encampments have little to do with “thinking,” fresh or otherwise. Like the spread of trans identity among young females, the tent eruptions are a case of social contagion. No change in Israel’s tactics in the Gaza Strip over the last two months explains the ubiquity of encampments now. Rather, they are copy-cat behavior, like the early 1960s hula-hoop craze among teenyboppers—accelerated by the fact, so galling for the participants, that they are about to lose their sympathetic administrative foils come summer vacation.
Reasonable analysis of what’s going on.
Another piece of evidence that it’s social contagion is the way it’s got hot spots, just like Covid.
Campuses with large scale shut downs and class cancellations, but then other campuses with 20,000+ students with literally zero happening. We’ve had zero tents, no gatherings, not even flyers posted. Never even heard a single student utter the word Israel or Gaza.
I bet it correlates with universities that require a “personal statement” as part of their admission statement, want a list of volunteer stuff you did in high school, and market the college experience.
While places that just admit the top X% using a spreadsheet and market their job placement record are less likely to have encampments.
Yup, it's empowered womyn all the way down.
It’s also a networking opportunity. It’s a lot easier to get considered for some commie NGO job if you can put protest participation on your resume and the various activist groups you were aligned with at the time. Keep in mind that there's a lot of professors and non-campus people participating in this, so these kids are all making contacts for after this is over.
Yeah, and it's notable that the USC Faculty Senate board that just voted to censure the college president and dean are almost all female.
Islam was right about women.
The irony that the people they shill for believe that their gender prohibits them from speaking in public is not lost on many of us.
It's almost enough to hope that they get what they ask for, good and hard.
One hopes that at least some of them will eventually be exposed to the real world and these vapid nonsense beliefs of theirs will evaporate accordingly.
One hopes that at least some of them will eventually be exposed to the real world and these vapid nonsense beliefs of theirs will evaporate accordingly.
Based on the last 25 years, I wouldn't be too optimistic about that.
“cope with psychic distress, especially after the election of Donald Trump”
I recall a lot of universities pushed back exams and cancelled classes over Trump getting elected. Presumably a majority of these students did their 4 years (while under the oppressive Trump) and are now in the job market they helped vote for in 2020.
Trust me, the odd's they voted at all approaches zero. These people are so seeped in revolutionary rhetoric that to even participate in a democratic election is unfathomable.
You left out the feminine/feminist fundamental core of the compulsively compassionate society model. The "nanny state" has a specific gender tag for a reason.
The illogical irony of the current American campus intifada is that all these front line womyn would quickly become sequestered and pregnant in Gaza (except for public displays of mourning). And their rainbow friends would not survive the first week.
Yeah, but the irony isn't particularly relevant. The issue isn't the issue, the issue is whatever will enable the communist utopia to come to fruition.
+1 The victimhood narrative isn't getting in the way of their pro-Palestinian message, the pro-Palestinian message is paving the way for their victimhood-class-struggle narrative.
" The issue isn’t the issue, the issue is whatever will enable the communist utopia to come to fruition."
Those damn Judeo-Bolsheviks and their tent-buying Russian masters!
Do you realize that those who propose a “communist utopia” are antisemitic individuals, just like you? You would get along with them very well.
I love seeing autistic high school dropout Greta protesting Israel.
Because I bet Gaza would LOVE having an irritating, autistic, high-school dropout in their midst.
"He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones."
Winston was a regime toady who betrayed those he supposedly loved. Julia was a wily rebel and the real thing. Anyone reading 1984 and concluding the novel's men come off better than the women should go for a second reading.
Although the facts related may be true, I draw no particular conclusions about women from the article cited by RasAlGore. The larger context is that women are still adjusting to suddenly and unexpectedly finding themselves assumed to be “equal” by society. There are certainly benefits to having equal rights and equal opportunities in your society, but many equal rights activists over the last century seem to have neglected to consider the costs. I have heard women say that the world would be a better place with less testosterone-driven war and social conflict; and that businesses and workplaces would be less hostile once women were in positions of authority and responsibility; only to find out that the social drivers of business hierarchies and warfare weren’t entirely due to male hormones. I can understand why suddenly finding out that men no longer need stable relationships with one woman in order to get sex might be distressing to many women. Likewise the realization that having the opportunity to pursue any career you prefer might mean that you will no longer be as likely to find a man to support you as a full-time homemaker and that you may need to work productively to the satisfaction of your supervisor to support yourself. Eventually society will settle down to some more stable social equilibrium, but in the meantime hormones will continue to contribute to the current state of social chaos.
"Eventually society will settle down to some more stable social equilibrium, but in the meantime hormones will continue to contribute to the current state of social chaos."
Is it the lack of hormones in the body politic that concerns you? Isn't testosterone associated with aggression and risk taking? Is it a lack of testosterone in American leaders and military that cause us to be repeatedly stymied by a militia based in Yemen, the poorest nation in Asia? Is the lack of testosterone responsible for the pathetically small turn outs to pro - Israeli demonstrations? That would seem to be case if we blame women and female hormones for the large and vociferous pro - Palestine events.
Sorry, I may not be understanding you here. The question seems to be: “Are the Forever Wars in the Middle East due to the testosterone levels of the official leaders of the various societies involved, or is there some other factor that plays a significant role in causing the official leaders of America to entangle us militarily all over the planet with the thinnest of excuses?”
I'd say yes to the latter part of the question, the 'something else' part. The hormone explanation seems absolutely crackpot. The 'some other factors' I'd say are habit, laziness, cowardice and corruption.
Is it just me, or does it appear that almost all politicians and officials no longer even try to deny that they are corrupt, without any moral principles, and that their goal is to maintain themselves in their official positions and defeat the other team at any cost regardless of facts, truth or success for the nation?
You just now noticed?
It does seem to me that up until a couple years ago we at least got some earnest attempts at real, traditional hypocrisy.
Now, if they even claim to have principles, it's accompanied by open winking, smirking, and gaslighting. The claim isn't made to fool anyone, it's made to get on the target's nerves.
See: Gavin Newsom.
Except for election officials. Purest of heart.
What's the point in denying it anymore? It's not like they're going to be punished for such behavior when it serves the Regime. In fact, they get a fuck-ton of rewards for doing so.
Like I've said, if you don't want a rebellion of the Populares, don't allow the Optimates to act in such a way that putting a dictator in place to clean the place up looks like a realistic option.
I recall when people claimed the Supreme Court was apolitical and wasn't a political position. That sure changed in the last decade.
Yeah, that was gaslighting and always was.
Denver Migrants Send List of 13 Demands to Mayor
The migrants should be allowed to "cook their own food with fresh, culturally appropriate ingredients," including rice, chicken, flour, tomatoes and onions, instead of being served premade meals. They also want to ensure people are not punished for bringing and eating food from outside the shelters.
Have access to showers at all times and without time limits.
Visits by medical professionals will occur on a regular basis, with referrals for specialty care made as needed.
The group will receive the same housing support offered to others, and city officials will not "kick people out in 30 days without something stable established."
A "clear" and "just" process for removing someone, including verbal, written and final warnings.
Employment support, including work permit applications for those who qualify.
Free consultations with an immigration lawyer, as well as ongoing legal support provided by the city through immigration clinics and transportation to court.
Privacy for families in the shelter.
No verbal, physical or mental abuse by shelter staff and no 24/7 monitoring by law enforcement.
Transportation for children to and from school.
No separation of families, regardless of whether those families have children.
A meeting with the mayor and those involved in running the city's program to support migrants "to discuss further improvements."
All shelter residents will be provided with a document signed by a city official in English and Spanish and containing the list of demands and a number to call to report violations.
https://www.newsweek.com/denver-migrants-send-demands-mayor-1898788
Spray them down with a fire hose instead.
Or send them home.
Have access to showers at all times and without time limits.
LOL, you’re not in the Venezuelan jungle anymore, guys, you’re in an arid region with water laws that allocate how much can be used. Denver has a lot of water rights, but not enough to let you take one-hour showers to wash your stink off.
no 24/7 monitoring by law enforcement.
Boy, they're really telling on themselves there.
>>no 24/7 monitoring by law enforcement.
wherefore Sam Kinison You moved ... to a police state!! oh! ohhhh!
It sounds like something an activist wrote on their behalf.
THE IMMIGRANTS ARE JUST HERE TO WORK AND SUPPORT THEMSELVES!!!
"A meeting with the mayor and those involved in running the city’s program to support migrants “to discuss further improvements.”"
What else is there? Just straight up cash in their pockets?
In the future, your AI concierge will date other AI concierges and get back to you with a filtered list of who to actually meet.
This shit isn't going to work any more than the current dating apps do. Women are still going to filter out their choices to what they think are the top 1% of men, and men will continue contacting multiple women in the hopes that one of them will ping them back, only to get frustrated and decide the effort isn't worth it.
On top of that, there is a very real trend of younger men checking out of the dating world altogether, either because they don't want to risk getting falsely accused of rape after a night of fun; they can't compete with guys in their 30s or 40s because women almost always look to date up the ladder, not down or at their socio-economic level; or they just don't think western women are worth the effort. If that holds, it won't matter what kind of fancy tech doodads Silicon Valley comes up with other than "Find a Hooker" apps.
For the guys, don't worry about "meeting someone"--seriously. Get outside the house, be active, do your thing, and if you do happen to meet someone, great. If not, don't sweat it, because you're not obligated to be any woman's retirement plan.
Americans are retiring earlier for a variety of reasons, chiefly, because companies let them go. Some leave to become caregivers. But the top reason is involuntary job termination. That is not good.
It's been that way for a while, though. Unless you're in government or the head of a large corporation, most workers don't get to leave on their own terms. They're either laid off or things are made so intolerable that they're incentivized to leave. Then when they start applying for places, they find that no one will hire them due to age. Better to get someone younger who may not be laid up for weeks due to a random medical ailment that your company's insurance now has to pay for.
This wasn't as much of an issue when families were still valued and parents often lived with their adult children in old age, but now everyone is expected to be independent and elderly relatives are just seen as a burden, due in no small part to the post-WW2 left aggressively alienating young people from their parents and grandparents, in order to destroy the family structure in favor of their beloved communist utopia. Now they just get packed off to nursing homes where the kids hope they die before the long-term care insurance runs out.
Booming economy!
Not
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-are-feeling-worse-about-the-us-economy-amid-inflation-concerns-150503395.html
>>Delay tactics:
Ridiculous Miscarriage of Justice:
>>It is also not impossible that he will serve some amount of time in jail beforehand if he violates the judge's gag order again.
have you been in Sullum's hope chest?
No, it's close enough to impossible to be impossible.
>>"The answer is open in part because no president except Trump has ever been charged with a crime,"
hint hint
>>It's almost like an example is being made of Hunter Biden
ridiculous miscarriage of justice, exactly.
>>You can keep your "modest prosperity"; I'll take a dynamic, growing, highly prosperous society
you live in NYC.
NYC is such a dynamic, growing and highly prosperous city that they need to get the military involved in their policing.
I've seen the military around since 9/11.
What's interesting is I see them less now. I did not see any increase of National Guard after the Gov mentioned it. No one I know saw an increase.
I would see the NG at Penn Station all the time. But last few times I've been there I walked around to see if they were there. Nope.
I'm fairly convinced it was all talk by the Gov so she can make herself look like she's doing something about crime. I didn't see any added NG and the NG I once saw seem to be gone.
>>interviewed Jack Dorsey
ask him when the last time he showered was.
>>In the future, your AI concierge will date other AI concierges
holy shit she's serious! ya I'm taking computer nerd dating advice from a blonde chick who needs conditioner & a better style.
I would have thought it fairly obvious in the definition of the act of granting a pardon is that it is granted by one person to someone else.
History is not always essential in understanding the Constitution, but I would think that proponents of the President being able to grant himself a pardon would find at least one example of someone with pardon power somewhere actually doing that.
Also, the Constitution explicitly says that impeachment does not prevent the official that is impeached from "be[ing] liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." A President that could grant himself a pardon would be truly above federal law and that is antithetical to the Framers' ideas of limitations on executive power.
The pardon is a safety valve.
Right. It is not, however, "I can commit whatever crimes I want and then pardon myself to avoid punishment."
Do we seriously want all Presidents in the future to simply pardon themselves for crimes they committed while in office the day before they leave? They could even phrase it like Ford did and make cover any crimes they may have committed and not have to name anything specific.
The level of immunity Trump and his supporters are calling for him to have would make being elected President the ultimate get-out-jail-free card. It is practically an invitation for Presidents to break the law when they feel like it. I really am shocked that people on the right (conservative, libertarian, or other that support Trump) would want to put that kind of lack of accountability in the hands of the U.S. President, aka the most powerful person on the planet. You all are really providing all of the evidence needed to show that Trump has built a cult of personality around himself.
Who else could pardon the president?
9:00am – Declare yourself incapacitated, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate.
9:15am – VP, as Acting President, issues pardon.
9:30am – Accept pardon.
9:45am – Declare yourself cured and reassume office.
Do it all on live TV to avoid any questions about whether it really happened.
If the lawyers say the incapacity has to be genuine, schedule a colonscopy, there's a precedent for 25th-ing during one.
Uh, the next President? Unlike the 'untested self-pardon', that has actually happened.
It would require losing your office, something that isn't desired by Trump. You gotta find another way.
Uh, it's not.
Issuing something can be done to yourself.
The future will be decentralized, or it won’t be free.
Isn't that sort of a tautology, though? I mean, centralized authority is sort of the essence of the absence of freedom.
you're gonna make Mike Solana feel bad.
I saw "decentralized", Jack Dorsey, and "Trump" and don't need to read any further to know that it's bullshit wishcasting.
I don't know what the exact concept is that Dorsey has in his head, but it will be "decentralized" and Trump, Alex Jones, Hunter Biden's Laptop, Russian Hackers, The Barrington Accord, etc., etc., etc., (take your pick of things under Dorsey's watch) will still, somehow, be banned from all the various "decentralized" points. The "decentralization" will be "trustless" so that no one has to trust anyone else that the right decision was made to bar Trump, Alex Jones, Hunter Biden's Laptop, Russian Hackers, The Barrington Accord, etc., etc., etc., (take your pick of things under Dorsey's watch), it will just be The Right Decision™ that the higher powers to which Dorsey and people like him are subject to will have bequeathed to all humanity.
Never do what you'd complain about if the "other side" did while in power.
Never do what you’d complain about if the “other side” did while in power.
That's pretty rich coming from you. "It's okay when we do it" is your side's keystone principle.
My “side” is stay out of my personal affairs, body autonomy, police that actually have to obey the constitution, and less government busybodies and Karens (male versions included) in general.
Like during Covid?
Yes, we know--you want all the supposed privileges of being a man, with none of the responsibilities.
Never do what you’d complain about if the “other side” did while in power.
You mean pass The Brady Bill, set up the NICS, and charge the ATF and FBI with enforcement action around 4473 Forms?
[holds out hand and bows] After you, you stupid cunt.
In the future, your AI concierge will date other AI concierges
They did a black mirror episode on this and strangely enough it was one of the only ones with a happy ending and it wasnt dark. I wonder what that says about the producers.
Honestly, that sounds pretty good to me right now. Just tell me who I'm supposed to marry. No one morbidly obese or more than 5 years older than me.
4 years older & 205 is gangbusters?
5'8", 130 lbs., 35, never married, apartment full of cats, hairdresser, named Tiffany... like the scene with the building engineer from Room 1408.
Wolfe Herd?
Self pardon? Wasn't that Leonard Peltier's main platform?