Thursday Open Thread

Please feel free to write comments on this post on whatever topic you like! (As usual, please avoid personal insults of each other, vulgarities aimed at each other or at third parties, or other things that are likely to poison the discussion.)

Comments

[apedad]

2017: Trump becomes President
2018: Trump loses the House of Representatives
2019: Trump loses the presidency
2020: Trump loses the Senate

MAGA baby!

[apedad]

FUCK! I screwed that up. Too early....

2017: Trump becomes President
2018: Trump loses the House of Representatives
2020: Trump loses the presidency
2021: Trump loses the Senate

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're denying everybody in D.C. except Trump their own share of agency. Losing the House and Senate was a team effort.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's an interesting stat for you.

In 2016, Johnny Isakson (R) won 2.13 million votes in the Georgia Senate election. His opponent, Jim Barksdale won 1.6 million votes.

In 2020, Kelly Loeffler (R) won 2.18 million votes in the Georgia Senate runoff. Her Opponent Raphael Warnock won 2.25 million votes.

That's a remarkable gain by the Democrats. An additional 600,000 votes between elections....

[Martinned]

Allow me to introduce Stacey Yvonne Abrams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Abrams

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The next honoree at Rushmore?

[donojack]

You're gonna need a bigger mountain.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nah. Swap Franklin for Teddy, add Abrams.

But provide statehood to D.C. first.

Two new, great senators.

You can cry if you want, clingers.

[DeForestDelpech]

I've been under a rock, what did Abrams do in regards to this voter turnout discrepency?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She organized an effort to beat the vote-suppressing Republican bigots of Georgia and succeeded to large degree. She was indispensable to the splendid, against-the-odds effort that enabled Democrats to beat Georgia’s conservative White nationalists with a Black guy and a Jewish kid.

Carry on, clingers . . . But, in Georgia, only so far as the magnificent Stacey Abrams permits.

[SimonP]

Georgia has about 10.6 million people, 76% of which are voting age, and has grown by about 300k since 2016.

Meanwhile, Trump's popular vote in the 2020 election was the second highest popular vote total in American history, second only to Biden's.

2020 was all about turnout. In the process, it debunked a lot of accepted truths about who benefits most from turnout - lessons that conservatives appear committed to ignore, for some reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think the conservatives will ignore it, but the GOP establishment probably will, because they're not terribly unhappy with this outcome. They get rid of Trump, and the minority party still gets graft, with a lot less work and accountability.

Back to blaming their failure to live up to their campaign promises on being in the minority, a script they were comfortable with for so long. McConnell doesn't even have to dodge questions about why he won't schedule votes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX95QSKBODo

I think the party split for good yesterday -- and that McConell might not even be relevant come 2023. It's time for a house cleaning, we either get the RINOs out or we split like the Whig party did, which is how the Republican party came to be in the first place.

Bite Me Harass is going to tank the stock market and then things will get really interesting.

[De Oppresso Liber]

The stock market is going to tank because Trump threw fuel on the fire of the business cycle. His inaction on covid caused massive stimulus and loose fiscal policy. His previous tax cuts induced a giant deficit and further heated the market up. We are way into bubble territory already. Or maybe this is the new inflation making itself known in equities before consumer goods.

Either way, we have what we have now and what is to come because of the monetary and fiscal policies that the GOP embraced, which was Keynesian to the core.

All it took was one huckster willing to talk like the idiots do for them to forget that they hate the national debt and Keynesian economics. How funny.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The stock market is going to tank because Trump...

I was wondering which of you assholes was Krugman's sockpuppet.

[bernard11]

I advise you to do a lot of short-selling.

If the market is going to tank, and it might, it won't be because Biden and the Democrats do anything that they are already more or less expected to do.

That's Stock Market 101.

[Aktenberg78]

Basically, most Democrat constituencies are lazy and didn't turn out in the past. You bring the ballots to them and do all of the work for them, they'll vote for Democrats for free stuff. Gimme dat.

[De Oppresso Liber]

In other wording, when you remove logistical and artificial barriers to voting, more people vote, and more people (the real silent majority) vote for democrats.

That is not the rebuke of democrats you seem to think it is.

[Aktenberg78]

Actually, it is. You tell people "If you vote for me, I'll give you free stuff" is a winning strategy. It's just ultimate ruinous for society.

The fact that you're acknowledging that the Democrats are the party of free stuff is nice for a change.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Sure, "free stuff" is the only issue. Yep.

Whatever you tell yourself. Clearly you aren't going to let anyone else tell you anything.

[Aktenberg78]

For the blacks who voted in Georgia, free money and unjustified promotions and school admissions basically are the only issues.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Yeah. You know it all, clearly. Preventing people who might hold similar attitudes as yours from having a further position of authority over them has nothing at all to do with it, I'm sure.

[Aktenberg78]

When a group of people are genetically violent and unintelligent, they need to be controlled more than other people.

[grb]

Aktenberg78 : Actually, it is. You tell people “If you vote for me, I’ll give you free stuff” is a winning strategy. It’s just ultimate ruinous for society.

Let's assume Aktenberg votes GOP. That means he votes for the party that regularly promises multi-trillion dollar tax cuts every four years - tax cuts financed by supply-side unicorn horns & magic-pixie fairy dust. That means he votes for a party that explodes the deficit every time they hold power, with "free stuff" on a truly gargantuan scale. They've done so regularly & predictably for almost a half-century.

That means his comment above is full of shit.

(Note : If Aktenberg doesn't vote GOP I offer my heartfelt apologies. Wild accusations like pedophilia, wife-beating, Satanism and GOP-voting should never be thrown about carelessly)

[Titus PUllo]

A good insight on how this went down...Trump was tweeting when the Dems realized mail in ballots were the way to get a ton of folks who never vote or are too lazy to drive to the polls to vote their way. Brilliant! They didn't cheat..they played by the rules..have to give it to them...oh and as long as this goes on...the GOP is done

[Aktenberg78]

The GOP has been done since the 90s when the uncontrolled immigration was obviously going to permanently tip the scales.

It'll be done until the nation collapses from loose fiscal policy, which will be sooner than people think.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's more an example of why you don't want to nominate RINOs -- that you need a candidate that has the support of the base.

[Glaucomatose]

If it’s a team effort, Trump was the MVP. Trump’s refusal to accept his loss to Biden was both proximate and but-for cause of the Georgia election results handing the Senate to the Democrats.

He spent two months peddling lies and conspiracy theories, and has nothing to show for it except his “legacy” destroyed, a woman dead, the GOP at (almost literal) war with itself, and unified Democratic control of Congress.

Heck of a job, Trump.

[Bored Lawyer]

You beat me to it. Trump owns the devasation of the GOP.

It's par for the course with him. He had many grandiose business schemes, and in the end, they failed, and his creditors were stiffed in bankruptcy court. That's where the GOP is now -- a creditor in a Trump bankruptcy. They should expect to get screwed.

But for those counting their leftist chickens, nothing in politics is permanent. In 1974, things looked bleak for the GOP, with Watergate and the shellacking the party took in the elections that year. And then they lost the presidency to a mediocrity, Jimmy Carter. But in 1980, they came roaring back with Reagan.

Question is who will be the Reagan of 2024.

[Queen Amalthea]

The country is naturally conservative leaning. They might reject conservative extremism, but they naturally lean right.

[Bored Lawyer]

RIght.

Let's not overlook the fact that in the 2020 election, while Trump lost, the GOP gained in Congress. And that was in large part because of the radical ideas (defund the police) pushed by the Democrats. And they know it. Including our Weather-Vane-President-Elect.

So at the same time, the American people managed to reject Trump's deranged personality and the leftist policies pushed by the other side. Which speaks well of our Constitutional democracy.

[Queen Amalthea]

I agree, Trump and 'defund police' are both examples of extremist overreach.

[Krayt]

My main concern this next two to four years is government not deciding to inflate away the massive debt.

Well, that and not appointing Supreme Court justices who look favorably on outlawing hate speech.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Let’s not overlook the fact that in the 2020 election, while Trump lost, the GOP gained in Congress. And that was in large part because of the radical ideas (defund the police) pushed by the Democrats. And they know it. Including our Weather-Vane-President-Elect."

Wrong. Americans voted for Democrats over Republicans by more than 10 million votes in those House elections. The clingers benefit from undeserved, obsolete, structural amplification of yahoo votes.

A growing problem that is likely to be addressed soon by America's better elements.

[Bored Lawyer]

The House is already apportioned by population. And yet the GOP gained seats there. Which duly alarmed quite a few Democrats, including President-Elect-Weather-Vane.

Any district system, by definition, means that it matters not whether you win a district by a thin margin or get 99% of the vote. So what is your proposal? Make the whole country a single Congressional district, and apportion seats proportionately? (Israel has that system).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

First, enlarge the House, diminishing the structural amplification of goober voices.

Second, stop Republican gerrymandering (or perhaps expand Democratic gerrymandering, because Democrats are the mainstream and the majority -- if conservatives can bend it with a minority, imagine what Democrats could accomplish with a majority).

Third, stop subsidizing the can't-keep-up stretches. Let them continue to empty as the market sifts this.

I am open to other ideas.
Third,

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I forgot the big one: Criminalize voter suppression.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me endorse this proposal of the Rev's to enlarge the House. Say a couple thousand members?

Of course, the Rev has no idea about the nuts and bolts of actual gerrymandering, or any understanding of political geography, or he'd know that seriously enlarging the House would really screw over the Democrats, by reducing their capacity to gerrymander away their inefficient distribution of votes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You keep thinking, Brett. It's what you're good it.

From the 'stomp the clingers' perspective.

[SimonP]

The House is already apportioned by population.

This is simplistic to the point of being just false.

There are three factors that play to the Republicans' advantage in the House. First, there is a cap on the size of the House, which means, with the constitutional requirement that each state gets at least one representative, several states are disproportionately represented in the House. Second, there is rampant partisan gerrymandering in this country, as Republican legislatures have done their best over the years to pack and crack Democratic voting blocs to concentrate and dilute their representation (and that promises to continue given the outcome of the 2020 election and the Supreme Court's refusal to end the practice). Third, there is natural geographic concentration of Democratic voters in urban areas, meaning that even the most good-faith redistricting will result in some packing and cracking of Democratic voting power.

And yet the GOP gained seats there.</I.

And that's why. A lot of the House seats that flipped back into the (R) column were places that (D)'s won in 2018 due to high Democratic turnout and low Republican turnout, and were always going to be hard to hold, and were in fact hard to hold given Trump's turnout.

Make the whole country a single Congressional district, and apportion seats proportionately? (Israel has that system).

I think that's a strange way to put it, but it's worth considering. Parliamentary systems have the advantage of giving a place to third parties. The recent elections in Israel have illustrated this quite well, as the Joint List and Yisrael Beiteinu have played various roles as coalition- or king-makers. District-based, first-past-the-post systems push out third parties and have a strange way of refracting the will of the people, as the recent UK election illustrated. (Where Labour and Lib Dem basically kept each other out of power.)

[bernard11]

Make the whole country a single Congressional district, and apportion seats proportionately?

Or apportion each state's seats proportionally.

[Dr. Ed 2]

TRUMP DIDN'T LOSE!!!

TRUMP DIDN'T LOSE!!!

[MoreCurious]

Two lies do not equate to one truth.

[SimonP]

"Naturally conservative leaning" in the sense of, pro-abortion rights, pro-$15 minimum wage, pro-same sex marriage, pro-legalized marijuana, pro-environmental protection, pro-taxing the wealthy, and so on.

They may also tend to distrust politicians and favor lower taxes for the middle class and less government spending. But the overall picture is more complex than is captured by simply describing them as "conservative leaning." Many Americans vote for politicians that do not support the policies they personally would support.

[M L]

Majority is pro-life.

But yes, the electorate is changing rapidly by the day as Democrats sell out American workers, seeking to import new voters with globally unprecedented immigration schemes. They've written hundreds of op-eds rejoicing about this and hopeful that it will work, but I don't really think it will work as well as they expect.

[SimonP]

Majority is pro-life.

This is a false claim that is easy to rebut. Google first next time.

The rest of your comment is mumbling gibberish. Go invade a Capitol building or something, get it out of your system.

[grb]

M L : Majority is pro-life.

What is it with the Right's up-is-down, black-is-white and 2+2=5 way of thinking? There has never been a pro-life majority since Roe-V-Wade and the numbers aren't even close. You can get a wide range of results depending on the question, but a simple "should Roe-v-Wade stay or go" always polls approaching two-to-one for stay.

In 2019 it was 60-33, pro-choice, In 2018, it was 64-28, pro-choice. The closest numbers Gallup has are from 2007, 53-25, pro-choice, but the previous year was 66-25, pro-choice.

I'll let you in on a little secret : The Republican Right is happy to tinker with abortion restrictions and make pretty speeches - cause they know people will accept that nonsense. But they're well aware the true majority is on the other side, and by a substantial margin. The blowback when they finally do blunder into success is going to be scorching....

[bernard11]

globally unprecedented immigration schemes.

Not even unprecedented in the US.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"The country is naturally conservative leaning. They might reject conservative extremism, but they naturally lean right."

The hillbillies and clingers, sure. The residents of modern, successful, reasoning, accomplished, diverse, educated communities? Different -- and better -- story.

[Aunt Teefah]

"The country is naturally conservative leaning."

Maybe in the Burkean sense of wanting change to come gradually, but the country is decidedly *not* right wing on matters of policy, particularly economic policy. Large majorities of Americans support programs like Medicare for All, higher minimum wage, increased labor and environmental protections, oppose austerity, etc. And are increasingly skeptical of the ideological underpinnings of capitalism.

[Bored Lawyer]

Until they run out of other people's money. Check back in a decade when mid-town Manhattan remains a ghost town.

[Aunt Teefah]

Yep, I'm sure Americans will come crawling back to the warm embrace of neoliberal capitalist aannnny day now.

[Bored Lawyer]

"the warm embrace"

Economic systems as Mommy. There's your problem there.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Better Americans subsidize the can't-keep-up backwaters, the half-educated hillbillies, the obsolete clingers, and the rest of the Republican-conservative electoral coalition. In just about every way one might identify.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, that is why businesses, including high-tech ones, are fleeing California and New York to places like Texas and Florida. They must all be clingers.

[Bored Lawyer]

Empiricism will set you free. Embrace it.

[De Oppresso Liber]

It's true though. Red states are subsidized by blue states. Red areas in any state are typically subsidized by the taxes collected in their urban centers.

Fact of the matter is, areas that have high GDP generation vote blue. The old mantra of the rich voting red is over, as Trump proved that the GOP is not the party of conservatism in any sense. If you want to preserve the status quo today, you support democrats, not republicans.

There is also the problem of GOP rhetoric, which does not, and is not meant to appeal to educated, critical thinking people. I don't mean for that to be insulting. It just isn't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Depends upon how you calculate "subsidize."

Eliminate DOD spending from California, both in terms of bases and contracts, and you will see a very different state...

[SimonP]

Yes, that is why businesses, including high-tech ones, are fleeing California and New York to places like Texas and Florida. They must all be clingers.

I don't see a lot of businesses "fleeing" to Florida. Texas, yes. South and North Carolina, Georgia, even Tennessee, yes. But Florida? No. That seems to be where people go to retire or buy second homes, not relocate their businesses.

Of course, at the same time you're bragging about how low-tax policies are drawing people and businesses, others are complaining how precisely that influx of blue-state refugees is shifting local and state politics towards the center. Oh no!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Yes, that is why businesses, including high-tech ones, are fleeing California and New York to places like Texas and Florida. They must all be clingers."

Texas and Florida have some educated, urban and suburban, accomplished, reasoning, modern economic centers to offset their parasitic backwaters.

The unalloyed, desolate parasites are Wyoming, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Mississippi, and the like.

[Bob from Ohio]

"devasation [sic] of the GOP"

Losing 3 net senate seats while gaining 15ish House seats and sufferring very little if any state legislative losses is hardly devastating. Even Trump almost won [44,000 votes for a tie].

Its not a victory, obviously, but its hardly a crushing defeat.

[Bored Lawyer]

The Senate could easily have been retained if Trump had not acted the jackass. Problem is, he has no ideology, other than love of self. The notion of trying to keep the Senate for the GOP, with nothing in it for him personally, is as alien to him as eating boiled dog is to most Americans.

[SimonP]

Optimists, all of you!

In four years, Trump lost the House, lost the Senate, lost the presidency, restarted the Iranian nuclear program, presided over an out-of-control pandemic, sent the economy into a tailspin, sent the national debt to new heights when the economy was growing, and on and on. And your takeaway is... "hardly devastating."

Your lot will really believe anything, won't you?

[grb]

Thank you. On Iran you can find any number of "Biden Should Stay The Course" homilies in current circulation. Stay what course? All Trump accomplished was to restart an Iranian A-bomb program shut down by treaty of his predecessor. Hell, even Trump's own White House repeatedly certified the Iranians were obeying the terms of the Obama's pact. Trump sabotaged he treaty with no stategy, no defined objectives, no clue. The Iranians just returned to processing uranium. What did Trump think they'd do ?!?

And Trump out-did all precedents in irresponsibly by running plus-trillion dollars deficits when a maximized economy. Usually that's when deficits start to drop because of expanded tax revenues & lower social costs. Also, that's the usual time for bettering your debt situation in anticipation of hard times ahead. But Trump never did adult-style thought very well. That's why his business resume is a litany of failures....

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

>apedad
My ancestors are Adam and Eve!

[Jimmy the Dane]

Same timeline works for Obama too....

It isn't that magical or unprecedented for the party who wins the White House to lose the mid-terms. The fact the Republicans held the Senate in 2018 (against some large odds) and gained seats say more. And in 2020, the Dems came pretty darn close to losing the House.

It would not be unheard or unprecedented for the D's to lose both Houses in 2022.

[jb]

Need to buff up on history. Obama won re-election and the RS didn't take the Senate until 6 years into his Presidency.

[Bob from Ohio]

True, but he blew much larger majorities.

[tylertusta]

Need to buff up on history... and the Constitution, too. Not every Senate seat up up for grabs in any given election. In 2010, the GOP won the vast majority of the Senate races and even some in deep blue states like Illinois and Massachusetts.

Obama won in 2012, so he kept his Senate majority. Had Trump won in 2020 then it's likely that the GOP would have maintained their Senate majority in the Georgia special elections.

[jb]

The whole point here is that Trump lost and caused the GOP to lose its majorities, so I don't understand why you think that counterfactuals where Trump won are interesting.

[tylertusta]

Then why raise a point that the GOP didn't win the Senate until 2014?

Which is why I replied. Just because someone loses an election doesn't mean that they also lose the Senate.

[jb]

Because Jimmy's statement was that Democrats under Obama suffered losses on the same timeline as Republicans under Trump. I was pointing out that while Dems did lose both houses and the Presidency over eight years, that's not the same timeline. Trump lost the Senate two years faster and the Presidency four years faster.

[grb]

Easily explained. It's an American political truism that the party in presidential power usually loses big in the midterms and rarely wins the presidency after a two-term incumbent is done. Simply put, folks get tired of the in-crowd.

Trump was just twice more exhausting than a normal human being president

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"It would not be unheard or unprecedented for the D’s to lose both Houses in 2022."

No, but the diminishing role of knuckle-dragging bigots in our electorate suggests it is unlikely to occur. We just won two Senate seats in Georgia -- with one Black candidate and another Jewish candidate. In Georgia. Ponder that, clingers.

[tylertusta]

Why is it that leftists consistently underestimate Republicans?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Gonna win those hearts and minds...

[Dr. Ed 2]

The dems will have more senate seats up in 2022, the GOP had more this time. Math favors GOP in 2022.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Class three (2022 Senate election) will consist of 14 Democrats and 20 Republicans).

Other than that, though, great comment!

(Class 3 currently has 13 Democrats and 21 Republicans, but we already kicked bottle-blonde bigot Kelly Loeffler to the curb, effective in a few days.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm, assuming 2022 will see Senators elected from DC, PR, and Guam.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pacific Islands, Brett, not Guam.

Hey -- while you're looking into statehood for Pacific Islands issue, you can finally track down Obama's birth certificate!

[StellaLink_the dog]

DC maybe. That's doable though there are some wrinkles.

PR, not likely in my estimation. If PR elected today to become a state and if congress approved, it would take quite a while to straighten everything out. Looks like a big task.

But then, before the reunification of Germany, many thought it would be hard and take a very long time and be a bf mess.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Oh, I forgot. Maybe NYC becomes a state.

[bernard11]

Well, the republicans are all in favor of statehood for PR.

Check their platform.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Both sides sometimes elect corrupts, sexually libertine Presidents who lose both houses of Congress for their party and abuse the pardon power. I've never voted for one, but other folks seem to like that type.

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you really think Trump and Clinton comported themselves the same? I'm not ultimately defending Clinton, but what he ran from Trump doesn't.

[Hank Ferrous]

They are pretty similar, con men, big egos, schmoozy. Cruise missile/drone foreign policy versus boots on ground, although in Clinton's case it was because he had no stomach or spine for troop engagement. In Trump's case, my guess, he was trying to keep to his goal of not starting new wars but still waging war. Neither is particularly honest, but this can be said of any of our Presidents.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm unclear what you mean by "what he ran from"; The guy was a pig in the Oval office, and plagued by serious charges of sexual assault. The guy didn't mind people knowing he was guilty, either, so long as he couldn't be convicted in a court room.

[grb]

Yeah, but there is a difference :

Clinton support came in spite of his loathsome behavior
Trump's support is precisely because of his loathsome behavior

It's the feature/bug thing writ large. Clinton's voters didn't elect him for his trailer park womanizing. Trump's voters did elect him because he's a man-child huckster clown who gives good WWE-style entertainment.

[Bob from Ohio]

2009: Obama becomes President
2010: Obama loses the House of Representatives
2014: Obama loses the Senate
2016: Obama's former secy of state and handpicked successor loses the presidency

[TwelveInchPianist]

"2016: Obama’s former secy of state and handpicked successor loses the presidency"

To a game-show host.

[santamonica811]

...to a game show host who openly bragged about sexually assaulting women, and who openly talked about fantasizing about fucking his own biological daughter.

The more you deconstruct it; the more impressive and unbelievable Trump's 2016 win was. And he came damn close to winning again, in spite of incompetently or intentionally helping to kill 200,000+ Americans IN THE YEAR OF HIS REELECTION!!?!?!!! The mind boggles. He might or might not be evil. But he for sure is some sort of political genius.

[M L]

Agree. Except for the Covid thing. He did everything Fauci and the "experts" wanted, and the hysterical "200k murders!" shriekers can't point to a single material thing he should have done different.

[bernard11]

I, and others, have pointed to lots of things, but never mind.

[AmosArch]

You wouldn't do so well if you had the full weight of the vast majority of media, tech, education, corporate, and entertainment spheres spending untold billions against you with +95% negative coverage and almost total control of all mainstream information flow.

Not that Trump is a particularly great candidate but this is more a story about how much of an underdog the Republicans have become than any particular person. If we had a hypothetical President who was a conservative Biden in personality he would currently be Satan as well as every previous Republican President for the past few decades has been and the more conservative of the pair of candidates will be in the future.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Hey putz! If you don't like it, just create your own social media platform, domain name server, and bank/online payment platform. Twitter is a private platform that is free to ban white supremacists and anti-Semites. I just wish that the Twitter Safety team did more to combat anti-Semitism coming from the left.

[Krychek_2]

In other words, the intelligent, educated and successful section of the population.

I hate to sound like Arthur Kirkland, whom I still wish would tone it down, but the fact that you have the smart, educated and successful portion of the population behind you is not something to be ashamed of. Oh, and Republicans wouldn't even be doing as well as they are without the electoral college, two senators per state regardless of population, and gerrymandered house seats. To the extent that you guys win it's because you have the advantages of anti-democratic institutions behind you. If we actually had fair elections -- meaning a New Yorker's vote counts as much as a Kansan's, in both senate and presidential races -- you guys would never win another election again.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I'd like to see you slurp Coca Cola without high fructose corn syrup produced by the brave, corn farmers of Kansas!

[Stephen Lathrop]

No problem. Cane sugar, in chronic oversupply internationally, tastes better and costs less. The U.S. has to tariff the stuff already, to keep it from driving Kansas under (and Idaho, and a few other sugar beet producers).

[De Oppresso Liber]

This thread is pure gold.

I too find myself reluctantly agreeing with the Rev today.

[grb]

These are Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland-style times.......

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You guys must be pleased to learn that I have agreed to run for office again.

I retired, figuring I didn't want to babysit unrealistic socialists or interact with increasingly chuckleheaded Republicans, but my friends and colleagues have persuaded me to return to elected office.

Thanks for the encouragement, everyone!

[Armchair Lawyer]

"In other words, the intelligent, educated and successful section of the population."

That's elitist...and somewhat bigoted. You do sound like RAK. And like a lot of racists to be honest.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

We're just morally and intellectually superior to you rural goyim. Get over it and join the right side of history or go shoot up some fentanyl in the trailer park.

[grb]

You just might have a future writing Kirkland material. (Hold out for a good benefits package)

[Armchair Lawyer]

Let's use Krychek's argument in slightly different context.

The Reason the whites in South Africa were in charge were because they were the "the intelligent, educated and successful section of the population." The other part of the population just wasn't as intelligent or educated or successful, so they didn't deserve to be in charge.

See how that logic works? And why it's reprehensible?

[Krychek_2]

Except that I'm not arguing that skin color is the reason.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No. People never argued that white people were better because their skin had a different coloration.
They always argued white people were better because they were "more educated" and "more intelligent" and "more successful".
The REASON they always argued whites were better are the same reasons you're giving.

[Krychek_2]

I was raised by white supremacists. In point of fact, white supremacists do argue that they are better because of their skin color. That aside, you need to hire an attorney. You have two choices. One of them went to a top ten law school and has a 95% success record with jury trials. The other earned a law degree via correspondence courses, had his license suspended, and has lost every case he tried. Which one are you going to hire, and I will assume skin color has nothing to do with your decision.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I'd hire the one who graduated because of affirmative action because I believe in racial justice and equality of outcome.

[Armchair Lawyer]

We're not talking about limited professions. We're talking about broad categories of people, and in a democracy who should "run" the county. And the rationale you're giving for some people "More educated, more intelligent, and more successful" is textbook rationalization for discrimination.

Here's how it works. Pick out an "other" class of people, based on some category. Skin color, religion, gender, political ideology, doesn't really matter, so long as it's different. Then discriminate against the other group. Actively, passively, through double standards, etc.

Then when later rationalizing the discrimination, observe that your group is just "more educated, more intelligent, and more successful" and that naturally, your group is "better" at the job. Then use that rationalization to continue the discrimination.

The issue there is, the very discrimination in the first place caused the differences in "education and success." It's the same logic that had been used to keep women down for centuries. Women just weren't as "intelligent or educated" as men. They "couldn't do the same jobs". The main problem was that women were being discriminated against in the first place, and that discrimination CAUSED the difference in education.

So, when you use that rationalization "More educated, more intelligent, more successful", you're using the same words and logic of those who oppressed and discriminated for centuries.

And again, we're not talking about very specific jobs. We're talking about classes as a whole.

[Queen Amalthea]

Oh, come on. You don't think defending what Trump does and says is just plain difficult for any intellectual? The guy is not sending messages that are going to be receptive to most intellectuals. I'm not declaring that good or bad ultimately, but come on. The idea that Trumpism doesn't sell in intellectual circles isn't just on those circles...Stop being a victim.

[Krychek_2]

Again, I have not said a single word about who should, or should not, run the country. I’m happy with the most ignorant rube having the same vote I do; it’s called democracy. I don’t think anyone’s vote should count more than anybody else’s, which is why I oppose anti-democratic institutions like the electoral college, but it’s a two-way street.

That said, you are equivocating on the word “discrimination”. To say that someone should have the same legal rights as everyone does not mean that we don’t recognize that intelligence is preferable to stupidity, that education is preferable to ignorance, and that success is preferable to failure. Racism is wrong because race tells us nothing of importance as to the character or competence of any given individual. Pointing out that people who are intelligent, successful and educated may be better at sorting out public policy than people who aren’t is a simple recognition of reality. And if your side is disproportionately made up of people who are uneducated failures, then it’s fair to ask why that is, your table pounding notwithstanding.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Discrimination isn't just about "legal rights". It is about how you treat people who are different from you.

You've categorized one "side" as "uneducated failures" and are using that as a justification for your discrimination.

But people have done that over and over and over in the past. "Black people just aren't as smart as us". "Women just aren't as educated". "Catholics just aren't as successful." And every time, it's been used as a justification for further discrimination. And you're doing it again "[conservatives] are uneducated failures".

Unless you understand this discrimination, and why it's wrong in general principles, you'll continue in your bigoted ways.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And the rationale you’re giving for some people “More educated, more intelligent, and more successful” is textbook rationalization for discrimination.

Sure, Armchair. But that system for discrimination isn't racism. It's called meritocracy. I happen to think meritocracy has its own problems, delivers quite a few social distortions and bad effects of its own, and sorts badly with democracy. You seem to be arguing for some kind of communitarianism, which some people like. But that isn't a good fit with meritocracy either. Are you willing to throw meritocracy overboard?

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, please try to keep up. “Blacks aren’t as smart as whites” (which I haven’t agreed with) is a qualitatively different statement from “intelligence is preferable to stupidity”. In one case, it’s the trait itself we’re discussing – intelligence versus stupidity – and in the other case, it’s the type of persons we’re discussing – blacks versus whites. You’ve made a category error. You either completely don’t understand what we’re discussing, or you’re deliberately obfuscating.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disliking dumb right-wing bigots is just like disliking racists, gay-bashers, and xenophobes?

You and the Volokh Conspirators deserve each other, whining and ranting while huddling together for warmth in receding corners of a world that can't wait until you are replaced by your betters.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Krychek_2,

Look back at your original statements. You weren't saying "intelligence is preferable to stupidity"

You were saying "This group of people is preferable to that group of people" and you were CHARACTERIZING the group as "intelligent" or "stupid".

That's very different.

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, you're still not getting it, so I will try one last time, and then go on to other things.

You're now equivocating on the word "group". If I say that not having cancer is preferable to having cancer, you could, if you wanted, characterize that as bigotry against people with cancer, but I think most people would laugh at you if you did. It's understood that I'm not expressing prejudice against people with cancer; I'm simply saying that they have an undesirable trait. And your repeated attempts to characterize the recognition that some traits are traits one is better off not having -- cancer, stupidity, lack of success in life -- as bigotry are just laughable. Certainly analogizing them to racial prejudice is just bizarre.

And none of this says anything about who gets to vote or how their votes should be counted. Or how they should be treated as individuals. Now, if specific groups are more prone to undesirable traits -- blacks with sickle cell anemia, the GOP with uneducated voters -- it's entirely fair to ask why. But that's a separate discussion from the one you're trying to turn this into.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I was raised by white supremacists. In point of fact, white supremacists do argue that they are better because of their skin color."

That's bizarre. I'm so white I practically glow in the dark, and the only real advantage to being white is that I can generate enough vitamin D without having to walk around nude. It's an over-rated advantage in an age of vitamin pills, I suppose my northern European ancestors found it important. On the downside I've suffered enough severe sunburns that I have to do regularly scheduled visits to a dermatologist to keep the lesions from progressing to outright skin cancer. (If only they'd had decent sunscreen back in the 60's! Or known that using it was important.)

I mean, skin color is vaguely correlated with some things that can be advantageous, but that's really all the skin color itself accomplishes.

[Krychek_2]

I didn’t say it was a rational argument; just that white supremacists make it. If they were rational they wouldn’t be white supremacists.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are they arguing that they're better because they're white, (Pigmentation.) or better because they're White, (Racial/ethnic group.)?

Because the latter isn't totally irrational, just mostly wrong as an objective matter.

[Krychek_2]

Both. A lower melanin level is evidence of being a member of the superior racial and ethnic group. Didn't you know that black people smell bad, have greasy skin, and that when you flog them, you have to hit them twice as hard because their thick skins makes it not hurt as much?

Watch the movie Mandingo. As awful a movie as it is, it is dead on the mark as to the thinking of white supremacists.

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, it's only elitist in the same sense that it's elitist for me to insist that the guy treating my heart condition actually have a medical degree. Or that the guy flying my plane actually graduated from an accredited flight school and has a pilot's license.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But we're not talking about professions. We're talking about who gets a say in running the entire country.

And under your logic, the "intelligent, educated and successful section" should get a bigger say, because they're "better people"....

[Krychek_2]

Except I didn't say that they should get a bigger say. I'd be happy with giving them an equal say by abolishing the electoral college, two senators per state, and gerrymandered house seats.

But that's not even what I was talking about anyway. Your original complaint, that started this conversation, was that the Democrats have an unfair advantage because the intelligent, educated and successful people of the country are behind them. My response in its entirety was that maybe your side should take a good look at why that is.

[Armchair Lawyer]

See my response above, re: how discrimination works.

[Bob from Ohio]

"abolishing the electoral college, two senators per state"

Dissolving the union in the process.

People in Montana and Kansas and Ohio are not going to consent to being governed by California and NYC and other big cities.

[Krychek_2]

Ok I’ll bite. Why would that be any more unfair than people in California and New York being governed by Montana and Kansas?

[TwelveInchPianist]

People in California and New York aren't being governed by Montana and Kansas. The House can block any legislation that they don't approve of.

[Krychek_2]

But refusing to allow legislation to advance is just as much "being governed by" as pushing legislation through. In both cases you have people who want one policy choice and can't have it.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, blocking legislation isn't just as much being governed by as advancing it. California and New York are still free to do their own thing at home, they just can't force their schemes on everybody else.

[De Oppresso Liber]

As much as you all want it to be so, there is no argument in the world that will convince unbiased, critical thinkers that there is any system more fair than one person one vote.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, doing nothing has consequences of its own, and there are some problems best solved at the national level. We may disagree as to what they are, but they do exist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As much as you all want it to be so, there is no argument in the world that will convince unbiased, critical thinkers that there is any system more fair than one person one vote."

That only works within the scope of your political union.

And if you want to be in a political union with states who are not willing to join you under those terms, you have to agree to something a little more complex.

And after you agree to something a little more complex in order to get other states to agree to a political union with you, you don't get to revert back to, "Hey, what about one person one vote?"

[Krychek_2]

TwelveInchPianist, I am far from convinced that a deal that was made nearly 250 years ago still means much. The participants are all long dead. We've had a civil war in the meantime. We've had the FDR and LBJ administrations. We've added an income tax, and a lot of the money in state budgets now comes from the federal government. We now allow blacks, women and renters to vote. We've abolished slavery. That agreement made in Philadelphia is mostly dead at this point, and while we still have federalism in name only, it doesn't look a bit like anything James Madison would recognize.

This is not 1789. There are arguments for your position, but "that's not what we agreed to" doesn't strike me as a particularly persuasive one.

[Commenter_XY]

Krychek_2....Very well then. Get a constitutional amendment passed.

[Krychek_2]

Commenter_XY, since the framers in their wisdom made it damn near impossible to amend the Constitution, that's not really a practical solution. It reminds me of the old joke about how to commit the perfect crime that starts out, "First you steal a million dollars."

So, in the meantime, we do end runs around the parts of it that have long ago outlived their usefulness, and endure those parts of it that aren't amenable to end runs.

That said, I'm not sure it's at all certain that the Constitution in its current form could get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states if we were starting on a clean slate. One of the problems with making it difficult to amend is that we really don't know what parts of it have current support and which don't. I'm quite certain the electoral college would never get 3/4 of the states, even though repealing it wouldn't either.

[Commenter_XY]

Krychek_2...It is perfectly practical. You just don't want to put the work in. You need to persuade people to your POV and then motivate them to act. Good luck. You can do it. It has been done before.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Osama's Crop Dusting Service is a legitimate pilot training school.

[SimonP]

That’s elitist…and somewhat bigoted.

I don't know what to tell you. Do you think the Trump-supporting hedge fund managers are getting their news from Fox News? Newsmax? Fox Business?

Trump's supporters consist of a body of easily-manipulated goobers and then a minority of smart people who can find common cause with a president amenable to flattery, bribery, and corruption. The masses are manipulated using a whole right-wing media apparatus, much of which is controlled by those smart people, which feeds flattering lies and half-truths to the masses, confirming every conviction and nurturing every irrational fear. That's just what it is. That's what's happening, and that's what we see happening in many countries with fewer press protections than we do. In Turkey, Hungary, Israel - corrupt, autocratic power is amassed by co-opting the media and, through it, manipulating low-information voters to believe a particular narrative about all that harms the country (even while things get worse under their leadership).

You can choose to be part of it, or not.

[Bob from Ohio]

72 million people voted for Trump in a loss. You have a warped and twisted view of 72 million US citizens.

"right-wing media apparatus"

Completely dwarfed by the left-wing media apparatus.

[SimonP]

Do you have a better view of the 80 million who voted for Biden?

Unlike others, I don't have a hard time understanding why so many people voted for Trump. I think motivations varied by region and demographic, but generally it came down to differences of opinion in managing the pandemic vs. the economy; a preference for Trump's "tough guy" machismo over Biden's "I listen to my wife" wishy-washyness; and a rejection for "radical leftist" agenda items like "defund the police."

The problem is that the "radical leftist" agenda lines up with the policies that a majority of Americans actually want, like reallocating police resources to address social problems before violent force is required; a minimum living wage; and legalized marijuana. The resistance to pandemic shutdowns is in many respects itself a result of Trump's incompetence: it makes sense to oppose unending shutdowns, but the shutdowns were never supposed to be unending in the first place, merely a way to control the virus to the point where we could reopen more fully. But since there was no plan, no coordination, no consistent messaging, the shutdowns didn't do what they were supposed to do, states were left to improvise on the next step, and here we are. And when it comes to "machismo" - well, any thug can act tough.

So I don't think I'm mistaken in saying that, while it's easy to understand what motivates the Trump voter, in many cases their support is only thinly supported by anything Trump ever did and glosses over the fuller scheme of incompetence within which their choices can actually make some sense.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you have a better view of the 80 million who voted for Biden?

Yes, I do. They are Americans.

[bernard11]

Don't overlook the fact that an awful lot of voters simply vote, more or less reflexively, for their preferred party.

[NToJ]

Only 72 million? The President said it was more. What’s your source?

[Ben_]

We remember the treatment Romney received.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX95QSKBODo

Four Dead in DC will become the mantra of my generation -- and a fuse has been lit that a lot of people will wish hadn't been.

The RINOs gotta go....

[grb]

My, but aren't you prone to hysterical nonsense?
Bad for you; entertaining to the rest of us....

[John F. Carr]

Good news: Recent events have turned everybody into a constitutional law expert. Bad news: The Onion classic "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be" is still relevant.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Who reads the Onion anymore? I get my news from reliable sources at the Babylon Bee.

[John F. Carr]

The Onion is long past its prime but is not completely dead to me. Jimmy Carter's "You people made me give up my peanut farm" was a good reminder of how standards have changed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, didn't he make most of his peanut money off refraining from growing them? Didn't so much own a working farm, as an allotment he was paid to not use, as I recall.

[MoreCurious]

Wrong, as always. Read Jonathan Alter's new book. Or have someone read it to you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It was great sport watching a cartoonish, red-faced bigot who inherited a rural car dealership (Mike Kelly) lecture the nation on constitutional theory from the House floor yesterday.

He did this after being reamed in court repeatedly while advancing the same legal insights.

Who says hillbillies are educable?

[De Oppresso Liber]

A big insight I had during my time in service was the fundamental difference in the way people's brains work based on the conditions they were raised in.

For instance, Iraqi soldiers typically posses less than a US high school education, but they are educated, and most can read. They could be taught, with patience, to use the more advanced weapon, night vision, and communication systems. They could intuit the lesson we were teaching about their organizational structure and at least partially implement it. All in all, they were good pupils, even if they started from a place of ignorance. They knew how to learn.

Then I got to Afghanistan, where the average soldier is not literate, has never been to school, and might not even speak the same language as many of his fellow soldiers. An example: We taught them a class in a very simple night vision system (on/off and focus are the only functions) for every night for a week and a half. And they still just could not get it. I'd go up to a soldier during a mission, months into this, and find his night vision was down on his face (so he wouldn't get yelled at), but the system was completely out of focus or even turned off. Eventually they broke almost half of these very tough and simple pieces of gear, like cavemen. They simply did not have the capacity to learn. You could point them at a sector of field to watch, though, and they'd watch it for hours without complaint or getting distracted. They were just wired differently than Americans or Iraqis. I think thousands of hours of staring at goats grazing and a lack of sesame street is a good hypothesis for the difference in attention span from American soldiers.

All this is to say that enlightenment reasoning and thirst for knowledge is not a universal trait. From my experience, I would say that it is a learned behavior. But I may be biased against racial theories that might be used to explain the same phenomenon.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Tap your brakes, racist.
There is only one race, the human race. And we're all equally capable and interchangeable too!

[Brett Bellmore]

I feel that the last chance of avoiding civil war in the US died yesterday. I'm not happy about that, nobody actually wins a civil war.

I'm amazed, reviewing pictures and footage from yesterday, that the only identifiable act of violence was that one woman being shot to death, (This was the most civil riot I've ever seen!) and this is being treated as a thousand times worse than Antifa attempting to set occupied buildings on fire last year.

Anyway, arrest and jail everybody who did the break ins. If that doesn't happen, I'm thinking this was a put up job.

And think really hard about how low you're setting the bar, if you're going to go after Trump for supposedly inciting this riot.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Why should the government use fascist tactics against peaceful protestors exercising their Constitutional right to protest? The people who burned private properties last summer are more worthy of arrest than the brave patriots who demanded the opportunity to speak to their elected representatives.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree that the rioters last year were more worthy of arrest, but the ones who broke into the Capitol buildings cleared the bar, too.

They broke in, and they trespassed. And, not incidentally, they ended any lingering chance that the election outcome could be contested, or even that the various irregularities could be investigated. Any fraud or election law violations last year are now untouchable.

And I strongly suspect that was the whole point of the exercise.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

What's it called when the law is unequally enforced? White privilege? Do you think the BLM protestors who destroyed public and private property while the police held back suffer from an excess of white privilege?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they benefit from the actual reality: Black radical privilege.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're a worthless bigot, Brett. Your claimed medical and personal problems are no excuse. Your next contribution to society will occur when you take your ugly, stale thinking to the grave and are replaced in our electorate by a better, younger American. A recent immigrant, ideally.

[MoreCurious]

Stupid and racist, Brett. Keep up the good work.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So long as he doesn't procreate . . .

[NonLawyerDan]

"And I strongly suspect that was the whole point of the exercise."
WTH? Please explain the logic. The Trump people were in on it? Plus the Capitol Police were in on it?

[Martinned]

So this is not violence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuBgpbW1Rm8

[Queen Amalthea]

Brett, what would warrant a civil war? That seems very extreme, what are the conditions that warrant it? I think at least one side is being very hyper-sensitive to think that way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Think of it this way: We were on our way to litigating all the issues of last fall's election. It was going to be investigated. Now that whole topic has become toxic, the political establishment have their excuse to make it off limits.

That doesn't mean lots and lots of people aren't convinced the election was stolen, they are. It does mean nobody is going to prove to them they're wrong.

And look at these posts on Volokh: All it took was some busted windows and trespassing, and you've got supposedly rational law professors advocating not only removing Trump early, but disqualifying him from running in 2024. How would that play with people who think the political establishment robbed Trump of most of his Presidency by BS investigations and lawfare?

People have to think politics can work, in order to not move on to revolution. That belief is now dying on a significant part of the right.

[Queen Amalthea]

Ok, well, didn't politics work here? A guy who barely won last time and who spent nearly all of his time playing to his base barely lost this time. Isn't that politics at work? What seems to be different is that he didn't concede and fed these goofy conspiracy theories as to why he lost. If people think politics doesn't work, isn't a big part of that on him? You say you don't want a civil war, if a big part of that feeling is on him, don't you dislike him for that?

[M L]

No, our politics doesn't work. Any system with a powerful centralized government over a large territory of people with differences of culture and beliefs and preferences is inevitably tyranny, no matter how much "democracy" you put in it (and maybe because of all that "democracy").

[bernard11]

People have to think politics can work, in order to not move on to revolution. That belief is now dying on a significant part of the right.

What you mean is that they are unhappy that they are losing elections. Politics is working, it's just not moving the way they want.

Look, it's very clear that there are plenty on the right who simply don't think the Democrats have any right to govern. They simply refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Democratic office-holders, except maybe the occasional city counselor, so they can pretend to be pro-democracy.

And you are one of them.

[Hank Ferrous]

Pot, kettle, black.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigots, clingers, stomped. (Cue the soundtrack)

Open wider, Hank Ferrous. Unless you plan to become a martyr before January 20, you've got plenty of swallowing to do. And you will comply.

[Brett Bellmore]

Everybody is unhappy about losing elections. The problem is, a good part of the right are unhappy about losing crooked elections.

A good solid investigation could have persuaded many of them the election wasn't really crooked, and at least deprived others of moral certainty.

The now practical certainty that that investigation won't happen, on the other hand, only reinforces the belief.

[De Oppresso Liber]

sixty

[MoreCurious]

This might be a really good time to let us see the evidence of a crooked election that you've been promising, Brett. Waiting.

[bernard11]

A good solid investigation could have persuaded many of them the election wasn’t really crooked, and at least deprived others of moral certainty.

No. It wouldn't.

The case for fraud is based on a lot of lies, which the doubters willingly believe. So if your investigation discredited those lies Trump&Co. would just make up new ones, which the cultists would again believe, and demand be investigated.

Meanwhile, they would call the investigators traitors, members of the deep state, secret leftists, etc.

I know this because I read the comments here, and that's what Trump supporters, including especially you, do constantly.

Did Trumpists break into the Capitol? "No, it was really Antifa provocateurs." That's your line, Brett, and Dr. Ed's and others'. You have zero credibility when you say you would accept the results of an impartial investigation.

Do the doubters accept the results in GA? Or do they think Trump won by hundreds of thousands of votes? Do they accept the GA Senate results, or do they think the election was "illegal and invalid?"

The rationalization is endless, and you're one the worst rationalizers around.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The elections are not crooked, Brett. You're just a disaffected, overmatched, anti-social bigot who can't stand all of this damned progress and is desperate to find a reason to latch onto . . . anything other than acknowledging your ample personal inadequacies.

[Aunt Teefah]

"That doesn’t mean lots and lots of people aren’t convinced the election was stolen, they are."

No there aren't. Barely anyone is gullible enough as to actually believe the election was stolen. Most of you guys are just lashing out because you're butthurt about your god-emperor getting his clock cleaned by a decaying dementia patient.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Brett, once you get past the Civil War, the nation's history is replete with both briefly-effectual rebellions, and brief ineffectual rebellions. You have got Bacon's Rebellion, various Indian uprisings in the mid-18th century, little and big, the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, John Brown's Raid, Chief Joseph's War, Geronimo's uprising (and other post-Civil War Indian uprisings), the Molly Maguires, turn-of-the-century anarchist bombings, the miners' rebellion in North Idaho, the Colorado Coalfield War, the Bonus Marchers, black anti-racist riots throughout the nation during the civil rights movement, the Vietnam anti-war resistance, the Sagebrush Rebellion. Now add the Capitol attack. I'm sure I have left out more.

You even have a historical pro-rebellion literary feature—Jefferson's famous advocacy on behalf of rebellions every generation. When Jefferson said, "the blood of patriots and tyrants," it was rebels he had in mind for the roles of patriots—but he explicitly minimized concern about shedding their blood. Here is what he said in context:

There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

For Jefferson, a cycle of periodic rebellion, suppression, and bloodshed was a tonic for good government.

If you look at that entire history, one pattern which emerges is that generally the more violent the threat of rebellion, and the better organized the rebels, the quicker it ends. Protracted, low-key, effectual rebellion keeps the violence down. Failed rebellion comes bristling, and armed to the teeth.

For now, not many people are likely to be terribly concerned about muttering fulminations from right-wing militias. At least prospectively, they fit into a sub-pattern of especially-annoying tranquility disrupters—the kind for which most folks would urge high-profile, overwhelming counter-measures in response to any violence. About those, the only thing most Americans fear is if the initial slap-down wouldn't be severe enough to chasten others.

Did you notice how popular the attack on the Capitol was? Your own remarks show you understand it was a PR disaster. Now imagine that instead of what did happen, the mob came mostly in camo and combat gear, heavily armed, and began to shoot their way in. What counter-measures do you suppose most Americans would back if that happened? I'm guessing that helicopter gun ships riddling the mob might be criticized as too wishy-washy.

If that happened, a lot of people would be appalled, and red-state folks sure would hope for a righteous uprising—but not so much that practically any of them would volunteer.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Now add the Capitol attack."

Oh, come on, that sophomoric riot hardly even deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as actual fights. They didn't even set the buildings on fire! They busted in a window and took selfies.

"Did you notice how popular the attack on the Capitol was? Your own remarks show you understand it was a PR disaster. "

It was so predictably a PR disaster that I suspect it was a false flag operation. Nobody could have possibly thought that riot would accomplish anything but what it actually did accomplish: Ramming through Biden's coronation, and making genuinely investigating the conduct of last year's election an untouchable topic.

It was so perfectly designed to that end that maybe it WAS designed to that end. You think if Trump actually wanted an insurgency, he couldn't have managed something more effective?

[Brett Bellmore]

I should add that I only suspect a false flag at this point, because people do do stupid things thinking they'll work.

We'll see if the perpetrators are arrested and tried, or allowed to quietly vanish. The latter would lend more credence to the false flag theory.

[De Oppresso Liber]

"false flag"

No point in talking to this maniac anymore, folks. Please ignore.

[bernard11]

False flag is Brett's standard explanation when a right-winger does something lime this. Either that or a completely BS justification, which he trotted out for James Alex Shields, the Charlottesville murderer.

[bernard11]

that sophomoric riot

A Capitol Police officer was killed.

[NonLawyerDan]

Brett, sure, a lack of investigation could be the outcome. But you wrote that you "strongly suspect that was the whole point of the exercise.” The point? That would indicate that the attack on the Capitol was planned/pushed by some who wanted there to be no investigation. My initial reaction is that that sounds nutty. Please explain.

[NonLawyerDan]

I've read more. You think it was a false flag. I don't read this site that much. Thus far I've thought of you as someone I largely don't agree with, but worth reading. I didn't realize you were literally crazy. Well, I guess a crazy person can sometimes be worth reading.

[Ben_]

You think wars happen or don’t based on someone like you deciding they’re warranted or not?

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, a civil war can be averted. It is not too late.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

C'mon! I already bought an AR-15 airsoft assault rifle to battle these MAGA chuds in the streets of America!

[SimonP]

You're not fooling anyone, Brett. You, Dr. Ed 2, others here - you keep bringing up "civil war" as a regrettable but inevitable outcome. But it's clear that this preoccupation with killing fellow citizens nurses something deeper and darker within you that you don't want to articulate.

Civil society can be maintained when people disagree about what the law should be, but still have reasonable disagreements about it. It can be maintained when everyone agrees to the same factual reality, though they may disagree on what to do about it.

But it's been made clear, here, that you are not interested in engaging in that kind of common civil project. You continue to parrot a fringe legal theory explaining why the Pennsylvania elections were unconstitutional, in apparent support for the claim that the electoral slate chosen through the election should be thrown out and the whole thing kicked to the (Republican-controlled) legislature. The preposterousness of this legal theory has been explained to you, repeatedly. The theory has been tried and thrown out by the courts. Yet you persist in believing that it is the "correct" legal interpretation. That is not how the law works in this country.

You continue to call for "investigations" into voter fraud, but you have never justified this kind of skepticism about our elections. It seems that you - like others - believe that your mere suspicion that things were fraudulent justifies a lengthy and in-depth investigation to determine whether that suspicion has any merit. But, despite the fact that team Trump has had weeks to find this evidence and produce it in a compelling manner, and despite the fact that many of the specific claims Trump has asserted have been closely examined (as in Georgia) - nothing significant or compelling has been turned up. That's not how reality works. You need a factual basis for your suspicion, apart from simply being gobsmacked that a majority of Americans do not share your views on who should be president.

You claim to want to avoid "civil war," but it is your mentality, your whole approach to political and legal reality, that makes it more likely, not less. There is no way to appease or satisfy someone so disconnected from rational debate as you have proven to be. You will always privately believing whatever you want to believe about the law; you will always find some other things to be "suspicious" about. Your worldview is firmly rooted in a subconscious miasma of fear and resentment, and there's nothing the people living in reality can do to reach you.

You're just waiting for the moment when you can openly embrace the overthrow of American democracy.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Very well said.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Think logically here: What competent security detail would have left that window washing gantry there to be used as it was?

When you are expecting trouble, you sweep the grounds looking for stuff that can be used against you. I know this,and I'm not even a cop, let alone a commander.

And what happened to the guys with the MP4s standing on the steps? They were there the last time I was down to DC...

I think there was a "stand down" order because someone wanted Trump to look bad...

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm open to the possibility, but incompetence is a human constant, so that's hardly proof. It's just as likely that the people in charge of security thought, "Right wing demonstrators, cool. The cleaning crew can take tomorrow off, they'll sweep the mall as they leave."

It's not like right-wing demonstrators have a long history of attacking buildings.

[Squire Al]

Sure, a stand down order issued by a commander who will now almost certainly be fired for apparent gross incompetence in preparing for the situation.

Why does that not seem to make a lot of sense to issue that order.

Where the Government is involved and the choice is between a nefarious and complicated plan or stupidity/incompetence I believe the latter is far more likely.

[MoreCurious]

"I think there was a “stand down” order because someone wanted Trump to look bad…

I think it's more likely that there was a stand down order issued by Trump.

[Don Nico]

Why was the white woman shot to death?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore (piously) : "I feel that the last chance of avoiding civil war in the US died yesterday"

What is it with this Right-wing pearl-clutching posturing fainting-couch second-rate hysteria? It's as if the entire damn movement has the vapors. I opened a recent thread & all the usual suspects were moaning in unison about the country being in decline (not enuff white babies as I recall). I just rolled my eyes and moved on to sports

Newsflash to all the butthurt whiny snowflake Right-types : We just survived four years with a reality-TV host huckster buffoon as president, topped off by the worst pandemic in a century. If you have to weep&wail or go stock-up on guns & toilet paper please feel free. Some people need to live lives consumed with ignorance, panic & fear.

The rest of us will get up each morning and try to be productive citizens. If you must sob-out dumbass pious blather, could ya try and keep the volume down?

(Thanks!)

[loki13]

Trump doesn't sell his pitch to the voter, he sells the voter to his pitch. He does not improve and simplify his platform. He degrades and simplifies the voter.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Sneed's Feed and Seed (formerly Chuck's)

[Queen Amalthea]

Trump strikes me as an interesting lesson: he gave his base everything and had pretty much nothing for anyone outside of it. I can't believe this is the guy people had to cook up such feverish conspiracy theories to explain his loss...

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

What do my fellow Hebrews think about this article at Tablet magazine? Also, was the King David Hotel bombing morally justifiable to ensure the creation of a Jewish state and force the British occupiers out?
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/american-elite-tom-friedman

[Aladdin's Carpet]

I happened to be under a general anesthesic because I had surgery yesterday ... pretty grateful for that now, all things considered.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

How did the colonoscopy go?

[Queen Amalthea]

I have a question for the Trump supporters here. Apart from whether you think he's ultimately correct or not on the election and a host of issues, what do you think of the guy? Do you find his composure and antics embarrassing or refreshing? If you could have a guy who took all the same stances but talked and acted differently, would you prefer that, or is the performance, so to speak, essential to you?

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I find his antics amusing. I don't see either party seriously trying to solve the national debt, the disastrous wars of aggression, the domestic IT spying, the CIA torture program under the War on Terror, or Obama's drone killing program. Might as well be entertained if there is no serious political solution on the horizon.

[Brett Bellmore]

I find him deeply embarrassing. His braggadocio, his failure to speak in complete, coherent sentences. I don't find him to be a moral icon, either, but have never expected that of politicians.

I've liked some of his policies, disliked others, but on balance he's been better on policy than any President I can recall since Reagan, and Reagan had some genuine legal problems, that actually WOULD have justified impeachment. Iran-Contra was a real, live, serious scandal, not some made up joke like Trump's scandals tend to be.

He has made some unforced errors that even I, not a political genius, could see coming. I thought is best move would have been to have whipped out a list of people to fire immediately after being sworn in, right at the podium: A lot of his problems stemmed from being too slow to recognize that career bureaucrats would actively try to sabotage his administration, and he should have been more aggressive on some of his policies, such as shutting down the disparate impact scam.

Mostly, he has not been a principled conservative, nor did I expect him to be. He's a pragmatist, and looked a bit like a conservative because he pragmatically realized that he was never going to win over his enemies, so he needed to make his base happy. Which he mostly did, and a better job of it than your average Republican President, who also wouldn't be conservative, but would have ideological reasons for pissing off their own base.

I expect most of what he has accomplished to be speedily reversed, because he didn't have enough time to get his policies entrenched. With the Tuesday election result, I anticipate that we will either see Court packing, or "switch in time that saved 9" type cowardice.

He will likely not run in 2024, because of this setback this week, and because the media will not stop their assault on him when he leaves office, they will set out to comprehensively destroy him.

I see the GOP trying to return to a "normal" that is already dead, and some fresh demogogue securing the nomination in 2024, as the base double down on a strategy that kind of worked in 2016. But unless the GOP does some hard work to reverse the left's media monopoly, the US is on its way to becoming a one party state.

[Queen Amalthea]

I appreciate your take.

I will say this about this: "unless the GOP does some hard work to reverse the left’s media monopoly, the US is on its way to becoming a one party state."

The number one news outlet is basically an arm of the GOP, and the number one newspaper is Murdoch controlled. You're going to be ok.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're behind the times, FOX imploded after they turned on Trump. CNN is in the lead now.

FOX was never an arm of the GOP. They just looked like that in contrast to the rest of the MSM, which were so overwhelmingly in the tank for the Democrats.

Why are these outlets (formerly, in Fox's case.) number one? Because as the only real holdouts in an otherwise relentlessly left-wing media environment, they had a monopoly on half the political spectrum. Murdock wasn't particularly right wing, but he understood right wing people had money, too, and they were an unserved market. His kids feel fat and happy, and think they don't need to appeal to that market, so FOX joined the MSM and imploded.

[Queen Amalthea]

"FOX was never an arm of the GOP."

Oh good grief, dude.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they weren't. Their slogan, "Fair and balanced", was an exaggeration, they had a tilt, but nothing remotely like CNN or MSNBC's tilt in the other direction.

They actually have on air people who are Democrats. Active Democrats. They weren't 50-50, maybe 60-40 right wing, but they weren't relentless about it.

Like I said, they only looked outrageously right wing because of the contrast with the rest of the media. Most of the media have a revolving door going on between their staff and Democratic administrations. You don't see that with Fox and Republican administrations, now, do you?

Personally, I never watched them, I was an early cable cutter, and they came along after I'd already mostly given up on TV. But I have not been impressed with my occasional encounters with their online presence. They look more to me like a moderate left-winger's idea of what would appeal to conservatives, than actual conservative TV.

[bernard11]

Personally, I never watched them

Then on what basis do you defend them? Because you'd like to think they were only a bit RW?

They were relentless.

Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham. Give me a break.

[Brett Bellmore]

Tamara Holder, James Carville, Kirsten Powers, Chris Wallace, Juan Williams. Give me a break, that's relentless?

Your complain appears to be that not all their hosts were left wing.

[bernard11]

None of these people were hosts. Holder left Fox at the start of 2017. Powers is now on CNN.

Other than that, excellent comment.

[grb]

"FOX imploded after they turned on Trump"

Oh good grief, dude. It would take an expert in Brettology to fully tally the number of people, institutions, and organizations who Brett believes "betrayed" his day-glo orange diety. I kinda get the impression Bellmore thinks he's the only true disciple worthy of the One Most High.

But seriously, Brett :

When exactly did Fox turn on your idol? Was it when their coverage slipped from 99% pro-Trump to 98%? Or were they exiled from the garden of Eden just because they called Arizona too soon, albeit correctly? Don't know if you're keeping up, but Pence just "betrayed" Trump too. (I sure you would have done better as Vice President)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Was it when their coverage slipped from 99% pro-Trump to 98%?"

Since their coverage was never as good as that, you're the one who's living a fantasy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"number one news outlet"

Cable only. The audience for the 6:30 news on all three broadcast networks is still much higher.

"number one newspaper is Murdoch controlled"

He bough the New York Times?

[jb]

That's technically correct, but is basically only true for half an hour a day. From https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/09/business/media/fox-news-ratings.html

"In June and July, Fox News was the highest-rated television channel in the prime-time hours of 8 to 11 p.m. Not just on cable. Not just among news networks. All of television. The average live Fox News viewership in those hours outstripped cable rivals like CNN, MSNBC and ESPN, as well as the broadcast networks ABC, CBS and NBC, according to Nielsen."

[Bob from Ohio]

"technically correct"

The best kind of correct.

[Stephen Lathrop]

See all those beaten rivals you listed? They are splitting the Fox-alternative demographic 6 ways. Add their audiences together, and Fox is tiny by comparison.

[Ben_]

Personally, I have zero interest in emotionally bonding with politicians and people on TV.

Focus on the real people in your life instead.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's why I could never understand flying a flag with a politician's name on it. Bizarre.

[Hank Ferrous]

I'm not a supporter, but find myself 'defending' the loudmouth against fucktarded assertions. I think Trump is an ass, egotistical, preening, and thin-skinned. I have found this true of most politicians. He plays the crowds well. Some of his policies and policy attempts, deregulation and foreign policy in particular have been fairly positive. I would like to see these continue. I would also like to see the inherent bias training kept out of federal agencies and the military; grievance culture will not build cohesive teams and units, it will destroy organizations. From the beginning, I have said that the most positive result of the Trump Presidency was the behavior of his detractors, sociopolitical, political, in media. There is no longer any suggestion of neutrality, impartiality, or lack or bias. This has largely been replaced by irrational and emotional reaction, fear of others' liberties expressed as 'they are deliberately trying to cause me harm by doing X,' and immature gloating, mockery, and ad hominem attacks. See for example everything kirkland/killallrednecks/ohlookmarkethugs write, and a great portion of the writing of the progressive commenters. The Rightists are not free form the later habit, but it is the left that makes it a way of life, I find. Anyhow, this has greatly increased during the Trump years, and, while not pleasant, does allow one to avoid jackasses more easily.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"grievance culture"

Hank Ferrous thinks Heterodox Academy, and the Volokh Conspiracy's repetitive whining about a lack of affirmative action for right-wing academics, are objectionable? This may constitute a flicker of progress in the clingerverse.

[WJack]

Progressive educators (pre-school through ”elite” institutions) have been in almost complete control of “education” for at least the past fifty years . . . they and their tens of millions of clueless victims appear to have won their battle without fighting an actual war. For proof - no need to look beyond TV news.

Looks like the most powerful, prosperous, free country in the history of the world has run its course, and with the wind at its back is on the edge of an abyss.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

As long as we teach white, Christian children to hate themselves for being born with white privilege, I'll consider America's public education system as success.

[WJack]

So says a clueless victim, thanks for providing the example.

[Queen Amalthea]

Have you ever stopped to think 'why do those in charge of elite education dislike my politics so much?' Instead of victimization whining, maybe some introspective politics of responsibility is warranted here? How in the world would any intellectual establishment embrace what Trump is selling (look at how many established conservatives have become 'never Trumpers,' what's going on there do you think? Is *none* of it Trump's fault?)?

[Hank Ferrous]

Crikey, Trump aside, 'elite education' is not interested in 1. politics of responsibility 2. is largely the source for victimhood culture. As an aside, the education industry is also not interested in the working class, working poor, or anyone not fool enough to indenture themselves via loans.

[WJack]

Another victim.

[Ben_]

Because the communists who didn't want to fight in Vietnam against their comrades got deferments and went to college and many stayed. The culture at Universities can be directly traced back to that.

[grb]

Can we have a moment of silent sympathy for Vice President Pence? The poor bastard has looked like a regularly beaten cur these past four years, as he pawned away every trace of integrity to be Trump’s dotish lapdog. Yesterday his master casually shivved him in the back (via tweet of course) as reward for years of servile loyalty.

Yeah, he had to know that would be end result, but we can still sympathize with the man....

[Queen Amalthea]

A lot of liberals have been dumping on the Republicans who have taken a stance against Trump during this. It's disgusting in my opinion. Pence, Sasse, Romney, etc., it would have been easy for them to go along with the cult leader, there's almost no upside for them. The idea that 'hey, they should have been standing up to him a lot more before' is bs, Trump is a goofball of Biblical proportions but most of what he offers in terms of legislation (when he's not contradicting himself) is bog standard conservatism. It's Trump's lack of composure and abuse of office that's radical, and those guys have called him out. They deserve an unqualified 'good on ya' from both sides.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Mitt Romney is a sexist pig who thinks it's acceptable to have "binders full of women". He should be insulted, degraded, and harassed whenever he is in public and especially so if his wife and children are present.

[Queen Amalthea]

You're terrible.

That guy could easily have gone along to get along, yet he takes stands. Good on him, bad on you.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Mittens put the poor family dog on the roof of the family car when doggie had the runs. Mitt is a sadist of the highest order and probably a neo-Nazi, like John McCain before him. I'm glad I voted for Obama twice!

[Queen Amalthea]

If he's a Neo-Nazi why did he take the stand he did against Trump? Remember Trump won his state handily.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Mitt Romney is a Neo-Nazi, fascist punk but Drumpf is LITERALLY HITLER!

[Bored Lawyer]

RW is giving you satire, not his opinion. You might have an irony deficiency. Try some liver.

[grb]

Two points :

1. In a rainstorm of spittle-spraying Trumpian lunacy we occasionally get something called "spittle-spraying Trumpian lunacy (ironic)". How the hell is anyone is supposed to tell the two apart?

2. Queen Amalthea notes this : "....most of what he offers in terms of legislation (when he’s not contradicting himself) is bog standard conservatism."

This can't be emphasized enough. Whenever Trump went outside of rote conservatism, it was only to put on gaudy firework shows, full of sound&fury signifying nothing. The two main examples are trade and immigration. Sure, Trump's endless stream of tariffs made a lot of noise, but they accomplished nothing because there wasn't an ounce of strategic thought or clear objectives behind them. It was all just a show.

Likewise, Trump's executive actions on immigration or his pathetic wall. Hell, he ignored the latter for two years until gawdforsaken Ann Counter flamed him, then shut the government down and looted congressional appropriations in a panicked response.

When Trump's cult talk of him as a special kind of politician fighting the "deep state", they refer only to his brat-child theatrics. Subtract the carnival barker nonsense and Trump has no effective difference from Jeb Bush. That's why the idea of Trumpism without Trump is so absurd. Without the endless lies, preening narcissism, petty childishness, and huckster blather, Trumpism is an empty shell. That's what the MAGA hoard turned out for.

[Don Nico]

grb,
Tariffs may have been a crude tool, but Trump's one accomplishment was having the balls to take a visible action against China. Biden is not likely to soften the US stance very much.

[grb]

Want to know the most consequential action Trump took towards China? Sabotaging the Trans-Pacific Partnership - and that decision was the purest gift to Beijing. Inside of a U.S. focused economic partnership, the region was united under a China-centered pact, the RCEP. I advise you to forget about Trump's "balls" - read hot air, empty rhetoric, meaningless gestures, and cartoon theatrics. Instead try looking at his actions - where he was a bungler, same as always....

[bernard11]

You know, Don, I have a small business - a sideline really - that serves small/medium manufacturers who need to buy cast iron and aluminum parts. We locate suppliers, manage the transactions, help our customers get exactly what they need, etc.

We import some of these castings from China, and there is a 25% tariff, which we pass right through to our customer, who presumably passes it through to theirs.

Does this hurt China? Well, some. But it sure as hell hurts the ultimate American customer, who is paying the tariff. I thought Republicans hated tax increases.

Of course the inevitable retaliation hurt American farmers too, though they got a bailout, because they 're Trump voters.

So color me unimpressed by Trump's "standing up to China."

[Brett Bellmore]

"Subtract the carnival barker nonsense and Trump has no effective difference from Jeb Bush."

There's not a chance in hell Bush would have committed to nominate only from a list compiled by the Federalist society. Scalia would have been replaced with a Souter clone, if Jeb hadn't renominated Garland as a peace offering.

But the really effective difference from Jeb Bush is that Trump won in 2016. Jeb would have lost.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Good on him"

Romney degraded women by putting them in binders, mocked a gay student and abused a dog by making him travel in a carrier. Plus he put tens of thousands out of work by buying and breaking up their companies.

Now you like him.

[Bored Lawyer]

"abused a dog by making him travel in a carrier"

As does every airiline company, unless it is a service dog.

[Bob from Ohio]

whoosh

[MoreCurious]

On the roof?

[Bored Lawyer]

You get a better view of the scenery there.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Can we have a moment of silent sympathy for Vice President Pence?"

Who had 'Pence the momentary stateman' and 'Cruz the pathetic cuck' in the office pool? I doubt we even get to the 'Democrats take the House, Senate, and White House' tiebreaker.

I propose a moment of silence for Heidi Cruz. It's all fun and games to us, but this shit is real for her. And for her children, who must be confused about how daddies are supposed to act.

[grb]

RAK : "And for her children, who must be confused about how daddies are supposed to act"

It's not just the kids who are confused - Professor Volokh being another example....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I thought I might be the only one who noticed.

[De Oppresso Liber]

"for her children, who must be confused about how daddies are supposed to act."

hahaha. This is the most severe insult I have ever witnessed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Most of this stuff writes itself, but thank you.

[Gasman]

The only thing left is for Wormtongue to grow a spine for just one second, and plunge a knife into Saruman

[AmosArch]

Personal survey of selected social media platforms.

Twitter: I am increasingly of the opinion that even compared to other social media, Twitter is one of the worst things to have come out of the internet. For a site founded by one guy screwing over another it sure permeates into every aspect. Its an abomination seemingly designed to encourage bandwagoning and groupthink and increase rancor and discord on a global scale. It consumes time to bring out the worst in its users giving nothing back. To top it off the moderation is probably the most openly biased and capricious of all the big sites tied with some parts of Reddit.

Parler: A Twitter competitor that requires even more PI and is purposely harder to casually browse? I don't get it.

Farcebook: If Twitter annoys me, Facebook makes me sad. Its amazing how old the userbase has gotten. From emo teens to nothing but geezers and middle aged soccermoms posting about their pointless lives but otherwise never communicating with anyone. I notice increasingly adding someone to my FB list is often the point where I stop talking to them in RL. Its where friendships go to die.

4chan: fairly pointless. Miss the days when they actually did cool stuff. .badly designed and so active that the entire page scrolls off the screen everytime you refresh. Unless you're a memelord you'll be lucky to get anyone to notice anything you post and are basically shouting to the wind. Has a reputation as a rightwing hangout but its been flooded the past couple years by posters who throw around the word f*gg*t and n*gg*r and homo but otherwise spout leftist beliefs. Basically anybody of any ideology can false flag as any other ideology which is one of the factors I think is behind its 'extreme' reputation.

8chan: A version of 4chan closer to the spirit of the latter before it sold out and became mainstream edgy. Committing the crime of allowing free speech except for what the law requires (its actually quite censored nowadays) means its constantly hounded and persecuted and keeps getting ddossed and kicked from host to host. The former owner had a breakdown and has apparently moonlights now as an SJW vigilante.

Youtube: Videos are increasingly heavily censored by otherwise surprisingly one of the most sane and least censored of the big platforms...at least in the comments section. Mostly because Google has been too lazy to interfere up until this point.

Bitchute: Badly needs nonpolitical content.

Reddit: the biggest subs are dominated by hardcore partisans that ban any contrary opinion, but the really worthwhile places are the smaller more specialized places. Still because of growing sitewide censorship from the Admins I really should transition to.

Ruqqus: Low activity but it is important to patronize alternatives to widely used types of social media.

GunForums: A few independent forums are still fairly active and useful places. But many are on life support or selling out to one of the big platforms which is a shame.

Redboards: Mostly nonsense but the occasional informative post that you can't find anywhere else letting you know about some obscure show or model or bit of information you didn't before keeps it worthwhile. In fact I've gotten a lot more useful information than in most other places. Too bad you're still mostly just wasting time.

Volokh: Entertaining but unlike other places where I might get clued into a new and interesting game or a scientific concept or a nice recipe its harder to point to anything as tangible that I get from here. I pick up some law related stuff but thats about it. Still theres some insightful people here and some dumb but still loveable libs and its adorable when Eugene uses this place as a personal lazy Google so maybe stick around.

slashdot: Once was one of the best places for tech news and insights. Declining because the owners want badly to blabber all day about politics rather than tech and use every excuse to post inflammatory articles from HUFFPO then moderate people for expressing the 'wrong' opinion about it. Occasionally still has very interesting and informative technical comments but there is a nasty habit of flagging opposing thoughts as abuse.

ycombinator: a better source for tech and science news and conversation. Less politics but the moderators are even more likely to flag opinions they don't like as abuse and they have an even more ridiculous system where you can get permanently shadowbanned.

stackoverflow : The most unfriendly out of all the tech social media platforms I've been on but unfortunately the only option for certain types of questions. The posters are among the most arrogant I've seen making some of the stuffy professors here look like Huck Finn and will not hesitate to insult newbies or downvote questions that do not live up to their standards essentially softbanning mostly hapless students and beginners that come there looking for help. At the same time while it is infamous for abusing newbies, strangely the Admins caterwaul nonstop about some unseen alleged plague of racism and sexism enveloping the site (how you could tell what the race and sex is of most participants is anyone's guess) in dramatic press releases and they have an increasingly strict set of guidelines that will punish you for among other things, not just misgendering but failing to actively gender a person in a certain way at their demand in a forum about calculus. What is with tech/science related sites and draconian moderation rules I don't know.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Get off my board, normies!
REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

[Queen Amalthea]

"To top it off the moderation is probably the most openly biased and capricious"

Oh for goodness sake, will you stop crying victimization? Go somewhere else if they won't bake the cake the way you like. For Pete's sake.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

You will never be Queen.

[Hank Ferrous]

That knife cuts both ways. Unless one is loud enough? Member of a special class? Lies? Hard to tell, truth be told.

[Rat on a train (FTG)]

stackoverflow:
Q: How can I solve this problem? I am restricted to the standard libraries.
A: Use this library that isn't in the standard library.

[Martinned]

Question of the day: Can you hold an impeachment trial for an ex-president?

Because disqualifying Trump from office may well be the only way to get him to retire to some golf course, and hoping for all those Big Macs to finally kill him isn't very nice.

This book chapter might give the answer, but unfortunately I can't log in to read it.

[Ben_]

More schemes against people. That’s your plan?

[Martinned]

Impeachment is a "scheme" now? Anyway, it's not "against people", but against a specific person, who amply deserves it.

[Ben_]

So yes then. Scheming against people is your plan.

[Martinned]

You might be confused, but this is a blog about the law. Lots of people who write for the Volokh Conspiracy or who comment there are lawyers or, like me, law-adjacent. We don't tend to view pursuing legal remedies as some kind of nefarious "scheme", unless it's done with no hope of success. (Eg. the way Donald Trump tried to overturn the election results, or the way he used to sue people for libel.)

[Ben_]

That's why people don't like lawyers: scheming against people and pretending it's good because you're doing it mostly according to a rulebook.

[Martinned]

Like I said, if you have a problem with lawyers the Volokh Conspiracy may not be the blog for you.

[Ben_]

Lots of lawyers don't hatch schemes against people. The ones who do ruin it for the others.

[grb]

(I love lawyers. No profession has inspired a better class of jokes)

[Bored Lawyer]

Umm, no. It is against someone in elected office. If Trump quit and slunk off to golf and Mar-A-Lago, I wouldn't care. So long as he holds a public office, he is answerable to his boss, the public.

If your boss says you are doing a crappy job and wants to fire you, that is not a scheme against people. It is your boss exercising his right to make sure his paid employee acts for his benefit.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, if you don't let people fight you politically, they don't go away, they start shooting. Disqualifying Trump from office is probably the stupidest mistake anybody could make, because it would prove to his supporters that American politics is rigged, AND it would throw away all the work you did rendering Trump toxic, you'd have to start over from scratch smearing the next guy.

[Martinned]

Nobody rendered Trump toxic, he was literally toxic from the start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx6V-e2DQW0

As for the next guy, given how much Trumpism is clearly a personality cult, that person would have a lot of work to do before they could persuade their voters to storm the Capitol again. Certainly none of the would-be candidates for 2024 seem to have the ability to do that.

[Bored Lawyer]

After yesterday, Trump will not be able to run for dog catcher. His political career is over. (Not to mention his old age. He will be 78 in 2024. By then we will see what turning the White House into a nursing home yields. )

[Martinned]

True, but as long as he believes that he still has a political future (and his capacity for believing things seems quite extraordinary, given that he was still calling on Republicans in Congress to object to the certification by yesterday evening), he'll keep holding rallies and Tweeting stupid things.

[Brett Bellmore]

He won't be tweeting things, stupid or otherwise, because he's been banned for life.

Good news for Parler, or maybe Gab.

[Martinned]

I just checked, and I can find no evidence that Twitter banned him for longer than 12 hours.

(As in: The @TwitterSafety account explained that they'd banned him for that long, but has tweeted nothing since. I can't imagine that they would impose a permaban without further disclosure and explanation.)

[Brett Bellmore]

FB and associated sites permabanned him.

Twitter apparently lifted the ban as soon as he conceded the election. Though, of course, they'll still routinely block any tweets they don't want people seeing for whatever reason.

[grb]

Martinned : he’ll keep holding rallies and Tweeting stupid things

True enuff, but there's a much larger picture : Yes, a politician out of power can embody an unofficial government-in-exile. You don't see it happen that often because it's pretty difficult to do. You need a clear strategic vision, laser-type focus and iron discipline. Power naturally flows to & from those in power. You need to bend it your way by force of will alone.

Meanwhile, in Trump we have someone who barely bothered with the duties of a president while still in the office. We have someone who preferred the boob-tube during "executive time" to receiving classified briefings. We have someone who evinced all the attention span of a gnat, even with a massive staff to prod him towards the responsibilities of his high position.

If I remember my Kipling, the Bandar-log monkey people always had great plans for epic deeds until a second's diversion sent them chattering away, plans forgotten. That's Trump. He will not put in the work over the next four years to be relevant in '24.

He didn't put in the work as frigg'n president.....

[Hank Ferrous]

No. And this immature vindictive petty horseshit is why people don't like progressives. Before you say you're not, you support progressive policies.

[Martinned]

Trump has destroyed the very fabric of the American polity. Wanting to cure that by stopping him (or at least discouraging him) from doing any further damage in the future is somehow "vindictive" now?

As for me being progressive, it's all relative. I don't support lots of things that American conservatives support, such as summary execution of alleged criminals or racial segregation. But I would argue that that says more about American conservatives than about me.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Trump has destroyed the very fabric of the American polity. "

No, he hasn't. If anything he has proven the resilience of it. Despite his efforts oand overall shameless behavior, the other guy won. And yesterday Congress confirmed that overwhelmingly, including a large majority of his own party. And his own Vice-President.

Yesterday's putsch attempt failed miserably. And the loss of life, while unfortunate, was minimal.

In a republican democracy, the president if not the king. The Constitution is. Someone tried to kill the king yesterday. He failed.

[Martinned]

It's nice that you would say that even given how the "conversations" in the VC comment threads go. Here is what Yougov found in the last 24 hours:

A YouGov Direct poll of 1,397 registered voters who had heard about the event finds that most (62%) voters perceive these actions as a threat to democracy. Democrats (93%) overwhelmingly see it this way, while most (55%) Independents also agree. Among Republicans, however, only a quarter (27%) think this should be considered a threat to democracy, with two-thirds (68%) saying otherwise.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/07/US-capitol-trump-poll

If that's not a society that's profoundly broken, I don't know what is.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a media that's profoundly broken.

[Bob from Ohio]

"summary execution "

A jury trial followed 20-30 years of appeals is hardly "summary" .

You do approve of summary execution of innocent old people by "assisted" suicide.

[Martinned]

I meant killing people in the street, as you well know.

[Queen Amalthea]

We are entering *at most* a two year period where Joe Manchin's views will be the limit of federal law. Really, anyone who sees an apocalypse coming from that is...strange to begin with. We're going to be ok. Take a chill pill, folks.

[Queen Amalthea]

I've only seen season one (free on CBS), but I think Star Trek Discovery is the best Star Trek I've ever seen. And I say this a huge STNG and original series fan. Good stuff. All I wanted was a big Klingon-Federation war and a technological advantage for the Federation, for a change. Also, Michael is great.

[loki13]

ST: Disco is good. I'd say that each season gets better (and S3 is a "reset" of sorts).

I still think that ST:DS9 might be peak Star Trek. Well, after TOS, of course.

[Queen Amalthea]

When they used the 'wormhole saves us all' trick it really soured me on that.

[loki13]

Eh, nothing is perfect. But the overall quality of DS9 was incredibly high; especially in context (90s was before prestige TV, and "arcs" were brand new).

And it's not like Disco doesn't have problems. (S1 only): From the spinning saucer to the weak use of Lorca/Mirror (it would have been much better if there was some nuance there) to some baffling characterizations, S1 is good, but not great.

[Hank Ferrous]

Is this the new/current program? I hear it's quite good. And now from you as well. Is there more Klingon warrior culture?

[Gasman]

Star trek's Picard was a pretty good story, about 8 hours and done. A little heavy on the sentimentality, and Frakes' and Sirtis's presence did nothing to advance the plot(but as director, he probably insisted on writing himself in).

[Ben_]

Will the left's behavior improve? If not, why should others change?

Cease fire agreements are mutual. Expect things to continue as they are and occasionally escalate little by little.

The way to stop it is to stop lying. Stop bullying your fellow Americans. Stop name-calling. Stop making up stories. Stop bringing up ancient grievances. Stop posturing. Stop the melodrama and the theatric pretending.

Stop blacklisting. Stop treating people differently based on race.

Stop trying to decide how others will live their lives and what choices they must make. Stop trying to spend money other people earned. Stop making laws to harass people who are not like you. Stop using government unions against the people. Govern for all Americans.

Anyone who wants peace would have no problem with these. Do you?

[Queen Amalthea]

Stop trying to decide how others will live their lives and what choices they must make.

I agree things like abortion and euthanasia restrictions are wrong.

Stop trying to spend money other people earned.

I agree things like the farmer bailouts (larger than the auto bailouts) are terrible.

Stop making laws to harass people who are not like you.

The anti-Muslim and immigrant policies are terrible, yes.

Stop using government unions against the people.

The kowtowing to police and border patrol unions really should stop, yes.

Govern for all Americans.

Yes, stop talking about 'Democrat cities' and such.

[Ben_]

I’ll mark you down as a No. No interest in peace.

[Queen Amalthea]

Good old bad faith Ben.

[Ben_]

Someone who wants peace doesn't try to push their little pet issues and private agendas in such a discussion.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Someone who wants peace doesn’t try to push their little pet issues and private agendas in such a discussion."

There once was a person with total lack of self-awareness....

[Ben_]

Discussion is not about me. But keep changing the subject. That's what someone interested in peace does when peace is being discussed: changes the subject over and over to any other topic.

[Queen Amalthea]

Ben: stop pointing out how I support the very thing I think is tearing America apart, you're against peace!

[Aunt Teefah]

"Stop trying to spend money other people earned."

Yes this - which is conservative-speak for any form of government spending and taxation - is totally not a "little pet issue."

I guess you can mark me down as a "no" for peace on terms set by you scumbags.

[Ben_]

Marking you as a No. Spending money other people earned mattered to Aunt Teefah more than peace.

[Aunt Teefah]

Fine by me. Appeasement of fascists have never accomplished anything good anyway.

[Ben_]

Cool name-calling. Don't be surprised when thing keep getting worse and worse.

[De Oppresso Liber]

There was a Pusch yesterday. Calling you guys fascists is warranted at this point. Proto-fascists or attempted fascists might be more accurate, since I can feel the inevitable pedantic point to made forming on the smooth surface of your brain already.

[Ben_]

Add De Oppresso to the wants war side.

[De Oppresso Liber]

There won't be a war.

There might be a few more obese bodies laid out covered in airsoft gear in the next few weeks. No bother to me.

[Ben_]

Thinking there will be no war, De Oppresso signs up for several more decades of mutual enmity and ongoing strife.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The kowtowing to police and border patrol unions really should stop, yes."

Weird that you get how damaging these unions are, but not how damaging other public employee unions are.

[Ben_]

Government unions turn government away from public service. Public service is the reason governments were created and the only legitimate reason for governments to exist at all. Unions bargain against serving the public and consistently defeat public service at the negotiating table.

So government doesn't serve and the needs government was created to serve go unmet, even as the unions siphon up the public's money so the people lose the resources to get those needs met in other ways.

There's no hope of it ever getting better. It's the kind of thing historians look back on and say:

"This is one of the key pressures on society that caused the war. There was no way to peaceably resolve the issue. Even before it started, the US was already a failed state, with no effective governance and no real education system except for the rich. That went on for a while and slowly got worse until..."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You clearly have no direct experience or knowledge of public sector unions. There are good ones and bad ones. But they do not "turn government away from public service." Unless you believe that bureaucratic supervisors and administrators are the best, most efficient people to keep government directed toward public service. Or maybe you are more a fan of political appointees?

[Ben_]

You couldn’t have missed the point any more than you did.

Were the George Floyd protests because he wasn't killed efficiently?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

So in other words, you concede that you have no direct experience or knowledge of public sector unions, and you don't know what you are talking about. And no, that's not why there were protests.

[Hank Ferrous]

That's interesting, a bit like posting one's answers to a political typology questionnaire. Yet, you don't seem to see an issue with stop talking about Democrat cities. Telling people what they can and cannot do when your first position is 'Stop trying to decide how others will live their lives and what choices they must make' is hypocritical, no?

[Ben_]

Nah, talking is fine.

Peace addresses all sides. Govern for all Americans means all. The Queen's interest is me! me! give me what I want because "all" means me. That's just pushing a personal agenda. It's not peace.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Cease fire agreements are mutual. "

Why should anyone offer clingers a cease-fire agreement?

You have lost, even if you are too dumb to recognize or too mendacious to acknowledge it.

I don't want your agreement, approval, consent, or respect. I want your compliance. You will comply. And, if you are smart, hope for magnanimity from your betters.

[WrongAboutMostThings]

This was partly my response to yesterday as well.

I fear that the yesterday's events will only make matters worse and solidify the growing narrative that every Trump supporter is a conspiracy peddling, racist, redneck. I want to be clear that I have never supported Trump's presidency (something that I annoyingly feel I have to say anytime I try to say not every Trump supporter is evil).

The relatively small number of people who resorted to rioting are not just a problem that exist on the right. The left has this ilk as well (as best displayed in Seattle over the summer), but just the same, those people do not represent the left. However, both the left and the right have done a piss poor job of condemning extremists and the never-ending partisan and hyperbolic rhetoric from news and social media.

And they keep making the same damned mistakes. Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, and the like decided to censor Trump completely and bury his ridiculous video. The left cannot keep making this mistake. This will only serve as fuel for lunatics and leaving the video up is ultimately in everyone's best interest. Most people recognize Trump's comments and video for what they are and we cannot keep letting censorship occur because some people are insane.

Your points are good ones. Each team wants their team to win and to win completely and forever. I grew up thinking that our strength was tolerating a diversity of opinions. Politics are not meant to be winner takes all game. Our founding fathers thought it was philosophical exercise that required constant debate, but we increasingly see our political realm descending to intolerance.

People have become far too indoctrinated in their beliefs and cannot accept productive debate, inquiry, reflection, or any sort of critical analysis. Most everyone is not an expert. Most everyone is at the very least, wrong about most things they believe. We should all practice humility when it comes to ideology and no matter what you believe, if you think that the other side is absolutely wrong, you're not helping.

Most of us want the same things. W want to have meaningful lives and relationships. We want the best for ourselves and those we love. We need to focus on our shared goals now more than ever.

[De Oppresso Liber]

The relatively high number of voters who apparently see nothing wrong in open sedition is a problem, and it is the majority of Trump supporters.

They deserve all the ridicule, derision, and banishment from the levers of power they have coming to them.

[Ben_]

Seemed fine to a lot of you when it was Antifa and BLM engaged in open sedition.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Go ahead and point to any comment of mine endorsing BLM riots.

As other commenters have pointed out today, tu quoque really seems to have become your guiding star.

[Ben_]

I am becoming known for not accepting double standards.

[De Oppresso Liber]

On the contrary, it seems to be your justification for double standards.

[Ben_]

Nope. The opposite of that.

[Ben_]

I disagree with the caricatures of people — you know many leftists point at half the country and slander anyone not exactly like themselves, right? There's no need to repeat generalized slander of [whomever] — no specifics are offered because you know who they are....

But overall, yes. You are perfectly on point.

Look around though. How many people want to talk and how many want to war? It doesn't look good.

[loki13]

So, I thought I'd start today by trying to think positive thoughts. Many people believe that President Trump has done nothing good, and is the worst President in our history. I happen to think that he has been an absolutely terrible President, if for no reason other than doing everything possible to stoke division and hatred, and to spread lies and falsehoods to the American people. But, here are my thoughts on the positive accomplishments of the last four years (really).

1. Despite the rawness of the feelings, Trump will likely not go down as the worst President in U.S. History. Probably not as corrupt as Harding. Andrew Johnson ... pretty pretty bad and likely set the country back decades. And it's hard to hold a candle to Buchanan. So not the worst.

2. Middle East. The long-term effects of Trump's "foreign policy" (in terms of weakening alliances, destroying American credibility and stature, and hollowing out the State Department) may take years or decades to undo, but you know what? His "kowtowing to oil barons who assassinate US journalists" and "trading US favors for Israeli recognition" and "screw the Palestinians" approach ... didn't fail. We often view the Middle East as a powder keg, and traditionally it is- but Trump went and kicked the powder keg repeatedly and it didn't go off. I'm not saying that anything he did was morally right, or made long-term peace more likely, or that the US can be viewed as an impartial party (heh) there anymore, or that there will never be blowback, but he did demonstrate that that at this point in time, there was a lot more rhetoric than reality to some of these issues.

3. Immigration. When I heard about the last rally of Trump in Georgia, what stuck in my mind wasn't his usual baseless lies; I am inured to them at this point. Instead it was ... that he said, again, that Mexico is paying for the wall. Wow. Okay. It's four years in, and he is still lying about that (and his supporters still accept it). Anyone with half a brain knows that this is a lie and a boondoggle. That said ... if you have an administration that is willing to use all of its power, and bend the rules, and occasionally break them, and sometimes defy court orders, and work with a singular lack of empathy for the damage it might cause to people, then yes, you can start the process of tearing down America's immigration system and work to deter legal and illegal immigration. The exact effects are in dispute (with some analyses claiming the effect is more perception than reality, and other stating that this doesn't note the strong effect of keeping people held up outside the US, so that they aren't recorded ... and that the numbers are backwards-looking, etc), but if your singular issue is immigration, then Trump delivered. I might disagree strongly for a number of reasons in both the objective and the means, but that would be an accomplishment.

4. No new foreign wars. Trump may have beclowned himself with North Korea (by blustering and then backing down, handing North Korean a costless propaganda victory and making our regional allies feel less safe), and he may have sold out the Kurds (everyone does), and he may have often discussed plans for war only to be dissuaded (Venezuela, Iran), but hey- no new wars. Good for him! Really.

5. Transitioned away from fossil fuels. This is a weird one, kind of like, "Only Nixon can go to China," but if Trump couldn't intervene enough to save coal (and to a lesser extent, oil), no one can. Would it have been nice to elect someone who planned for this transition, so as to minimize the impact on the workers? YES! But you can't have everything.

6. Empowered unions. Really! Old NAFTA was anti-union. Employers would go to Mexico to avoid unions. Trump's USMCA, on the other hand, required Mexico to change its labor laws and provide for collective bargaining. Maybe the Mexican unions will pay for the wall? Who knows?!!?

7. Judges. Yes, I personally hate this. But the Trump/McConnell/FedSoc pipeline pumped a steady stream of people into the judiciary. If that's you're thing, well, good for you. Then again, if you're Brett, you don't care what judges say. 🙂

8. Tax Reform. Was it a boondoggle and a giveaway to high earners and corporations? YES! Did it provide "rocket fuel" to the economy? NO! Did it pay for itself? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING! Did it exacerbate our continuing problem with national debt during a time when we should have been paying it down? YES! But it did simplify things for many Americans.

And that's it. I don't think this will, at all, erase the massive damage he has done to many of our institutions. But instead of dwelling on that, I thought I'd try to be positive today.

[Ben_]

8. You know there was broad agreement across the political spectrum for the corporate tax reform that was passed, right? The US had the highest business tax rate in the world and companies were going to extreme lengths to avoid being domiciled here.

The only reason it wasn't passed before is because Dems wanted to bundle lots of other tax increases in with it. Looters gotta loot. It was held hostage by Dems for more than a decade.

[Queen Amalthea]

Populism!

[loki13]

Great for you! I appreciate your beliefs, even if I disagree with your facts.

Trump inherited a decent economy.

The budget deficit increased every year under Trump. To the extent that we want to pay down the debt, it would have been a good time to do so.

But as we all know, the budget deficit is only an issue when there is a Democratic President. Which is why we didn't hear about it for almost the entirety of Trump's presidency- you know, no major hijinks about the deficit limit, etc.

Is that going to change now? Willing to place any money on it?

[Ben_]

Change the subject if you want. That discussion can be without my participation.

[loki13]

Great!

Given how I view your comments, I'd really appreciate it if you can manage to keep all of my discussions ... without your participation.

Thanks! 🙂

[Ben_]

Ditto for you then.

[loki13]

Agreed!

I appreciate that. Given that I find your hate-filled rhetoric disturbing at best, and your lies annoying at worst, I find no need to comment on your posts. So I appreciate your offer and unconditionally accept it!

Thank you!

[Ben_]

False.

I would elaborate, but Professor Volokh asks that we don't engage personal insults as you are using. Good luck in your imaginary world of make-believe villains.

[Hank Ferrous]

'Hate-filled rhetoric,' pretty rich, given you refer to lying immediately after.

[loki13]

Thanks for the kind thoughts, Hank! I appreciate your always-substantive posts, which is why I take the time to converse with you.

[Bored Lawyer]

The budget deficit increased every year under Trump. To the extent that we want to pay down the debt, it would have been a good time to do so.
But as we all know, the budget deficit is only an issue when there is a Democratic President.

It is always an issue. But no one wants to deal with it, because the solution is political poison.

So what do you propose be done about a real problem? Or are we just stuck waiting for the crash? (I honestly have no solution. Would like to hear one.)

[loki13]

My solution? Well ... You have to remember that I'm one of those old-school, Rockefeller Republicans, so this wouldn't be adopted by most people.

Start by a freeze on new laws or regulations. Yeah, I know, it will be painful, because some of them are, in fact, necessary. Have Congress (through specialized commissions) go through the U.S.C. and begin a process of streamlining our current laws. Get rid of all the crud that has accumulated through accretion and neglect. Standardize language throughout.

It's a herculean task. Give it a minimum of three years.

Meanwhile, put in place a freeze on new spending. And a freeze on revenue reduction. No more tax cuts, and no new spending. Simplify the tax code further, but any simplification must be revenue neutral or positive.

Given the size of just entitlements and interest payments, it will take a while. There will be some hard choices about shuffling money around under the freeze (guns, or butter, but not both).

Eventually, growth will shrink the deficit until we have a surplus.

It's not perfect, and it can use some work, but that's the gist. In my world!

[Bored Lawyer]

I did not mean what would you do as Philosopher King. I meant how can deficit reduction be sold politically as a goal.

[loki13]

It's got to stop being a partisan tool. It's that simple.

If someone like me, who is strongly in favor of deficit reduction, can't take anything the GOP does seriously, that's a problem.

Quite frankly, the Democrats no longer take the GOP seriously on this. Nor should they. Because every time the GOP has any power, they increase spending and lower taxes and forget about the deficit. It's rinse repeat- it's Lucy and the Football.

So from that p.o.v., the feeling is (somewhat rightfully) that one side is taking a credit card, racking up the fees, and then handing it back to you with the demand that you be more responsible and stop using it.

It's nearly impossible to tackle these types of amorphous, long-term issues when there is so much bad blood between the two sides. It needs fresh thinking.

[Commenter_XY]

loki13...I actually like your idea of simply keeping the status quo on taxing and spending for a few years. It could work. I would also allow the federal workforce to shrink by attrition. People leave, do not replace them.

How would you handle programs with mandatory spending increases?

[loki13]

Devil is in the details; honestly, getting a freeze on new spending and new tax cuts would solve the majority of the problems.

Mandatory spending increases, to the extent possible, I would prefer to freeze as well. In some cases, you can't (for example, contracts with the government).

You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Even getting an agreement on new spending and new tax cuts would be a godsend.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a good start, and I like the idea. I like it enough that I'll write my Congressman and Senators about it. They're all Team D, so I am not sure if they'll be on board with freezing spending. But hell, it cannot hurt to ask.

[bernard11]

Start by a freeze on new laws or regulations. Yeah, I know, it will be painful, because some of them are, in fact, necessary.

This is silly. First, let's not avoid doing things that need to be done because of some panic about the deficit. Besides, the expense of some things is negligible.

Have Congress (through specialized commissions) go through the U.S.C. and begin a process of streamlining our current laws. Get rid of all the crud that has accumulated through accretion and neglect. Standardize language throughout.

Good luck.

Meanwhile, put in place a freeze on new spending.

Why? If there are productive opportunities. Yeah, yeah. The nihilists are going to come along and say the government can't/won't do anything productive. So if you buy that, OK, but I don't.

And a freeze on revenue reduction. No more tax cuts, and no new spending.

Increases?

Simplify the tax code further, but any simplification must be revenue neutral or positive.

Any change in the tax code is going to affect different people differently. It will be an increase for some, a cut for others.

Besides, it's actually not that complicated for the vast majority of individuals, so while it would be fine, I see no urgency.

[Ben_]

Crash is inevitable at this point. It’s what the voters repeatedly chose.

The Fed will make the debt go away. They should be able to get away with doing that once.

[bernard11]

Why don't you short some treasuries and make a gazillion dollars?

[Ben_]

Because it might take 20 years or longer.

[bernard11]

But the prospect will be felt in the market much earlier.

[bernard11]

The US had the highest business tax rate in the world and companies were going to extreme lengths to avoid being domiciled here.

No. You are talking about the top rate. The effective rate was comparable to other western countries.

[Ben_]

Just like a leftist: it was only completely unfair to a some companies, not ALL of them.

[bernard11]

Not what I said.

[Brett Bellmore]

I care what judges say, I'm just not committed to the view that what they say is automatically right.

[loki13]

Sure, Brett. Whatever you need to tell yourself so that you can keep all those views coherent in your head.

[bernard11]

Nobody is asking you to, any more than anyone asks you to accept that any law Congress passes and the President signs is a good idea.

You do have to accept that what the judge says is the law, until something happens to negate it. Your entitled to your opinion, but not to your own law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no, the legislature is entitled to its own law.

But, like I keep saying, Judge O'Brien doesn't have my genitals hooked up to an electroshock machine, so I don't have to see five fingers when he demands it. I'm perfectly entitled to notice it when a judge rules that Tuesday means Friday.

Doesn't mean I get my way, just means I'm allowed to notice that I'm being screwed.

[bernard11]

It's exactly the same.

You can be screwed by the legislature too.

In both cases, you can disagree, but you are still obligated to accept the result.

[Queen Amalthea]

I actually approve of several things Trump did.

I think we need to have our politicians take an American First stance. And they should have an anti-China stance. Trump's phoney on these, of course, but he's right that at least the public needs to hear this.

[loki13]

The trouble with an "anti-China" stance is that you can do a lot more damage than good with a naive or stupid anti-China stance.

China is not our friend. It is a rising Great Power. We need to be exceedingly careful. Ping-ponging between rhetoric that is strongly anti-China, and "Our relationship with China has now probably never, ever been better," isn't how to succeed.

Working with our allies in the Pacific. Paying attention to the issues in the South China Sea, which is likely to be the flashpoint on future conflict. Understanding our vulnerabilities to China (including economically) and working to correct them.

Bluster is exactly the wrong way to do it. IMO, of course.

[Martinned]

If only there was some kind of treaty between the countries of East Asia, Oceania and North America, but not China...

[Hank Ferrous]

China is not a rising Great Power, is is, and has been a Great pPower for some time. How you can talk about myopia and the States and write this is unfathomable. But, hardly surprising.

[loki13]

As always, your friendly and substantive comments make it likely that people will engage with you!

[Martinned]

Every American politician takes an America First stance.

Bush jr. expected everybody to join him in his crazy wars just because there was a terrorist attack in the United States, conveniently forgetting that other countries have terrorist attacks all the time. Obama acted like Guantanamo was somehow everybody else's problem, and that we were somehow morally obligated to take those detainees because he couldn't persuade Congress to let him transfer them to the continental United States. Biden hasn't even started yet and he's already talking about American leadership, as if the rest of the world is supposed to fall in line and serve the US best interest, now that there's a Democratic president again. &c &c &c

[loki13]

In fairness, Martinned, I don't think most Americans realize how myopic our country is.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Probably not as corrupt as Harding."

Harding lost White House china in a poker game. But Trump is still worse. The worst. Ever.

(So far, anyway. Who knows, another Republican may win someday and reopen the bidding.)

[Bob from Ohio]

So, so many words to share grade school thoughts no one is asking to hear.

Get an editor at least.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is Blackman's editor available?

[loki13]

Grade school thoughts?

It's good to know that I have written something that you are finally able to respond to. It's unfortunate that you chose not to. 🙁

[De Oppresso Liber]

Bob, I keep telling you that the impression you are doing of a stereotypical midwestern simpleton is not very respectful to the people of Ohio. End this novelty account, please.

[OtisAH]

“No new wars.” One of my favorites. We are no longer the Policemen To The World!

He wanted to invade Venezuela. He waged economic war against allies and enemies alike. We’re now the Arms Dealers To The World instead. Our allies will never fully trust us again since we’re always four years at the outside from another Trump. And who knows what wars these last four years and our abdication of responsibility and leadership in the world might lead to. But hey, if/when they come at least Trump didn’t start them.

I’m not sure how many billions we’ll need to give the Smithsonian so they can locate and dig up the bar we set for presidential performance, but it’ll be money well-spent and we need them to start looking immediately.

[Don Nico]

Great post!

[OtisAH]

Every day a majority of the Conspirator Commentariat come on here and post some of the vilest racist crap short of N-bombs (just a matter of time, really), talk about “2nd amendment solutions,” civil war and secession, and call their political opposites “evil” and all sorts of other nonsense. Eventually rightwing shitheads — not the shut-ins who post here, but others — behave violently or otherwise badly. Sure as you please, the tough talking Internet warriors of the VC declare “Oh, that was The Left trying to make us look bad.”

Fat, stupid and forever shit-talking with your tails between your legs is no way to go through life, sons. But you somehow make it work.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Most of said people don't take to the streets because they still can't be bothered. Families, businesses, and private lives you know take a lot of ones time. Many on the left are changing that equation around though, so by all means poke the bear some more.

Of course, feign surprise when it does happen.

[De Oppresso Liber]

How funny that you come here to just to raise your hand and say,

"Did you say,'Fat, stupid and forever shit-talking with your tails between your legs...'? That's me!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Every day a majority of the Conspirator Commentariat come on here and post some of the vilest racist crap short of N-bombs (just a matter of time, really), "

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
This White, male, right-wing
blog has operated for
SIX (6) DAYS
without gratuitous use of a
vile racial slur (yes, that one)
and for
622 DAYS
without engaging in hypocritical,
partisan, viewpoint-driven censorship.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some things I think I think* (about movies, particularly somewhat-less-prominent movies suitable for entertainment or enlightenment during a pandemic) . . .

A Man Called Ove (a heartening, assumption-bending examination of an easy-to-overlook life).

Midnight Run (the people who failed to produce a sequel to this insightful DeNiro comedy before Charles Grodin’s death are fortunate our criminal laws are not comprehensive)

The Dream Team (The inadvertently escaped mental patients include Michael Keaton, Christopher Lloyd, Peter Boyle, and Flounder)

Night Shift (Michael Keaton and Henry Winkler sparkle in a comedy about a whorehouse in a morgue; Ron Howard’s first film, I believe)

Up (no amount of darkness or sadness could overcome the joy to be found in this animated work)

The King of Comedy (the Rupert Pupkin story, with Martin Scorcese)

Trapped In Paradise (Nicholas Cage, Dana Carvey, and Jon Lovitz demonstrate that aim-low laughs are still great laughs)

The Verdict (Paul Newman is perfect in a story of failure, trial (literally), and redemption)

And if you watch just one movie from this list, make it:

. . . And Justice For All (Ted Kramer, that no-talent hack, is the only blemish here; Arthur Kirkland, not surprisingly, prevails)

*thanks, boss

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur....I loved Midnight Run, Night Shift, The Verdict and And Justice for All. Great flicks.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am still torn between Frank Galvin and Arthur Kirkland . . . does Rev. Frank Galvin have that ring to it?

I believe And Justice for all was Bruce Willis' first film and, Night Shift was Kevin Costner's first film.

I hope you find the others, and the time for them, and that you enjoy them.

[Commenter_XY]

Tough choice Arthur, but I think you should stay you.

Think of all the 'Mini-Mes' (Kuckland, Kokeland, Cuckland, etc that all post here) they would all have to change. 🙂

I'll definitely check out the other flicks. Did not know about Willis and Costner.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Warning: You'll need to rewind a couple of times to catch Willis or Costner.

[Ridgeway]

I think The Verdict is far and away the better movie. First off, Paul Newman is a much better actor than Pacino. Second, James Mason is phenomenally good in it. There is no secondary character in AJFA that compares.

Here are a few more lesser known flicks that should not be missed:

Friends of Eddie Coyle
The Spy Who Came in From the Cold
Out of the Past
Red River
Day of the Jackal
Divorce Italian Style
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Kind Hearts and Coronets
I'm All Right Jack

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"There is no secondary character in AJFA that compares."

No one in The Verdict had to try to compete with Arthur Kirkland.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But Mason might have deserved an Oscar that year.

[Paladin_44]

Rampling, man. Charlotte Rampling. Only actress I know of whose name became a verb: to be Rampled. Look it up.

[Commenter_XY]

I loved Its a mad, mad, mad, mad world (look for the W!)
Day of the Jackal was great

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you liked Mad, Mad World, try Rat Race (the 2001 Zucker model, not the 1960 Tony Curtis-Debbie Reynolds-Pittsburgh version).

It's a weiner! Deftly distilled daffiness. You should have bought a squirrel!

Plus, and this will be important for some of you, it has Nazis.

(Fun fact: The John Cleese character was based on me)

[Commenter_XY]

I will give it a look.

[rsteinmetz]

The first film Ron Howard directed was Grand Theft Auto, a Roger Corman production that included a barter agreement for Howard to perform in another Corman production.

A lot of famed directors started out with Corman's low budget productions including Martin Scorsese, Jonathan Demme, Peter Bogdanovich, James Cameron and Francis Ford Coppola to name some of the better known ones.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Correct. Grand Theft Auto apparently was lousy, but it was first for Howard.

[bernard11]

Nice to see someone else appreciates The Dream Team.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Keaton's mother lived in my neighborhood, one street away.

I saw him walking along the street a few years after the Dream Team was released. I stopped my car and said 'you know, you look familiar, but I just can't . . . '

He responded as one might expect -- slight shrug, looked down, then up, waiting.

'Wait, I can't be sure . . . are you Caulfield . . . or Blazejowski?'

He smiled and nodded. 'Both, I guess . . . I mean, I would hope . . . I dunno, what do you think?'

I have always liked Michael Keaton.

[Ridgeway]

He should have said, "I'm Batman!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He did not . . . and I am relatively sure this was after his Batman movie.

It also was after Johnny Dangerously, which also is well worth watching. Ask Mr. Moroni.

[Aktenberg78]

If this election didn't demonstrate to conservatives why race matters, I don't know what will.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Right on cue to learn all the wrong lessons.

[Jimmy the Dane]

This has laid bare media hypocrisy and exposed it to all who ever questioned the existence of it.

[Squire Al]

Woman shot to death by Security Officers while part of a mob that had broken into the Capitol to commit various crimes inside (Possible Burglary) sounds like felony murder to me.

Any comments?

[loki13]

Depends on the jurisdiction, but generally yes IIRC from my crim law classes. 🙂

[CharlieMack]

Is there a federal “felony murder” statute ?

[Jimmy the Dane]

What news coverage looks like when leftists trash a seat of government.

Thousands storm Capitol as GOP takes action

Shortly after 8 p.m. Wednesday, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the locked King Street entrance to the Capitol, chanting “Break down the door!” and “General strike!”

Moments later, police ceded control of the State Street doors and allowed the crowd to surge inside, joining thousands who had already gathered in the Capitol to protest the votes. The area outside the Assembly, which is scheduled to take the bill up at 11 a.m. today, was crowded with protesters who chanted, “We’re not leaving. Not this time.” …

Department of Administration spokesman Tim Donovan said although protesters were being encouraged to leave, no one would be forcibly removed. … Mayor Dave Cieslewicz said he had instructed … Police Chief Noble Wray not to allow his officers to participate in removing demonstrators from the building.

At one point, officials estimated up to 7,000 people had spilled into the Capitol, some coming through doors and windows opened from the inside, including one legislative office and several bathrooms. Some door knobs and door handles were removed, Donovan said.

Officers eventually retrenched to the third floor, Donovan said, adding, “it was felt by several law enforcement officials that the best solution was to keep everybody safe” and stop trying to keep the crowds out.

[atidymind]

omg! Cheap Windows VPS Remote Desktop

[De Oppresso Liber]

Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have all banned Trump indefinitely.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the west wing right now.

[loki13]

"Get me the parler and a hamberder!"

[De Oppresso Liber]

I'd like to invite good faith discussion. I've posted the same thing at reason, to contrast the responses. I hope that doesn't break any rules.

Let's acknowledge that both sides of the aisle have rioting groups that are more sympathetic to their political party and vice versa, but let's also note the differences. Let's also state up front that any individual, regardless of group allegiance, who participates in any vandalism or other crime during a riot or protest is guilty of that crime. There is no excuse.

There is also justifiable self defense against the police in rare cases, and police often overstep their authority and violate other individual's rights while doing what are their essential duties, both during the quelling of these riots and other times. Some of that can be written off as tactical errors or simple mistakes in judgement that can be dealt with internal boss-employee level discipline. Some of it is criminal and has gone unpunished. There are good cops, but it seems to me there is a culture problem in the police and their union leadership especially. That culture is about placing their rights and safety over those of the citizens they purport to serve.

That all being said, back to the original point.

One set of rioters was reacting to what they perceived, and often turned out to be (although often as not the other way) an unjustified homicide by the police for which the murderer suffered no legal consequence.

This group is also far more widespread across the nation, numerous, and concentrated in urban/suburban areas. They have unarguably caused more death and destruction over this last year as their opposites.

Now, I've seen people dismiss the BLM movement by arguing that essentially every police shooting is justified, from Daniel Shaver to 12-year-old Tamir Rice. I'm not going to address those people, because those people are not sane. I'm talking to people who can see that some of these shootings are obviously not justifiable, and the lack of consequences for those officers is a gross failure of justice.

Those people have no legal recourse. The law is clearly biased against them, not on the merit of their complaint or the evidence for it, but on the self-serving interest of the members of the legal system. It is corruption. And people are dying over it.

The other set of protestors believes, despite complete lack of evidence, that there is a vast international conspiracy to overthrow the election of the United States' President (but not congressional seats, and not senate seats until just now). They think that 60 courts and 90 judges are all caught in a conspiracy. They insist that Trump only lost on procedural grounds, despite the simple and available record of how exactly those suits went down, and many of them were dismissed on the merits, withdrawn by the Trump campaign themselves instead of presenting their evidence, or yes dismissed because they were laughed out of court as being written by 15-year-old 8chan users.

This mob is also a personality cult that responds incredibly emotionally to their messiah's messaging. Again, I do not know how to state this in a way that is not inflammatory to some here. As the events of yesterday evidenced, those are the facts.

These protestors have been given their audits, their recounts, their sixty, (60), five dozen lawsuits and still they persist in their beliefs. Now we are supposed to excuse a little light sedition and a homicide in the halls of congress to satisfy these demands?

There simply is no legitimate complaint in the case of one group. And indeed, there is a very good case to end the escalating appeasement immediately.

This is to say nothing of the fondness for Marxism among the self-described leaders and other aspects of BLM which I believe are not germane to the primary cause of these people being willing to join a mob and participate in violence, which is what I believe is the topic at hand. Nor the opportunist looters, who are clearly criminals.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You mean you want to have an honest discussion.

The problem is no one who is in a position of power or authority wants to have this honest discussion. Hence, why the falsehoods and double standards are so prevalent today. What Wednesday is going to put an end to though is the media getting away with it. So, it is my hope we can eventually have the honest discussion you seek.

[Minadin]

Tangentially related: The main Reason website / blog seems to be having some issues at the moment.

[Minadin]

First off: I denounce violence as a means to obtain a political goal, no matter which 'side' is perpetrating it. And by violence, I mean to include: physical violence against a person, vandalism, threats of physical violence, intimidation, incitement, etc. I don't just believe it's wrong in a moral sense - I also believe that it's counterproductive.

Second: While I can pat myself on the back for not being a complete hypocrite due to the above statement, I realize that I have a much easier time understanding the motivations behind one of these groups, compared to the other. That has the tendency to make me more sympathetic to their position, if not their actions - but one must be careful to maintain that line of distinction. We all have these innate biases, and it takes work to counteract them.

I suspect you may be experiencing a bit of this as well, when you look at one violent mob with a sympathetic understanding, and regard the other violent mob as a bunch of crazies.

[De Oppresso Liber]

It would be accurate to say that I condemn the actions of both, but can comprehend the motivation behind one group, but not the other.

[jdgalt1]

I also would like that honest discussion, but I don't buy your premises -- not only do I believe that most shootings by police are justified, I also believe that BLM's leadership are in effect brainwashing their recruits by teaching them the malicious nonsense known as Critical Race Theory, which redefines words like "racism" in ways that are malicious lies.

[De Oppresso Liber]

You think Tamir Rice and Daniel Shaver's death were justified?

I am not a fan of critical race theory, nor marxism, nor the BLM organization.

I am talking about what actually motivates individuals to join in on mob violence. I don't think that marxism and critical race theory are going through the minds of the people setting a courthouse on fire or storming a Footlocker. I don't think that most of those people have even been around the core BLM cadre (in as much as that even exists) long enough to be brain washed by marxist theory.

[Minadin]

I think you are looking for logical and reasonable explanations for actions that might not have any. There is an old truism - "You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not arrive at by reason." It's nigh impossible to figure out the motivations of unreasonable people.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/07/10/reason-out/#more-11618

[Diogenes Radar Gun]

Great. Why the hell did those Trump supporters throw the tea into the ocean? Retards. We are so screwed guys. The King is *not* going to be happy about this.

[Diogenes Radar Gun]

If Trump had incited a riot as they say and directed his 100s of thousands of supporters to storm the Capitol, it wouldn’t have ended with 2 dozen people milling around inside and they would still be holding it.

And all of Congress would be dead because he would have directed his supporters to stand at the tunnel exits with guns and the people storming the capitol would have had guns.

If anyone knows how little power the government truly has, it has to be Trump.

[Martinned]

That presumes a level of competence on Trump's side that is entirely inconsistent with what we've seen from him in the last 4 years.

[Jimmy the Dane]

What you are describing would be a "insurrection" or "coup" but what happened was just some good old fashion civil disobedience. Stuff like this happens every semester on college campuses when they take over buildings. The Occupy movement about 10 years ago also used the tactic. It is common because it works. And the left is mad here because not only did it work but it was extremely effective at raising the visibility of the issue.

[Syd Henderson]

One bright spot from yesterday's drama is that we finally found a way to get Trump to stop tweeting.

[CharlieMack]

Trump being banished from social media is not a good thing. You are not forced to read his tweets.

[Jimmy the Dane]

How is the media going to generate content if they can't copy and paste Trump tweets now?

[Brett Bellmore]

The same way they generate anonymous tip: Just pull them out of their asses.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Oh, those tiny, tiny fingers are still pecking away madly . . . but Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook are ignoring the thousands of times he presses 'send.'

Eventually, he, Scavino, and Kayleigh may figure out that he should just use one of the others' accounts.

[CharlieMack]

I believe that if the Tampa Bay Bucs do not win the Super Bowl Tom Brady will retire.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why were so many Capitol Police officers -- the ones who remained to interact with the invaders, at least, distinguished from those who protected the legislators and staff -- such pussies?

Who hired these guys -- Ted Cruz? Andy Harris? Both?

Nancy and Chuck have already started firing the losers; I doubt Ted and Andy will be involved in the hiring process ever again.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So AK cops should beat protesters now? Or should they only use violence against a certain "type" of dissenter? Curious because the Left seems to be thoroughly conflicted right now with their newfound love for the police and crackdowns on protests.

[OtisAH]

Since you’re a jackass there’s little point in explaining except to just put it out there:

We don’t want you beaten and killed like we are. We want to NOT be beaten and killed like you’re not.

[Cal Cetín]

Did Van der Lubbe act alone, or was this part of a vast conspiracy?

We need an Enabling Act.

[bernard11]

So now we have a Capitol Police officer killed by one of the rioters.

Fuck all you people. The blood is on Trump's hands.

[Ben_]

Expect things to continue to escalate as long as Americans are treated like enemies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whatever path you choose, you will lose, you despicable bigot. Be nicer, or your betters might stop being so gracious toward deplorable clingers.

Toe the line, loser, or you will wish fervently that you had.

[Brett Bellmore]

The news reports I've seen say, "due to injuries sustained while on-duty."

That's vague enough that he could have tripped while on duty and hit his head.

Have you seen any reports that specify the nature of the injuries, or how he was injured?

"Fuck all you people. The blood is on Trump’s hands."

By that standard, how many barrels of blood are on the hands of Democrats after last summer's riots? I'm not asking you for a particular standard here, but could you settle on just one, not two?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The Quiet Man was John Ford's and John Wayne's best movie. I dare anyone to disagree.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm certainly not going to disagree. Fantastic movie, me and the wife watch it every year.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I thought you were divorced. Did you finally splurge on a mail-order bride?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Does the Twelfth Amendment or any other part of the constitution give Congress the power to challenge and not count electoral college votes as certified by the state? In The Electoral Count Act, Congress gave themselves that power, by a simple majority of both houses. Was that constitutional? It seems to me that Congress is only empowered to act when no candidate garners a majority of electoral college votes. And the Twelfth Amendment doesn't change that. Unless I'm missing something.

[DeForestDelpech]

I keep hearing the comparison to a "banana republic" but aren't we reall in more like a Weimar Republic situation? A "republic without republicans?" Who and how many are left who really believe in something like the American system - whether in theory or in practice. Just surprised no one brings this up in these types of conversations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_without_republicans

[Queen Amalthea]

You're getting crazier each day dude.

[Ed Grinberg]

I can't tell whether it was a put-up job like the Reichstag fire, but I fully expect a similar response from the "liberals" who now control the presidency and both houses of Congress. Fun times ahead...

[De Oppresso Liber]

Are you saying this was a false flag?

You better have some incontrovertible proof, because it looks pretty damn obvious what happened yesterday.

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you want your President to be non-erudite?

Do you usually find 'bulls in china shops' refreshing? Would you want that in charge of your family business? Your church?

[Queen Amalthea]

'Jawboning' (or rhetorically 'standing up' to things like 'politically correctness') is huge for the base. Also, he pretty much never put forth policy the base would oppose (unless you think the base is 'free trade' or anti-stimulus checks).

The base would be just fine with wars if framed right.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump gave his base a moment's respite -- an opportunity to believe that they are not disaffected, defeated, desperate, downscale, bigoted, superstitious, rural, uneducated, obsolete losers.

Like any successful peddler of shoddy goods, Trump knew his target audience with meticulous precision -- and didn't give a damn about anyone else. The clodhoppers, vestigial bigots, and resentful losers consumed his lies, ugliness, and stupidity with gusto.

[Josh R]

Since the base is most aggrieved by elitists, jawboning is very big to them. The base mistook his childish rants as anti-elitist. To the contrary, Trump is a member of the elite whose rants are the core of his deplorable character.

[grb]

mad_kalak : Actually, he didn’t give his base sh*t.

Wrong. He supplied his base with good ol' knee-slapping WWE-grade entertainment. That's what he was elected for. His base was raised on political entertainment, such as Rush. They grew into news as entertainment, such as Fox. It was time to completely get out the middle-man and get the cartoon directly from the Oval Office itself.

And in terms of that sordid service, Mr. Trump delivered in spades...

[Queen Amalthea]

Could there be a difference between a state capitol and the national capitol? Nah, must be a double standard afoot!

[Queen Amalthea]

"Beijing Biden "

Wow, you're a full on tool now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Legally? Not really. Heck, breaking into and occupying a private home ought to get you brought up on charges.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I love that the Capitol building has become a modern day temple. Is reminds me of the verse in the Constitution, "Washington said unto Abraham Lincoln, 'Sacrifice me your one true Southern'"

[SimonP]

Trump won in 2016 because he ran as a European-style far-right candidate - opposed to immigration and "infiltration" by Muslims/non-white cultures, invested in isolationism and opposed to "establishment" politicians, but apparently supportive of welfare benefits for bona fide Americans (health care, social security, etc.). His campaign was aided by the fact that he switched positions constantly, so his supporters could believe pretty much whatever they wanted to believe about his platform - in the end, people were just voting for some entity called "Trump." He also was running against a candidate that had been the target of decades of Republican attacks and a prolonged series of investigations almost tailor-made to make her look bad. Hillary's campaign, at the same time, failed to apprehend her weaknesses and Trump's strengths, likely fed by now-notorious polling. So, it's not too hard to understand why he won.

And if you voted for him because he would promise to be a "bull in a china shop" - I suppose, in the end, that's what he turned out to be. He's destroyed American global hegemony, replaced establishment politics with traditional cronyism, undermined the rule of law, invited a pandemic and massive cyberattack, hollowed out our administrative agencies of experience and expertise, filling it instead with inexperienced political hacks, stacked the courts with a lot of unqualified judges with a taste for authoritarianism and conservative activism, and just yesterday incited his supporters to invade the Capitol.

I don't know why you, or any American, would want that. But it's definitely what he's always stood for.

[Dr. Ed 2]

🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I enjoy slapping around clingers, and most of this tired right-wing blog consists of (1) repetitive regurgitation of discredited right-wing nuttery and (2) pathetic, repetitive nipping at the ankles of the American mainstream.

[De Oppresso Liber]

He was born into the elite, and took every part of his privilege for granted. He is the worst of the worst among the elite. The ones who don't even have the redemptive quality of at least earning their place themselves.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Don't forget the fraud, vanity, and disloyalty. He's stood for all of that for decades.