Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Massachusetts is poised to pass a very strong pro-choice law, guaranteeing the right to an abortion even in the third trimester in cases where a physician judges that the abortion is necessary for the patient's life, physical health, or mental health. Good for Massachusetts! But I would add another type of circumstance in which the right to get a late-term abortion should be guaranteed: in cases where the patient lives in a state which restricts early abortions and these restrictions have made it difficult for her to get her abortion earlier. If she lives in, say, South Carolina, and was unable to get time off from her two jobs and a sitter to look after the three kids she already has at home and money to pay for transport to a free state and back, all at the same time, that should be reason enough for the free state (or free commonwealth) to guarantee her a late-term abortion, even if her pregnancy is normal and not an unusually great threat to her life or health.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Oops - I left out a phrase; I meant to add after "all at the same time ..." the following: "... until after her pregnancy was already past the first two trimesters (more than 24 weeks)".

[DaivdBehar]

This is one of the problems with utilitarianism. Straight arithmetic advantage says kill the handicapped babies. What people forget is the utilitarian requirement of having lived through the situation. Yes, utility requires the abortionist be a handicapped. Fulfill that, utility has no problem with your genocidal maniac proposal.

As a welfare worker, knowing the dim future of bastards, I would bribe all single mothers to abort. Promise them some dope if they did it. Throw in a week's vacay on the Cape. Guess the race of most targeted babies. Mass would become the biggest mass murder machine of Democrats.

[DaivdBehar]

Welcome to the Biden Depression. No lockdown. Just the Democrat agenda.

[DaivdBehar]

Merick Garland = Putin prosecutin' political opponents

[Ed Grinberg]

True.

[DaivdBehar]

A woke victory.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jul/27/clarence-thomas-drops-teaching-george-washington-u/

[DaivdBehar]

Josh Shapiro crime against humanity. This will leave thousands of patients in severe pain.

https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/ag-shapiro-secures-preliminary-agreement-with-opioid-manufacturer-teva-for-4-25-billion/

[DaivdBehar]

Scumbag lawyers should get the lash. We are sick of this worthless, toxic Mafia. Round them up.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/28/woman-drops-sham-sex-assault-suit-against-bob-dylan-lawyer/?lctg=607d90f2373dd11b6ec10b87

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, this feels almost like the South's behavior on the way to seceding; The pro-abort states are up to something so manifestly evil that, in order to avoid drowning in guilt, they have to keep doubling down on the evil, claiming it's an actual good thing.

What's next, legalizing infanticide in the first month, instead of just tacitly looking the other way for a few hours?

[Nige]

Most people see access to health care as a good thing, but you extremists really view it as some sort of cosmopolitan soul-corrupting spirit-sapping decadent luxury that needs to be as restricted as possible lest the populace gets soft and forgets the good old rugged frontier god-fearin' spirit that built 'Murica.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'll never figure you why you guys want majority-male courts deciding these issues instead of majority-female state electorates.

[Sarcastr0]

Because lot of people are not knee-jerk tokenists.

[Life of Brian]

lot of people are not knee-jerk tokenists

I take it you're excluding the crew that just elevated KBJ based on explicit and gleeful tokenism.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I remember when they said they just picked the first black lady lawyer that came across their view.

Your strawman says a lot about the way you see race, not a lot about the actual criteria under which our newest Justice was selected.

[Life of Brian]

As you well know, the only explicit and non-negotiable criteria were race and something that once was known as gender. They then did the best they felt they could within those constraints. Sorry that makes you so uncomfortable.

[jb]

When you are drawing from a pool broad enough to include everyone plausibly qualified for the Supreme Court it turns out you can put a bunch of filters on the candidate pool and still have a good population of perfectly qualified candidates left over.

[Life of Brian]

Sorry, the "she meets minimum criteria" thread was a few months ago. This one you just barged into is "she wasn't a racial/gender token." Since POTUS explicitly teed her up that way, you folks literally don't have a play here.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure you know how being a token works then, LoB.

You're acting like her being black was the only criteria.

Which, again, says a lot about how you see black people.

[Nige]

Ah, don't go giving him straight lines like that, you know it's exactly what he claims to think.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You're acting like her being black was the only criteria."

Being white wasn't the only criteria for being on the court pre-civil rights era either. So what?

[Life of Brian]

You're acting like her being black was the only criteria.

Not at all. She also had to be (think she was? that day?) a woman.

Which, again, says a lot about how you see black people.

Not at all. But it says volumes about Biden and the rest of the crowd that set the requirements.

[not guilty]

As a candidate for nomination to be president, Joe Biden declared that he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. That demographic preference was baked into the electoral cake, much as was Ronald Reagan's promise decades ago to nominate a woman to SCOTUS. Somehow Biden as president found someone with more impressive judicial credentials than did Reagan.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Because lot of people are not knee-jerk tokenists."

Huh? Alot of people are knee-jerk tokenists when complaining about the courts interfering with women's rights, but ignore the fact that Dobbs ultimately gives more power to women than Roe.

[Nelson]

Yes, taking a decision away from each woman and putting it in the hands of the government totally gives those women more power.

What sort of ass-backward thinking is that?

[Nelson]

Most pro-choice people want a court of one woman to decide: the woman involved. No one else. But now the government is involved.

What could possibly go wrong when the government dictates morality to citizens?

[Jazzizhep]

An unborn baby can feel pain at around 20 weeks. Cutting a viable baby limb by limb a few weeks from birth is soul corrupting. It is utterly barbaric. I can see two sides of most issues. Late term abortions for convenience or “mental health” is not one of them.

If one was broadcast on tv your willful refusal to accept reality would be plain. I used to pity people as heartless as yourself. Now you just disgust me.

[Nelson]

"Cutting a viable baby limb by limb a few weeks from birth is soul corrupting. It is utterly barbaric."

It's also a conservative fantasy. There've been no legal IDX performed in America in over 15 years that weren't medically necessary.

But you keep telling yourself that it's real. Like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

But you may want to seek mental health care for your violent fantasies.

[Jazzizhep]

An unborn baby can feel pain at around 20 weeks. Cutting a viable baby limb by limb a few weeks from birth is soul corrupting. It is utterly barbaric. I can see two sides of most issues. Late term abortions for convenience or “mental health” is not one of them.

If one was broadcast on tv your willful refusal to accept reality would be plain. I used to pity people as heartless as yourself. Now you just disgust me.

Abortion is not healthcare for a vast majority of terminations. It is simply convenience. We all know it. I’m sure your betters will also convince you we are not in a recession and men can get pregnant.

[apedad]

Brett, the United States, i.e., the Good Guys (because History sez so), won in 1865 and the Pro-Choice folks, i.e., also the Good Guys (because History will say so), will also win.

But you're used to being on the losing side so I guess you're immune to that losing feeling.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't quite say I'm used to being on the losing side; The pro-gun movement has been winning for decades now, after all, and freedom of political speech has been doing fairly well, too.

But seriously, you guys have gone from "safe and rare" to "shout your abortion". It really is an amazing progression from defending a regrettable necessity to celebrating the evil as not even regrettable, but a good thing.

I think this IS shaping up to be the next slavery vs abolition fight, but you people don't seem to grasp that you're the ones embracing evil here.

[Nige]

We've noticed your victories come with school massacres, women put at risk and denied health care and books being removed from schools and libraries, so we tend to find your moral compass typically inverted.

[apedad]

"The pro-gun movement has been winning for decades now. . .," sez the guy who complains that Heller was an incomplete decision and that there's been a dearth of Supreme Court cases since 2000.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I was irate about the pace, but we clearly were winning.

[Sarcastr0]

Tiger Blood.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, now more than ever, it will behoove folks like you—folks long accustomed to structural protections for minority rule—to begin to learn a new standard for what, "winning," will mean going forward. Your side confronts an actual majority, one which consented tacitly and passively to your structural majority advantages, so long as certain red lines were not crossed.

You, and Blackman, and no doubt many other members of your minority, apparently suppose that crossing those red lines is occasion to celebrate some kind of Roman Triumph. I doubt that is wise. I expect that what will happen shortly, after the majority takes full stock of the new situation, will astound you all.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Jesus, Lathrop the assumptions made and the arrogance of this post are simply breathtaking.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What assumptions do you think were made?

[Illocust]

You actually believe that don't you? Even though all of human history had us sliding to respecting people's lives in more and more circumstances, you think babies (the things we are hard wired to adore) are going to be the one exception to this progression?

When it happens is up in the air, but eventually abortion advocates will be seen the same way as we currently see the Romans for having regularly left their baby's to die from exposure.

[Nige]

The progress has been in giving women control and freedom over their own reproductive health and better access to contraception, health care and child care. Some people just HATE that.

[Jazzizhep]

Again, women have agency BEFORE they get pregnant. It’s not really that hard to understand.

[Nige]

You can't take away people's agency as punishment for having sex.

[Nelson]

Uh, apparently you can if you believe that your moral beliefs are superior to everyone else's.

While most people would see that as hubris (called pride in the Bible), the unassailable moral supremacy of the anti-abortion forces means they don't need to worry about anyone else's beliefs. When you are as pure and decent and right as they are, it means you're incapable of being wrong.

The fact that over the past 50 years the vast majority of people have rejected their infallible morality just proves how perfect they are.

You can't understand or appreciate their superiority, so you are clearly going to hell. If I get there before you, I'll save you a seat.

[Sarcastr0]

babies?

That's the whole question, tho.

[Illocust]

Think of it like killing animals for food. The further along our technology gets, the more humane we demand to treat our animals. Someday whether I like it or not, creating good animal substitutes is going to become so cheap and common that we are going to outlaw live stock. It's just how humans work. The second something is no longer a necessity, the next generation starts to care about the humanness. It happened with slavery, it happened with infanticide, it has happened in some places with the death penalty, and someday it will happen for eating animals and abortion too.

I'm not gong to speed the process up for eating animals (as I'm a huge fan of beef), but unlike abortion advocates in not going to kid myself that history will look kindly on me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just think how they're going to view our burial practices, the day the first cryonics patient is successfully revived.

[Illocust]

Yeah, that's another good one, where a lot of us are going to end up on the wrong side of history.

[Sarcastr0]

We still kill and eat an ever increasing number of animals, though, so I'm not sure seeing their hummanness is really what you are describing.

[Life of Brian]

The further along our technology gets, the more humane we demand to treat our animals.

In some cases it has nothing to do with technology advances. For example, deer hunting is still ridiculously constrained despite indisputable overpopulation that results in excessive crop, land, and vehicle damage.

[Illocust]

Yep, exactly.

[Nige]

Improved technology has lead to factory farming, which treats millions of animals with grotesque cruelty as a matter of design.

[Jmaie]

"(as I'm a huge fan of beef)"

Is now a good time to discuss whether grade "A" Wagyu is worth the price and whether cooking it to medium is a sacrelidge?

All kidding aside - there's a new British comedy (Chef White's) where the chef had a great line, "A cow is just all the cuts of beef wrapped up in a nice leather pouch."

Hilarious.

Related, "Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh."

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Talking about "sacrelidge," what do you think about gavidge?

I beleive gavidge is very crooel.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“That’s the whole question tho”.

Not in the third trimester it isn’t.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, though not exactly relevant to Illocust's sweeping misunderstanding of the history of meat.

[ReaderY]

I hate to break it to you, but the Good Guys didn’t win the Civil War. It was the anti-choice folks - those Bible-thumping, morality-mongering, animosity-animated abolitionists, who sought to deny citizens didn’t have their basic, fundamental right to choose that the Supreme Court had proclaimed the Constitution guaranteed them - whose views prevailed.

And it’s the very same people. The very rigid, superstititious, morally Neanderthal anti-choice bigots who had destroyed freedom of choice and routed the progressive cause on slavery were the architects of the rash of abortion laws that appeared in the late 19th century. And with the same mindset.

One of the things that strikes me about the abortion debate is just how similar the rhetoric is to the rhetoric on slaavefy. It’s like people studied Calhoun. Religious fundamentalism. Moral superstitition. Rabid intolerance. Inability to accept people with different values. Inability to accept science (the theory of evolution was enthusiastically endorsed by the slavery intelligentsia). If you look at the way proponents of slavery characterized abolitionists, it looks all too familiar. After all, John Calhoun joined the Unitarian church precisely because of its liberal, progressive, tolerant approach to alternative lifestyles like slave owning, whereas those more fundamentalist religions which remained mired in superstition, hate, and bigotry.

Our own Rev. Arthur Kirkland seems to be a big fan of John Calhoun. With allowances for the cultural shifts of a century and a half, he imitates not just his values but his style almost perfectly.

[ReaderY]

Plus the Equal Protection type arguments. The lifestyle is not merely part of their identity it’s essential to their being able to compete as equals. And opposition is obviously, indisputably, motivated not by blind superstition but by open and willful hatred, a desire to keep people down. The argument is the supposed superstition is actually insincere, made up to justify the hate.

[Nige]

Lol you think slave-owners and their supporters weren't anti-choice, Bible-thumping, morality-mongering, animosity-animated etc?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrats lost both those lol

[Don Nico]

There are no good guys.

[Aemon McGarret]

Pretty thin gruel. From a black hole of intelligence.

[Nelson]

"The pro-abort states are up to something so manifestly evil that, in order to avoid drowning in guilt"

The vast majority of Americans don't think abortion is evil, so the vast majority of Americans don't feel guilty about abortion. I know you want them to, but they don't.

[Nige]

It would be a depressing and horrifying irony if right-wing canards about late-term abortions were made a reality through their cruel misogynistic policies.

[Jazzizhep]

I wouldn’t call 7,000 a year a canard. Unless of course you guys want to change the meaning of that word as well.

[Nige]

It's a very small percentage of abortions overall, and usually done for medical reasons.

[Nelson]

IDX is performed for medically necessary reasons. The two most prevalent are failure to thrive (stillbirth) and fetal abnormalities that will result in death before or soon after birth (usually excruciatingly painful conditions without any possibility of survival).

IDX as convenience abortion hasn't happened in this country in many, many years. The last doctor who performed them was murdered by anti-abortion terrorists in the early 90s. There were rumors of someone who did them through the early '00s, but even the rabid wingnuts haven't found a confirmed case in over 15 years.

If you had strong, convincing arguments, you wouldn't have to lie. Especially in such a gruesome way. But you don't, so you have nothing left to do except make up violent fantasies and call people baby killers.

Gee, I wonder why that hasn't worked in the last five decades?

[dwb68]

I am mostly pro right to abortion up to a point, however, I think late term abortions are disgusting and vile. 36 weeks? cmon, thats a baby (my daughter was born at 34 weeks).

Being in favor of late term abortion is far to the left of most everyone in the country, and also Europe.

I know, the far left commenters think otherwise. But they also called inflation transitory last year and denied government spending had anything to do with inflation. These are also the far left people who think that the answer to inflation is another big government spending package on Climate and other nonsense.

[DaivdBehar]

It takes a speciial doctor to chop and slice a big fat baby in the womb. That dude needs to be taken out by anybody righteous .

[Nelson]

"I am mostly pro right to abortion up to a point, however, I think late term abortions are disgusting and vile."

Most people agree with you. I'm one of them. Historically, less than 10% of people support unrestricted abortion. The vast majority of the choice side, given the four standard choices (illegal, mostly illegal, mostly legal, or completely legal) choose mostly legal. The same is true of the restrictive side, with the vast majority favoring mostly illegal.

Most polls have follow up questions for the "mostly" folks. Basically pro-life tops out at the end of the first trimester or 15 weeks (depending on if the poll asks trimesters or weeks) and pro-choice people top out at the second trimeater or 25 weeks. Virtually no one supports third-trimester abortions unless medically necessary.

Hopefully it eases your concerns that your position matches the plurality of Americans. Between the mostly legal and mostly illegal positions, 76% of Americans, plus or minus a point or two depending on the year, reject the extremists.

"I know, the far left commenters think otherwise. But they also called inflation transitory last year and denied government spending had anything to do with inflation. These are also the far left people who think that the answer to inflation is another big government spending package on Climate and other nonsense."

That's because the left is as delusional about economics as the right is about culture. Their willingness to believe in a free lunch in the face of economic reality is catastrophic. It wouldn't have gotten so bad if the right didn't have their own version of "deficits don't matter" thinking called supply-side economics.

We haven't had a balanced budget since Clinton was President. For over 20 years the way conservatives and liberals have "negotiated" on fiscal discipline is to let the majority party run up deficits if they let the minority party get theirs. Two groups in a room together, both willing to borrow against the future, is a recipe for fiscal disaster. When the sequester is the most responsible fiscal period since the end of the 1990s, you know things are truly fucked up.

Is it too much to ask to start with a balanced budget? We need to cut spending significantly but, like the saying goes, when you're in a hole the first step is to stop digging. How fucking hard is that? Seriously. Can we at least start with the first step? Sometime in my lifetime? Is that too much to ask?

And anyone who thinks that more spending won't increase inflation is an idiot or delusional. We kept easy money for too long. The only way to slow inflation smoothly and gradually is to invent a time machine, go back 2-3 years, and start raising the prime rate slowly. At this point the only way to do it is to slam on the brakes, which is what they finally did. But that leads to a recession.

Which is where we are no matter how much dumbass spin the White House puts out. Grow up. We're in a recession. Acknowledge it, deal with it, and move forward. You already did the hard part. If you just act like fucking adults we'll be past this in another 12-18 months. Idiots. Fuck your Build Back Better.

[PaulS]

Is there a requirement that the fetus/baby should be delivered alive if it is possible? Should there be?

[Bwaaah]

ewwwww.

[Nelson]

No. And the vast majority of abortions (I think as much as 90%) are done with two pills. Everything gets flushed out, similar to normal menstruation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

She can already travel to DC, which is closer, and get an abortion in the third trimester there for any reason she wants.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, once medical examination has determined that a late-term pregnancy will result in either a still birth or a baby born brain dead, should third-term abortion still be banned in such cases? There are not many such cases. There are not many clinics which will take such cases. Should that clinic number be reduced from single digits to zero?

[Armchair Lawyer]

As noted above, there are multiple clinics who will happily take such a case, whether the child is brain dead at 39 weeks or perfectly healthy and the next MLK Jr. in DC, NJ, NM, and other states. They're happy to kill off such a child in full accordance with their state laws.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, I suspect you are mistaken. The fact situation I mentioned was an example from real life. It involved a woman whose baby suffered a massive stroke very late in pregnancy. It was certain that it would be born dead or brain dead. She lived in Massachusetts, sought an abortion at Massachusetts General Hospital, and was turned away.

Her subsequent search turned up fewer than 10 clinics nationwide who were even said to be willing to do such a procedure. That all occurred before Dobbs.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Take a look at the laws.

You can get an abortion in DC at any time before the baby is actually out and breathing on its own. 39 weeks....even 40 weeks if the baby is still in the womb,

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Funny how you never actually cite the laws you claim exist.

[I Callahan]

https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/?state=DC

Armchair is 100% correct. No restrictions whatsoever. Time for a mea culpa?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed. Moreover I have repeatedly cited the laws in the past.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Whatever the laws may be, their practical effects are what must be lived with. The laws tell you nothing about the extent of services actually available to deal with late-term emergencies.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What would I need to apologize for? He's generally full of shit and practically never actually cites the laws he bitches about.

Did he cite any law? Nope.

[jb]

It turns out that "legal" and "available" are actually different. It would be very hard to find a doctor to perform an abortion on a viable fetus "just because" even if it's legal to do so on certain jurisdictions. This is (part of the reason) why late term abortions are very rare.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Very hard"?

Here's what a simple google search popped up.

https://dupontclinic.com/services/abortion-after-26-weeks/

[Nelson]

And how many unnecessary procedures have they actually performed?

At least anti-avortionists are consistent. They insist the potential for life in the future means a fetus is a person today. And the potential for a third-trimester means that it happens.

They're dishonest and don't require proof that their beliefs are true, but that doesn't stop them.from insisting everyone else live in their fantasy world.

[Nelson]

Since the early 2000s, no doctor has perfomed a medically unnecessary IDX. It doesn't happen.

As noted, there are only a handful of doctors who will perform a medically necessary IDX. Probably because the last doctor who was known to perform third trimester abortions was murdered by anti-abortion terrorists in the 90s.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If it’s determined that the baby has died or will do so soon, the best thing for the mother’s health (assuming she’s not compromised) is to induce labor and deliver the baby.

I have a sister in law who had her firstborn die en utero about six weeks short of her due date. They induced her. In that situation, the baby and its support system has become so large that delivery is the safest way to make sure you get everything out.

[DaveM]

If your concept of "freedom" demands that you must be able to legally kill another person on a whim, you are not free, you are a prisoner.

[Randal]

This is one of the ways in which anti-abortionists are sick. They think people have abortions for fun. What a disgusting psychopath you are.

[DaveM]

Food for thought: it's not psychopaths who want the "freedom" to kill people.

[Sarcastr0]

You're assuming both that it's not freedom and that fetuses are people.

Yes, you can prove a great deal by assuming your thesis is correct and continuing from there. But it doesn't really provide much insight.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Legally it isn't a person.

Beyond that, your statement is in fact just as stupid as it appears upon first reading.

[DaveM]

"Legally it isn't a person."

The same was said of both slaves and Jews in the not-so-distant past. Think about it.

[Sarcastr0]

The same has also been said of cows.

You continue to beg the question.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Not long ago, Judge Lynn Hughes (Southern District of Texas) dismissed an indictment while observing to the female prosecutor that " “It was lot simpler when you guys wore dark suits, white shirts and navy ties.... We didn’t let girls do it in the old days.” Unsurprisingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed and ordered the case reassigned to a different judge.

In the prosecutor's next hearing before Judge Hughes (in a different, unrelated case) he ordered her to leave his courtroom and told her she was not permitted to appear in front of him again. He refused to explain why to the prosecutor, but after the U.S. Attorney got involved, he admitted that it was in response to the USAO telling the Fifth Circuit about his comments.

Just as unsurprisingly, the Fifth Circuit also reversed that order. As Judge Ho noted:

It is apparent from the transcript of the proceedings that the district judge believes he has been falsely accused of discriminating against the AUSA based on her sex. But be that as it may, it’s hard to imagine a less persuasive way for a judge to rebut the charge that he discriminated against a female attorney than by expelling her from his courtroom—not just in one case, but in every case that she may bring for the rest of her career.

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-20270-CR0.pdf

My question: Is there any reason why Congress should let Judge Hughes continue to have a courtroom at all?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

He suffers from gender-anxiety issues, because of having grown up with the name "Lynn". A girl's name! This guy understood:

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

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nope. If everything is as it appears, the Dems should commence impeachment hearings.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would tend to agree.

[ducksalad]

No.

[David Nieporent]

Forget about that; Hughes is notorious. When you read about some insane thing that a Texas federal judge has done, your first guess should always be Lynn Hughes.

There are (multiple!) cases where he simply told the plaintiff that the plaintiff couldn't conduct discovery, and then granted summary judgment to the defendant. Multiple cases that we know of, because they were appealed to the 5th circuit. Cases that weren't might have slipped under the radar.

[Randal]

Whatever we do, let's totally ignore the Jan 6 hearings!

Whether pseudonymous filings get dismissed after being unsealed on appeal in cases in involving libel against divorced federal contractors is obviously the most critical legal development of our time.

[Kazinski]

That’s what EV is working on now, if he dropped everything and posted on what he thinks is most important topically you’d be screaming for him to go back to academic posts and leave current events to the usual idiots.

[Randal]

Some of us can walk and chew gum.

[Kazinski]

But I do hope the Jan 6 hearings wrap up soon, not that I’ve been watching them ( I live off the grid in the summertime so I couldn’t waste my time even if I wanted to).

I’m hoping once they wrap up that Liz Cheney can “move” back to Virginia and resume her real life (she had to pay a 220$ fine in 2014 for falsely claiming to be a Wyoming resident).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Odd that you'd declare them a waste of time without seeing, hearing, or reading anything about them.

How is it that being 'off the grid' you manage to post here? You realize that the hearings have been on youtube, right?

Why not just admit that you aren't interested in the truth of what led up to Jan 6th?

[I Callahan]

I'm interested in the WHOLE truth, NOT just 1/2 of it. Name me a single witness or member of the committee who's defended Trump in any way.

[Nige]

I'm sure they would have defended him, only you get prosecuted for lying under oath.

[bernard11]

Name me any of Trump's defenders who are willing to testify.

[bevis the lumberjack]

They could have done like the Watergate Committee and had opposing counsel to cross examine witnesses. That would have helped credibility a ton.

And if you’re going to answer that everyone has already made up their mind, then why bother with the hearings at all?

[bernard11]

They could have done like the Watergate Committee and had opposing counsel to cross examine witnesses. That would have helped credibility a ton.

And if Republicans had wanted a presence on the committee beyond Kinzinger and Cheney they could have had one. They didn't. They wanted to put a couple of saboteurs on, and whn tey couldn't they went off and pouted.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The commission has uncovered facts by investigating documents and obtaining the testimony of those who aren’t cowards.

Several people close to Trump have chosen to testify, while others have decided to shit on the rule of law and ignored valid subpoenas.

If Trump needs to defend himself from the facts, then he’s welcome to testify. In fact, there is a standing invitation for him to do so.

The truth is: you aren’t interested in the truth.

[David Nieporent]

I'll bet there weren't many 9/11 commission members or witnesses who defended Osama Bin Laden; does that mean that the exercise was unfair and biased?

[Kazinski]

Well now I didn't say I hadn't read anything about them, but I don't watch TV, or YouTube, but I hardly think I'm the worst for it.

I would like more information about who incited the riot, we know about Trump's speech which did fire up the crowd.

Trump used "Fight", about 20 times in his speech, including 5 times in one paragraph:
"The American people do not believe the corrupt, fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they'd argue with me. I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight. Pop pop. You'd believe me, you'd believe them. Somebody comes out. You know, they had their point of view, I had my point of view, but you'd have an argument."

But I'd also like an investigation into whether an FBI sting got out of hand, was the FBI instigating unlawful acts like they did with the Whitmer kidnapping?

I'd like a full investigation to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[David Nieporent]

That's rather dishonest of you. She had moved to Wyoming — bought a house there and everything — and applied for a fishing license. She had to pay a fine because she said she was a resident, but you had to have lived there for a full 365 days to claim that for a fishing license.

[I Callahan]

The most one-sided, biased, banana-republic type committee the US has ever experienced. These people make Joe McCarthy sound like Bernie Sanders. The fact that ANYONE puts any stock into this utter farce is a testament to the rampant stupidity that exists in our country today.

You wanted to talk about it - let's talk.

[Randal]

I'm trying to think of anything anybody's said that makes Joe McCarthy sound like Bernie Sanders but I'm coming up short. Examples?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I guarantee you haven't watched a single hearing. You're a Trump ass-licker through and through.

And he'd shove your ass in front of a train in the blink of an eye if he thought it would earn him one tenth of one more percentage point in a popularity poll, and you're too stupid to realize it and too indoctrinated to care.

[Nelson]

"The most one-sided, biased, banana-republic type committee the US has ever experienced."

The Benghazi hearings were years ago. Why would you want to talk about them now?

Granted if I were a conservative I would be ashamed of that kangeroo court, too. But you should just leave it in the past and try to be better in the future.

[Kazinski]

I see Joe Manchin has finally caved on a budget deal that will raise taxes , “invest” money on climate change and the ACA, and provide a very modest 30 billion a year in deficit reduction.

I’m not going to totally trash the deal, obviously the spending is going to add to inflation, and the tax increase probably will to, but the tax increases will probably push us into a deeper recession which will help wring out our massive inflation mess.

The federal reserve hiked rates another .75% today which is where the real action is, late is better than never, although 3 successive.25 increases a year ago probably would have been more effective and might have kept us out of the recession that inflation and two .75 successive rate increases are pushing us into now.

I don’t thing Milton Friedman is looking down smiling now, he’s shaking his head sadly and saying “I told you so”.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Technically speaking, tax increases typically reduce inflation, by removing money from the economy.

[Brett Bellmore]

In practice, unless you have some sort of spending discipline, (In which case you wouldn't be running the deficits in the first place.) tax increases just result in the same level of deficit spending with a larger fraction of the economy consumed by government.

So, while they might reduce inflation if spending were held constant, in the real world they don't do bupkis to reduce it, because spending isn't held constant.

[Armchair Lawyer]

As I said. Technically speaking, tax increases reduce inflation. Spending increases increase inflation. If they two "match", there's no change.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure that's really true, because if they match, but both go up, it represents a reduction in the fraction of the economy that isn't the government. That might itself have some effect on prices.

Felt inflation is the change in the ratio between the money you need to spend to keep your standard of living unchanged, and the amount of money you have available to spend. Raising taxes reduces that latter, without reducing the former, so it will have the same effect on people in the private sector as inflation would: They become poorer.

[bernard11]

That makes no sense. You are looking only at one side of the picture.

If the government raises taxes by $100, and then spends the $100, that money flows back to people. So no, on average they are not poorer.

There is redistribution, certainly, and you may or may not like that, or you may not believe that there could possibly be some benefit from the spending, but that's ideology, not logic.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Depends how the government spends the money, and the efficiency of the spending.

To a first approximation, if the government taxes people at $100 and gives people $100, there's no net change in inflation.

To a second approximation, if the government taxes people $100 and gives people back $100 a year later (ie withholding a tax refunds), that acts to make people poorer and as a deflationary action. It's an interest free loan for the government.

To a third approximation, the government taxes people then makes then engage in substantial labor to get your money back (The IRS estimates 13 hours). Those that don't or don't do it thoroughly (or pay for it) lose money

To give an example, imagine if you were taxed $10 a year. If you wanted a rebate on that, you would need to fill out paperwork that would cost you 4 hours of your time. Would you do it?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Paragraph 1:
You're arguing secondary effects. That's a different category than primary effects, worth discussing, but noting as secondary.

Paragraph 2: "feeling poorer" ( a real thing, no doubt), is different from inflation.

[Kazinski]

Tax increases can be both inflationary, and deflationary. Inflationary because they are passed on whenever they can be to raise prices. Deflationary because they take money out of the economy.

It's also a factor whether they are used for deficit reduction or new spending, most of the tax increase will fund new spending.

[bernard11]

What do you think Milton Friedman told us?

[Kazinski]

Inflation is primarily a monetary phenomenon.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Major Questions Doctrine = SCOTUS FOMO

Discuss.

Perhaps more to the point, notice that right wingers try to impose the notion that every federal power must have a limit to stop it short of completing its objective. Otherwise there is no way to show that federal powers are limited.

[Kazinski]

Yep, I think you are on to something. Right Wingers imposed that notion quite a while ago:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, what makes you think that means that any legitimately delegated power is limited short of full efficacy? What you quote is about which powers, not about how far they reach.

The conservative Court has for a long time now been working toward an out-and-out demand that no power can be fully be fully effective, lest that make the federal government too strong.

[Brett Bellmore]

What you mean by "fully effective" is basically just letting the government do anything it claims is necessary to achieve a goal. But, remember, it's "necessary AND proper", not just "necessary"; Some powers the government might find convenient in pursuing its goals are improper for it to exercise.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, as usual, your repeated misunderstanding of, "Proper," in the Necessary and Proper clause is noted. You know what it actually meant at the time of the founding? John Marshall went into it at length. The summary: it actually means, "fully effective." It has nothing to do with limitations on government—as Marshall said in so many words.

On the flip side, an, "Improper," means, in American constitutionalism, is one which lacks power to complete the legitimate end the government undertakes.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It actually meant a legitimate exercise of power within the scope of the Constitution.

Maybe you need to re-read McCulloch v. Maryland.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cavanaugh, you conflate Marshall on ends with Marshall on means. It is you who need to re-read McCulloch. Here is Marshall's entire disentanglement of the two, with specific reference to the Necessary and Proper Clause:

The clause is placed among the powers of congress, not among the limitations on those powers. 2d. Its terms purport to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted. No reason has been, or can be assigned, for thus concealing an intention to narrow the discretion of the national legislature, under words which purport to enlarge it. The framers of the constitution wished its adoption, and well knew that it would be endangered by its strength, not by its weakness. Had they been capable of using language which would convey to the eye one idea, and, after deep reflection, impress on the mind, another, they would rather have disguised the grant of power, than its limitation. If, then, their intention had been, by this clause, to restrain the free use of means which might otherwise have been implied, that intention would have been inserted in another place, and would have been expressed in terms resembling these. 'In carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all others,' &c., 'no laws shall be passed but such as are necessary and proper.' Had the intention been to make this clause restrictive, it would unquestionably have been so in form as well as in effect.

The result of the most careful and attentive consideration bestowed upon this clause is, that if it does not enlarge, it cannot be construed to restrain the powers of congress, or to impair the right of the legislature to exercise its best judgment in the selection of measures to carry into execution the constitutional powers of the government. If no other motive for its insertion can be suggested, a sufficient one is found in the desire to remove all doubts respecting the right to legislate on that vast mass of incidental powers which must be involved in the constitution, if that instrument be not a splendid bauble.

We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.

Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the constitution; or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land. But where the law is not prohibited, and is really calculated to effect any of the objects entrusted to the government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity, would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department, and to tread on legislative ground. This court disclaims all pretensions to such a power.

For bonus corroboration, both Hamilton and Madison made essentially identical assertions in the Federalist Papers. Here is Madison in Federalist 41:

No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included.

You can look up Hamilton for yourself. It is essentially identical.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

“ Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

It’s odd that your interpretation cannot be found easily with a search, and yet mine and Brett’s can.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cavanaugh — It is odd indeed that you have the nerve to seize on a simple-minded distortion right beneath the text which debunks it at length.

You and Bellmore assert that the Necessary and Proper Clause is a limitation on the power of congress. Marshall said the opposite, in so many words, right above your remark. Didn't you read what he wrote? Are you discounting to zero everything except that little shred you hope someone will be fooled into thinking means something Marshall could not possibly have intended, without making nonsense out of everything else he said?

I quoted at length in an obviously vain hope that doing so would deter your kind of nonsense. Oh, well. Bystanders can read the whole thing, and decide for themselves.

[David Nieporent]

1) That's not even remotely what Marshall said. (Indeed, his verbal excursion wasn't into the definition of "proper," but rather "necessary.")

2) Weird that you're quoting something that was written 30 years after the ratification of Constitution for the meaning of the Constitution, given your normal expressed disdain for that practice.

[Randal]

There's a difference between looking for a word's definition vs. looking for an interpretation of the Constitution. We should use the definitions of the words as they existed at the time. Marshall is certainly closer in time than we are.

The question is the definition of "Proper" as used in "Necessary & Proper." "Sufficient" seems plausible... "Necessary & Sufficient" is a modern idiom, maybe it started as "Necessary & Proper" before the definition of "proper" shifted towards its modern meaning?

[Kazinski]

Good god, where did you learn linguistics?

Sufficient is not now nor ever has been a synonym of 'proper'.

From Webster's 1828 dictionary, which isn't markedly different from Johnson's dictionary:

"1. Peculiar; naturally or essentially belonging to a person or thing; not common. That is not proper which is common to many. Every animal has his proper instincts and inclinations, appetites and habits. Every muscle and vessel of the body has its proper office. Every art has it proper rules. Creation is the proper work of an Almighty Being.

2. Particularly suited to. Every animal lives in his proper element.

3. One's own. It may be joined with any possessive pronoun; as our proper son.

Our proper conceptions.

Now learn the difference at your proper cost."

You just don't pick out a word you wish it meant instead, and say: "that's plausible".

Not if you want to be taken seriously.

[Randal]

Haha, tricked you into becoming my research assistant!

Oddly, none of those definitions are what you want "Proper" to mean in "Necessary & Proper" either... nowhere does it suggest "proper" to work as a limitation. Quite the opposite: "proper" in the olden days seems to connote special abilities.

If you take these definitions and apply them to a "means" being "proper" to its "ends," it becomes very clear. The Necessary & Proper clause empowers Congress to use whatever means, as long as they are necessary (which we know) and narrowly tailored as we might say today. Congress can't take a shotgun approach and justify some measure as technically necessary for achieving a legitimate end, if it also achieves all kinds of illegitimate purposes too, which would make it "common" to many "ends." You can only use those means that are "particularly suited" to achieving your legitimate ends.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, to this day British English uses a meaning which colonial English used commonly in the founding era. A reference could be made, for instance, to a proper blacksmith shop. That means a shop adequately equipped to get done the work of a blacksmith.

John Marshall actually invokes that meaning specifically, with a clause which often goes unnoticed or misinterpreted. I quoted it above, but you overlooked it.

Marshall said, "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, . . . etc," [my boldface]. That is Marshall's own explanatory paraphrase of the meaning of, "Proper," as he is using the word.

If you have any doubt that is the right way to interpret that specific reference, then refer back to the only other possibility—which is that the boldfaced meaning above, whatever it is, refers to what follows: "which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, etc." Problem is, if you interpret that to explain the intended meaning, you make the intended meaning a limitation on the power of congress. Then you have Marshall contradicting himself at least twice, when he insists that the Necessary and Proper Clause is not to be counted among limitations on the powers of congress.

So to keep Marshall consistent with Marshall, you have to give the entire Necessary and Proper Clause what is, after all, a commonplace meaning in use at the time, quite close to, "Necessary and Sufficient,"— with, "Sufficient," taken as an equivalent of, in Marshall's own words, "plainly adapted to that end," just as Randal explained to you.

Hope that helps.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, note that Marshall develops at length exactly the ideas uttered by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. There is nothing historically untoward about noticing that, and citing it.

Your first point misunderstands which remarks Marshall directs toward means, and which toward ends. Some of Marshall's text is unambiguous however:

The result of the most careful and attentive consideration bestowed upon this clause is, that if it does not enlarge, it cannot be construed to restrain the powers of congress, or to impair the right of the legislature to exercise its best judgment in the selection of measures to carry into execution the constitutional powers of the government.

"Measures to carry into execution," are means, not ends.

Likewise:

But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people.

See? It's explicit. Marshall repeats himself with, "carried into execution." Means, not ends are his subject there. By contrast, "The high duties assigned to it," is a reference to the ends which congress may legitimately pursue. It is those which the court enjoys power to review and set aside.

Thus:

Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the constitution; or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.

What that says, in so many words, is that means used by congress may be set aside if they are used, ". . . for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government." "Objects," as used there, are ends, not means; in this case they are hypothetical illegitimate ends. That is a case distinguished by Marshall from means used for legitimate ends. Thus, it does not even imply that means used to accomplish constitutionally legitimate ends can be set aside by the court. Lest that not be clear enough, Marshall wrote:

But where the law is not prohibited, and is really calculated to effect any of the objects entrusted to the government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity, would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department, and to tread on legislative ground. This court disclaims all pretensions to such a power.

Nieporent, as a libertarian with an eye to limiting government power you have no friend in John Marshall. I can understand why you do not like to hear restated what Marshall said plainly enough that no restatement should be necessary. But it is unwise for you to insist that Marshall's views were notably akin to your own libertarianism. You and Marshall could scarcely be farther apart.

[Randal]

I don't think you guys even disagree.

An end (or goal) (or object) (or duties) must be explicitly licensed by the Constitution. Otherwise it's an "object not entrusted to the government."

But any means (or measures) (or ways) may be employed towards such an end. The means don't need to be enumerated powers - as long as they're not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Randal, at least I do not disagree with you. That is succinct and well put.

[Kazinski]

Stephen, 4th grade civics should have provided you with an answer, our whole system is predicated on checks and balances.

No branch of government let alone the unelected bureaucracy should be entitled to "full efficacy" as you put it, or "absolute power" as others have called it.

Making sure the trains run on time shouldn't be the highest priority in a democracy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, you are a right winger who opposes American constitutionalism as it has been understood since the earliest days of the American republic. You are free to do so. But when you try to substitute your preferred alternative, and suggest it should have been taught as the real thing, that is ridiculous.

You are more loyal to your ideology than you are to the American constitution. My guess is that you learned that ideology some time later than 4th grade. Whoever taught you to substitute that ideology for actual American constitutionalism did you no favor.

[Randal]

Of course, the Major Questions Doctrine is incredibly stupid. It is certainly an example, the best example, of SCOTUS inviting itself to make policy. A policy is a Major Question when SCOTUS doesn't like the implications, and that is sufficient to overturn the policy? Ridiculous

The statutory construction rules work just as well for any "size" of question. Let's stick to the text, guys.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Randal, indeed. As I noted elsewhere, the Major Questions Doctrine is SCOTUS FOMO. You comment explains what I meant.

[Kazinski]

As I think about it Stephen, you are doing yourself a real disservice trying to repurpose a phrase like "full efficacy" which is mostly used in a drug and medicine context, as opposed to a legal or governing principle where it has no resonance or provenance.

Maybe the phrase you are looking for is "Thorough" as a govermental philosophy of maximal efficiency in government operations. Lord Stratford is identified as the foremost proponent of Thorough first as Lord Deputy of Ireland where he doubled the Crowns Revenues, and then as Charles I chief advisor.

Unfortunately Stratford was too Thorough, and Parliament executed Stratford via a Bill of Attainder, and of course Charles I was executed later by Cromwell.

But still Encyclopedia Britannica says of him:
"a vision of benevolent authoritarian government and efficient administration to which he often gave persuasive expression."

He'd definitely approve of your full efficacy concept.

[apedad]

Foreign Countries That Own the Most U.S. Land

In an interview earlier this year, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa warned that foreign buyers were snatching up prime U.S. farmland in an effort to “dominate food production.” Grassley specifically mentioned China in his call for more oversight of foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural production.

But how much U.S. land is actually owned by investors from countries with often adversarial or choppy relations with the U.S.? The answer is: not many.

Nearly 55% of all foreign-owned land parcels in the U.S. are owned by interests from just six countries, all of which are close U.S. allies like the Netherlands, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

Canadian investors lead this pack, by a long shot, with nearly 9.4 million acres of U.S. land — more acreage than 44 of the top 50 foreign landowners combined, according to the report.

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/07/22/foreign-countries-that-own-the-most-u-s-land/

Interesting how much foreign influence there is/isn’t in the US. We talk about property rights often but don’t usually address ownership – and especially foreign ownership.

[apedad]

And a related issue:

Expropriate China-Owned Farmland in America

Chinese food processing company, Fufeng Group of Shandong province, wants to build a corn milling plant near Grand Forks Air Force Base, which houses sensitive communication facilities, "the backbone of all U.S. military communications across the globe."

Fufeng should never have been allowed to buy land so close to a critical U.S. military facility. The company's purchase highlights the failure of the U.S. foreign policy community, the Defense Department, and the Biden administration to protect America from an obvious threat posed by a regime that has repeatedly declared the U.S. to be its enemy.

Fufeng plans to build a $700 million processing plant on 300 acres it purchased this year in North Dakota for $2.6 million. The man who sold the land does not see why there is such a fuss. "How would they gain any knowledge of the base?" asked Gary Bridgeford. "It's about 12 miles away. It isn't like it's next door."

But the Chinese plant does not have to abut the Grand Forks base to be a national security threat. An Air Force major circulated a memo in April pointing out that the proposed plant, in the words of CNBC, "is located on a narrow geographic footprint at which passive receiving equipment could intercept sensitive drone and space-based communications to and from the base."

Fufeng dismisses the concerns. "We're under U.S. law, I'm an American citizen, I grew up my whole life here, and I am not going to be doing any type of espionage activities or be associated with a company that does, and I know my team feels the exact same way," said Eric Chutorash, the chief operating officer of Fufeng USA, Fufeng's U.S. subsidiary.

https://www.newsweek.com/expropriate-china-owned-farmland-america-opinion-1727453

[Commenter_XY]

This was a miss by the NSA, FBI and DOJ, quite honestly. When the CCP center is built, you can be sure they'll be using Huawei equipment. Does anyone seriously think otherwise?

I am not a fan of expropriation. That is theft. Can't do that.

However, local entities can (and often do) use zoning laws and restrictions very effectively to, how shall I say, incentivize (I like that word) the current owner (CCP entity by another name) to sell the property (for a nominal gain) and move elsewhere...preferably out of my country.

I don't have any animus toward the American who sold them the property; people can and do make mistakes...and selling the land this close to the base to a CCP entity was a mistake.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean, we literally just caught China doing the same thing in DC:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/23/politics/fbi-investigation-huawei-china-defense-department-communications-nuclear/index.html

I don't think it's unreasonable to exercise a certain level of scrutiny over this sort of thing.

(This isn't even really a criticism of China - I hope our government is trying to find ways to do the same thing in e.g. Beijing and Moscow. But I don't think we need to pretend it's the something as Maersk building a new container terminal or whatever.)

[Nige]

Be interesting to do a comparison with how much foreign land is owned by the US or US citizens or US corporations.

[Michael P]

It's pretty dumb to do that analysis without considering which foreign countries are effectively totalitarian. China in particular expects all of its citizens to support its military and industrial espionage efforts (as well as other government activities).

[Krayt]

Pretty much. Totalitarian vs. Free west are not an apples to apples comparison.

It's like saying the bank robbers holding a bank hostage and police both get the same moral equivalent to spy on each other.

[John F. Carr]

If I were a foreign government working to secretly buy up American land I would have helpful Americans form corporations, partnerships, or LLCs to conceal ownership. I don't want a repeat of the headlines "Japanese buy Rockefeller Center!"

[apedad]

Trump-backed Maryland candidate won via ‘collusion’ with Democrats, Hogan says

Dan Cox, the Trump-backed candidate who won the GOP nomination for Maryland’s governor on Tuesday, secured his primary election victory through “collusion between Trump and the Democrats,” according to Gov. Larry Hogan.

Hogan, a centrist Republican, lamented Cox’s victory as a “win for the Democrats,” arguing the Left threw its support behind the state delegate in the primary election because he was viewed as the Republican less likely to beat the Democratic nominee in November. Cox’s win also handed a victory to former President Donald Trump in a primary contest that became a proxy war with Hogan, who is retiring as governor after this term and is contemplating a 2024 presidential run.

“It was kind of unprecedented collusion between the Democratic Governors Association and Donald Trump,” Hogan said on ABC’s This Week. “It’s a big loss for the Republican Party, and we have no chance of saving that governor seat. We actually had a chance if they hadn’t gotten together and done that.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/trump-backed-candidate-maryland-won-through-collusion-with-democrats

HA!

[defaultdotxbe]

I wouldn't call it collusion, its two groups independently pursuing the same short-term goal, with expectations of different long-term outcomes.

[Don Nico]

I would call it a consequence of the devolution of American democracy from the time when people had to be a member of a party of a couple of years before being able to vote in a party primary.
So now we just have cheap tricks such as this one and the even worse "jungle primary" in CA, the purpose of which is to guarantee a 1-party state government

[dwb68]

35 Days after Bruen, Maryland has issued thousands of post-Bruen handgun permits. This is in a state that only issued (maybe) 25,000 to pre-Bruen. Yes, mine is on the way (should have it Saturday or Monday). Permit apps are up about 1100% year over year. This will increase, training is a bottleneck now. Trainers are booked until Oct. Also a lot of people were waiting to see what the process looked like.

Maryland has ditched the reference calls etc and employer checks except in cases where there were questionable items. For example, a few people answered yes to the "Are you currently, or have you ever been, addicted to alcohol; or, are you currently being treated for alcoholism?" and also to the question about being denied a permit ("Has your handgun permit, license, certification, or registration in Maryland or any other state or jurisdiction ever been
denied, suspended, revoked, or terminated?"). On the permit question, some people answered yes because they were denied years ago because they did not meet G&S, or because they sent bad prints to Florida. Neither is a disqualifying type of denial, but answering yes will prompt a call.

Two theories on why the Maryland State Police got the Bruen message and has become so efficient at processing apps. First, they got the "no discretion" message. Or, in an era of defund the police, they hate and disagree with the Democrats in this state. I think that the average trooper would be rather be out catching actual criminals (Maryland has a lot) rather than processing paperwork on law abiding citizens. "We cant help you so I dont blame you for wanting to defend yourself." Ergo they get the apps processed as efficiently as possible. Which they are doing at incredible speed.

I checked out my window. No blood in streets. yet.

Et tu, got permit?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Assume the phrase:

The Federals were so good at solving X, I want to grant them extra power of me to also solve the problem of Y.

We see the bootlickers plugin "Climate Change", "Healthcare", "Racism", "White People" and other things into Y every day.

But what are they using for X?

[Michael P]

Health care for veterans? Reducing the poverty rate? Collecting income tax?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think the VA is something that should be modeled? The poverty rate has been in tight band for 70 years, and that's after 70 years of intervention and trillions of dollars spent. That's a success to you?

Aren't the Federals trying to get $80B to the IRS to improve tax collection? If they're so good at collecting taxes, why do they need $80B to improve it?

[dwb68]

I am not giving the IRS or some third party data collection company my selfie to log in to my own damn IRS account. I am sure as hell not in favor of a whole 80 billion for the IRS to flush down the toilet and screw up taxpayer privacy even more.

[bernard11]

So you favor tax evasion?

Because that's what's going on. In massive amounts.

[Nige]

They support RICH people's tax evasion.

[Krayt]

The amount Walmart saves the American people in cost reductions, and low incomes love it there, annually greatly exceeds federal expenditures on the poor. Walmart annual savings exceeded $200 billion 20 years ago.

[bernard11]

Cite, please?

And how much damage has WalMart done to small retail businesses?

All I'm saying is that if you are going to evaluate the impact of WalMart we need to include negatives as well as positives.

[Krayt]

Why start now? This has been going on for 200 years.

[rsteinmetz]

The small retail businesses Walmart affects are generally marginal business or are in rural areas where they are the only ones around and offer limited products.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Let's pretend that you aren't actually full of shit:

So you're saying those businesses just don't matter?

[Life of Brian]

So you're saying those businesses just don't matter?

Matter to whom?

The owners? Certainly. But competitive markets don't guarantee ongoing security for incumbent businesses that can't or won't compete on what matter most to consumers.

The consumers? On balance, apparently not (at the prices they charged, anyway), or they'd still be shopping there instead of Walmart.

[Michael P]

No. I was being sarcastic as to all three. For example, we have spent trillions in the "War on Poverty" and the poverty rate is essentially unchanged.

[Nige]

It's not really a question of who can solve the problem, it's a question of who even acknowledges that a problem exists. Once upon a halcyon time we could have had competing policies to address particular problems, and if there was no clear political mandate for one over the other, compromises could be reached. Now we have one side who rejects the very concept of either the problem or any actions other than ones that shovel profits and public money into the private coffers of whoever is making the problems worse, often providing degraded services and poorer wages and entirely superfluous rent-seeking middle-men that act as profitable obstacles to people's needs. So, X = didn't do that instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, sometimes problems genuinely don't actually exist, they're just excuses to grab power.

[Nige]

Yes, like wokeness, cancel culture, CRT and pronouns. None of these are actual probems that exist in the way the right-wing culture war claims they do, but have been used as excuses for power grabs.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wokeness, Cancel Culture, CRT, and Pronouns don't exist?

Are you Gaslightr0's alt-account? That's some serious gasligthing.

[Nige]

See? My full statement is right there but you feel confident you can chop it in half and effectively lie about it right in the next comment. Power tripping.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What's implied in my statement, given the conversational context, is "The problems of ... don't exist"?

They are obviously problems. It's obvious.

Did you ever think about how utterly pathetic it is that so many of you Europeans care so much about US Politics?

[Nige]

Still leaving out half my statement, when it's right there.

None of those things are actual problems, unless you lot lie about them, in which case the become HUGE problems and WONDERFUL opportunities to, as Brett says, grab power.

We all need hobbies.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dude, obviously they are actual problems.

If they weren't actual real problems people wouldn't be so upset.

How f'ing stupid do you really have to be to think millions of people are upset over nothing? That there isn't any credibility to their concerns?

A filthy gaslighting propagandist moron thinks that there are zero legitimate reasons to be upset with those issues.

[Nige]

'If they weren't actual real problems people wouldn't be so upset.'

Can't wait to see you apply this principle to everything people are currently upset about, like racism and climate change.

'A filthy gaslighting propagandist moron thinks that there are zero legitimate reasons to be upset with those issues.'

I absolutely think the outrage over these issues is entirely manufactured and almost entirely cynical.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think there are no sincere concerns on the other side because you have only two brain cells, and they spend all day fighting each other.

[Nige]

I listed some of the concerns 'your side' has that I think are manfufacured. Are you saying that those are the ONLY concerns 'your side' has?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I you didn’t list concerns, you listed idiotic leftist tropes.

[Nige]

So none of those things are concerns of yours? Great!

[David Nieporent]

If they weren't actual real problems people wouldn't be so upset.

Sure. And there really were witches in Salem.

[Don Nico]

Problem is more than an actual problem. It is an abomination to promote the agenda of a superminority at the expense of making language even less understandable.

[Nige]

MAGA? Choads? RINOs? Let's go Brandon?

[Moderation4ever]

Yes. I would point to the border crisis and election fraud being two examples of made up problems to grab power.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You don't think there are any problems at our border?

[Aemon McGarret]

Not really. The problem is in the congress. Not at the borders. And in the minds of people who are afraid of poor brown people.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What problems do you think Congress needs be solving and how are those not at the border?

[I Callahan]

Explain that to that racist Muriel Bowser, who just complained out loud about all of those new brown people who were bussed to DC.

If you're delusional enough to believe that the only reason people want guarded borders is because they're afraid of "brown" people, you're delusional enough to believe anything.

[bernard11]

Don't leave out CRT.

[dwb68]

When every problem is a world-ending apocalyptic racist pronoun misgendering catastrophe, nothing is.

[Nige]

They're just obvious distractions from the real civilisation-shaking problems, like libraries stocking books that portray US slavery in a way that make some white people look bad, or other books that may gay people seem human.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

haha yeah, that's exactly what we don't like about gays!

Good analysis my European friend!

[Nige]

No, that's why you don't like books and libraries. Why you don't like gays is a whole other can of neuroses.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What's the youngest age do you think a boy should be exposed to a story about sucking another boy's dick with illustrations?

[Nige]

The same age anybody should be allowed access to sexually explicit stories and illustrations.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What age is that? Can you put a number to it?

[Nige]

Why don't you be more explicit about what you're fishing for? Is this going to be a conflation of sex ed with pornography, or something else?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Have you not seen what’s in these books?

They are gay porn written for kids.

[Nige]

Oh yeah, sure they are.

[Life of Brian]

Oh yeah, sure they are.

Is your smug shrug-off grounded in the redefinition of "porn" or "kids"? There just aren't any other reasonable options if you've actually looked at the stuff.

[Nige]

It's based on extreme skepticism in everything but your repressive sexual puritanism and homophobic authoritarianism.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so nothing to do with the actual material at issue whatsoever. Got it.

[Nige]

The alleged material being allegedly exposed to alleged six year olds in order justify removing books with any reference to LGTBQ issues from libraries and schools, said allegation coming from a spectacularly homophobic commenter.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so nothing to do with the actual material at issue whatsoever. Got it.

[Nige]

No actual material was referenced.

[Life of Brian]

"a story about sucking another boy's dick with illustrations" was clearly an allusion to Gender Queer to anyone 1) even remotely paying attention; and 2) having the least shred of intellectual honesty. And it also stands perfectly well as a class description.

[Nige]

It may be clear inside your culture war bubble, sadly I only catch glimpses of those murky depths through such opaque windows of consciousness such as yourselves. I've been away from here for a good few months I've no idea what moral outrage shibboleths you've been HORRIFED I TELL YOU about.

[Life of Brian]

I've been away from here for a good few months

Yes, and the posts in those months have definitely had a higher average signal-to-noise ratio.

I've no idea what moral outrage shibboleths you've been HORRIFED I TELL YOU about.

Then stop pretending you do know. Buh bye.

[Nige]

I wasn't pretending I knew, I was just going by the description in his comment and his well-known proclivities and trustworthiness. Even you don't seem to want to provide any actual reference to any actual materials and their actual use such as to justify taking books out of libraries. It all sems very tenuous.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He literally told you my scene was straight from Gender Queer. A specific book that's been debated and protested because it's accessible for kids.

One parent was reading from it at a school board meeting and the school board literally silenced him because reading it on public airwaves was illegal.

But not too illegal for that school board to be handing it out to little kids at school.

Do not come into discussions when you are functionally ignorant on the topic. It just makes you limey bastards look even more foolish than you already do.

[Nige]

You said children had been exposed to this as if it was being forced upon them, now you're just saying it's 'available,' somebody read it out at some meeting, so far it's just more satanic-panic scaremongering and would-be book-burning.

[Krayt]

I've long noted in the absence of real problems, lesser ones float up and politicians beat the hyperbole drums so they can have more power to solve it. Then tertiary problems once secondary are solved.

Repeat until some guy is screaming free toilet paper for all!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How do you explain the difference in LGB & Trans-identification growth rates between government school children and homeschool children, if not grooming?

[apedad]

I'm assuming you mean grooming of the homeschooled children since they receive only one point of view and are not exposed to other groups, teachers, ideas, etc.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why would you assume that when I specifically said LGBT?

Is your premise that being exposed to homosexuals will make one homosexual? Well, hang on. The data say that many adult male homosexuals were "exposed" (against their wills, naturally) as young children to other adult male homosexuals.

I don't know man, I wouldn't really describe homosexual child molestation as a "point of view".

[Nige]

Homosexuals merely existing is not molestation or grooming. Forcing gay kids to be straight is abuse, though.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What if a kid doesn't want to be, but wants to be normal. Is helping them identify as straight still abuse?

[Nige]

Forcing them to be normal is abuse. Helping them come to terms with who they are is just good parenting.

[defaultdotxbe]

I went to public school and I definitely only received one point of view there.

[Aemon McGarret]

"If humans are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Think about it."

[BrotherMovesOn]

Watch your lane Aemon.
That's Jimmy the Dane's clarion call!

[Jimmy the Dane]

A question that the evolutionists don't really answer....

[BrotherMovesOn]

Read the book. You might even like it.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I don't read anything other than the Bible and whatever conservative media puts out....

[BrotherMovesOn]

Shocking.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I figured I would just type what your ignorant ass thought.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Shit, you got me good!

[Armchair Lawyer]

FBI whistleblowers have revealed that the FBI has deliberately undermined the investigation of corruption in regards to Hunter Biden.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/whistleblower-allegations-raise-prospect-fbi-misled

What's going on here....? The FBI manufacturers evidence to get search warrants against Trump and his associates, while deliberately burying evidence of massive corruption with Hunter Biden?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And, there's reporting that they were also manufacturing domestic terrorism data to make it a bigger problem.

If those people don't see the inside of a prison cell, this country is truly lost.

[Sarcastr0]

The FBI sucks, by all mean audit the hell out of them.

But y'all been fucking that Hunter Biden chicken for a long time now, including enlisting Guo Wengui to do some salacious lying about porn that has caught at least on VCer with...their pants down?

So far Hunter may have overstated how much he had his Dad's ear no connection with the Prez other than some serious speculation is in evidence.

[Kazinski]

I have to agree with you on Hunter Biden, everyone knows who he is, and the whole Biden family grift.

But it’s old news, as much as I’d like Justice to be done it’s not that important and it’s old news.

Nothing is going to change the fact that Joe Biden is a failed President and all of Hunter’s scandals are just a symptom not a cause of Joe’s failure.

[Don Nico]

Forget about Hunter and Joe. The Hunter and Trump shitstorms are just evidence of the gross corruption in the Ukraine

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But y'all been fucking that Hunter Biden chicken for a long time now,"

The one you insisted, without evidence, was a Russian op?

[Nige]

Ridiculous. A Russian op would have surely been less dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

You mean when I went with that opinion of intelligence experts who have still not been proven wrong?

Yeah. I know you only go with experts when they agree with your priors, but I take a different approach.
I don't care much to protect Hunter, but I do realize I'm not really an expert. And neither are you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You mean when I went with that opinion of intelligence experts who have still not been proven wrong?"

Yes, the opinion that said, "...we do not have evidence of Russian involvement..."

That's why I said you insisted without evidence.

And I know you're not dumb enough to think that the fact that they haven't been proven wrong means that they've been proven correct, so why are you pretending to be that dumb?

I mean, nobody has proved that the laptop wasn't planted by space aliens either.

[David Nieporent]

The FBI manufacturers evidence to get search warrants against Trump

No. No such thing ever happened.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's time to move Congress.

Currently Congress meets in Washington DC. That's where they have convened for the last 200 plus years.

But they don't HAVE to meet in DC. They have historically met in multiple different cities across the early United States. Philadelphia, New York, Annapolis.

The more I consider this, the more I believe that part of the issue is that Congress is stuck in the "swamp" of DC. A uber-rich uber-liberal enclave that increasingly isn't representative of the rest of the country.

One simple, easy, legal solution to alleviate this to this would be to move Congress to various different cities in the country. Travel and communication these days is easy, especially compared to the early 1800's. Having Congress convene in Des Moines or Cleveland or St. Louis for a year would do potential wonders.

A simple act to move Congress, for at least a year (it may not even need an act) should be a priority for the new Congress.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would probably be a better idea to have them meet virtually, with the Representatives required to actually live in their districts, and the Senators in their states, except during vacations.

Then you could record and archive all the communications between them, a tremendous increase in transparency.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm not a big fan of virtual meetings. Too much is lost.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll agree that low end virtual meetings suck, I've been in too many of those. I tend to think the tech has plenty of room for improvement, though.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's not the tech....

Virtual meetings....stuff is lost in translation. In person is better. Always has been. It "works" for some things. But for high end discussions...too much is lost.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm not so sure about that, Brett = Then you could record and archive all the communications between them, a tremendous increase in transparency.

Rather less transparency, I would think. The problem is not geography (congregated in DC); the problem is density (there are just too damned many bureau-critters and politicos crammed into DC). Reduce the DC-based bureaucracy by natural attrition for a few years (like a decade).

[Moderation4ever]

The problem is not where they meet but their own wealth and age. People in Congress often have little in common with people they represent. Congress people are likely older, wealthier, and better educated than the people who elect them. Moving their meetings to a different city will not change this fact.

[Jmaie]

"Moving their meetings to a different city will not change this fact."

Depends, we could require maximum populations. Harder to had off suitcases of cash when your choices are the Motel 6 or the Denny's....

[Armchair Lawyer]

Let's give it a shot anyway. It's an easy attempted fix, entirely legal, and may break up the swamp to an extent.

[John F. Carr]

Have Congress convene for a week or a few weeks at every location cited as evidence of a crisis that's been around for years but suddenly needs attention right now. Complain about climate change causing fires, spend a week in the smoky mountains of the West. Complain about Uvalde, spend a week in Texas. Complain about illegal immigration, spend a week along the southern border. Complain about lack of abortion, convene in Oklahoma. Complain about conservative voters clinging to guns and religion, visit scenic Pennsyltucky.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sounds reasonable.

[Krayt]

Do you knkw how much they've spend making DC an emperor's seat? Giant libraries and museums and statuary, "camp followers" the richest in the world?

Then again, moving the seat from time to time, imagine all the kickbacks as they re-lavish on the new area! So the hangers on will need new, temporary ridiculously baroque digs. That's their problem.

[Sarcastr0]

The latest sliver bullet is not going to do anything you think it is.

The issue is not DC; that is simplistic thinking.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, why not try it?

[Sarcastr0]

Because there are nontrivial costs to the US taxpayer involved.

[Armchair Lawyer]

How much?

A few hundred thousand? Maybe a million? Perhaps even cost savings if security costs are lower at alternative sites?

Give it a shot. It's worth it.

[Jmaie]

The more time those folks are on the road the less of our money they can spend. I'm willing to take the chance...

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your understand of the cost involved in moving more than 500 members of Congress, let alone their staff, is just as abysmal as your understanding of most other issues you comment on.

I'm amusingly going to leave it to you to examine what fundamental requirements Congress has that you failed to account for in your ridiculous Dr. Evil estimate.

Why? Because I want to watch you flounder helplessly.

[EscherEnigma]

I move that Congress be relocated to Flint Michigan. And that they must drink the tap water.

[Commenter_XY]

Are there any Admiralty law specialists at VC?

My question: Consider for a moment, China's 9-dash line claim. This was arbitrated, and China's claim rejected (China has chosen to deny the credibility of the court adjudicating that dispute). Is China within it's legal rights under Admiralty law to sink a ship in the Taiwan Strait?

My thought is 'No'. But I would like to see the alternative case....Yes, China is within it's legal rights. So are there Admiralty law specialists who could weigh in?

[Yes, I am concerned about the likelihood of conflict]

[Moderation4ever]

A question for the lawyers out there, what is the legal limits for "I believe". This idea is at the heart of a number of recent legal questions, like election fraud or the validity of mass shootings. Now clearly there are limits. The bank robber cannot say "I believed the money was mine". You can tell the police officer "I don't believe I was speeding", but he will still write you a ticket. Every embezzler in the world say "They believed I would pay back the money." How far can you really take the "I believe" defense?

[Ed Grinberg]

I believe there was major fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

"the validity of mass shootings"
???

[apedad]

Ask Alex Jones.

[Moderation4ever]

You are intitled to believe anything. The question is whether you can use that belief to avoid legal culpability or civil liability. You can believe the election was a fraud, but you cannot harass election officials and use your beliefs as justification. You can believe that the Sandy Hook School shooting did not occur, but you cannot make liable statements about the fact and not be sued.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The extent to which a person's subjective beliefs are relevant depends on the legal issue.

For instance, a claim of right (i.e. a belief that the property at issue is really yours) is almost never a defense to robbery. Indeed, a person's belief that their conduct is lawful is usually not a defense to a criminal charge at all. On the other hand, sometimes statutes are written so that it is a defense, in which case the subjective beliefs can be relevant.

By the same token, most traffic laws (to use your example) don't require any proof about the person's state of mind, just whether their actions violated the regulation. But again for other offenses, law makes the person's state of mind part of what the prosecution has to prove—so (for instance) if a person picks up someone else's wallet believing that it's their own, that would not be theft.

In some circumstances where the law makes a person's subjective beliefs relevant, there may be additional limits. For instance, to claim self defense a person must generally both subjectively believe the their use of force was necessary, and that belief must be objectively reasonable. And even when the person's subjective belief is all that matters, the more outlandish or preposterous that belief, the more likely that the finder of fact will decline to believe that the person actually did believe it.

[Moderation4ever]

Perhaps the key words are in the last part of your response when referencing outlandish and preposterous beliefs. Would claims of election fraud with no evidence constitute "outlandish and preposterous"? Same with claims that a school shooting did not happen.

[Stephen Lathrop]

NYT reports Jones and his staff are doubling down on that one right in the courtroom. Apparently trying to make the case that nothing on the internet is believable anyway, so everything ought to be protected speech.

[Bored Lawyer]

What are the odds that Trump is indicted for the Jan. 6 actions? Until this week, I would have said virtually zero. Now I would say 20% and rising.

[Bored Lawyer]

And on that score, what is going on in Georgia? That always struck me as his most vulnerable point.

[Josh R]

I think pushing for fake elector slates in multiple states is the greatest vulnerability.

[John F. Carr]

I think some people will go to prison for that, but not Trump. The Eastman emails show a plan to ignore votes from controversial states. The committee hasn't released anything to tie Trump to the fake votes. The Justice Department surely has some undisclosed evidence of the extent of the conspiracy. I predict either it does not show Trump actively worked to submit or count the fake electoral votes, or the evidence is ambiguous enough that Biden does not want the political backlash. Like somebody told Trump and he was pleased.

[bernard11]

Once he knew of the scheme, what would Trump have had to do to be considered a conspirator?

[John F. Carr]

Some model jury instructions would require proof that Trump and another person to "agreed to commit the crime" and that Trump joined in the agreement "with the intent to further the unlawful purpose". I think he would have to do very little to be a conspirator, but more than saying "sounds great!"

[Bored Lawyer]

I think it also has to be before the fact. "What a great burglary you guys orchestrated at the Watergate hotel last week" does not cut it, I think.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you could make a pretty good case with past knowledge plus future approval.

[Noscitur a sociis]

At least as a matter of federal law, you cannot join a conspiracy or aid and abet a crime after the crime is already complete. So the intent to further future action would be indispensible.

[bernard11]

I think he would have to do very little to be a conspirator, but more than saying "sounds great!"

What if he said, "OK. Go ahead?" Given that he was President that's a lot more than saying, "Sounds great," though even the latter could, ISTM, be interpreted as a go-ahead, without which the scheme would not have been acted on.

[John F. Carr]

I guess I'm not really disagreeing with the 20% figure. I think he probably won't be indicted. Maybe Biden will have Garland throw a Hail Mary pass.

[not guilty]

Mike Pence's aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob have testified before the grand jury. Each was present for the January 4, 2021 meeting where Donald Trump and John Eastman importuned Pence to reject valid electoral slates. The bogus slates were central to that scheme. Eastman acknowledged that his proposal would violate the Electoral Count Act. Trump was present for that admission. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/07/donald-trump-doj-prosecution-risk-high.html

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) and (k), an attempt or conspiracy to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding of Congress is just as criminal as a completed endeavor would be. Liability under § 1512 would attach to any and all who agreed with the conspiratorial objective.

[John F. Carr]

According to the summary of Eastman's email the conspiracy with Trump involved asking Pence and Congress to refuse to count votes. If that much is criminal then Trump is a crook, fake electors or no fake electors. My opinion is that alone is not a crime, like asking a judge to ignore binding precedent is a crime. If that is not a crime you need evidence that Trump was going to do something to help get the fake votes submitted or counted. That's what I haven't seen yet, which tells me the January 6 committee doesn't have any evidence. Maybe the grand jury does.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When would it be the best politically convenient time for the Democrats for an indictment to be announced?

If it happens, that’s when it will happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's better than 20%. Note that doing it doesn't require a good case, Trump would be the proverbial ham sandwich. They wouldn't even have to bother with a prosecution that might make the case fall apart, result in an acquittal. The political effect would be the whole point.

[not guilty]

I am puzzled by your prediction. Do you posit that there will possibly be an indictment, followed by a pretrial dismissal? What set of facts would call for that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would it require a set of facts? Prosecutors don't have to bring a case just because a grand jury votes to.

[not guilty]

Why, in your prediction, would a prosecutor seek to dismiss an indictment found by the grand jury? That would require leave of court, which is not granted automatically. The prosecutor would need to persuade the district judge that dismissal would serve the interests of justice.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Trump will be found guilty in DC.

No matter the facts.

[Moderation4ever]

But if the DOJ did prosecute, they have a lot of witnesses. What would be the defense? Who could the defense really call? Most of those testifying before the select committee are already Trump supporters. The few outstanding witnesses who could testify for Trump would then have to subject themselves to cross examination. Which of them will do that? Meadows? Trump himself? I am guessing the defense would call no one and would rely of cross examination and arguments alone.

[John F. Carr]

If I were trying to boost Democrats in 2024 I would not bring a weak case against Trump. He'd plead victimization and vindication all the way to the White House. Even a strong case would have the trial during the 2024 campaign season and who knows how that will look to voters. Does anybody think a trial could be held within a year of indictment?

[ah....Clem]

Jan. 6th activities? 20% is probably generous, but agree that it is rising.

For Georgia "activities", OTOH, the probability of indictment is probably north of 90%. The recorded call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is pretty damning and I'm not sensing that the DA is inclined to hold back.

[Bored Lawyer]

I wasn't differentiating the two, although Georgia did not occur specifically on Jan. 6. I just meant the election shenanigans.

As opposed to, say, tax fraud, that the NY AG was trying to get him on.

[Moderation4ever]

I think it unlikely he would be charged with inciting a riot, but the select committee's investigation is turning up avenues for prosecution on harder charges. I think the misuse of funds is an area of liability, as is the fake elector scheme.

[Josh R]

The average of the four most recent polls (all since July 11) that surveyed the same people for both the GA Senate and Gubernatorial races: Warnock 48%, Walker 45%; Abrams 44%, Kemp 50%. Hmm.

[bernard11]

Not hard to explain.

Walker is, first of all, a complete lying scumbag. Second, he's stupid enough to lie about things that are easily checked.

Finally, applying the Liz Cheney standard from above, he really hasn't spent a lot of time in GA since his football days.

Probably, a fair number of on-the-fence voters have noticed some of that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

(Insert any random politician name here) is, first of all, a complete lying scumbag.

There, I improved the accuracy of your assertion.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is stupid bothersiderism which is part of the reason we have had such bad candidates lately. You don't expect and demand better, you don't get better. They all suck just means you're going to support someone who objectively sucks. Don't do that. It matters when one (Herschel Walker) demonstrably sucks worse in the knowledge, honesty, integrity, and character departments.

[Bored Lawyer]

What's the margin of error? Always need to check that on these polls.

[bernard11]

Yes, but contrary to the standard media phrase, a result within the "margin of error" is not by any means a "statistical dead heat."

[Josh R]

I'm not sure, but a single poll is typically about 4% points. Four polls would be half that, or 2% points. Since Warnock leads Abrams by 4%-points, it appears the margin of error due to sample size does not account for the difference.

[bernard11]

A poll of about 500 voters gives you around a 4.5% margin of error. That means there is 95% chance that the 9% interval around the result includes 50%. (Informally, it means there is a 95% chance that the true situation is within 4.5% of the poll result, but there are people who get upset if you describe it that way.)

What it doesn't mean is that a polling result of 54-46 has the same significance as 46-54. In the former case the actual state of things could as easily be 58-42 as 50-50.

[Josh R]

If I poll at 20% with an error of 4.5%-points, I don't think that means there is a 95% chance that the 9%-point interval around the result includes 50%.

In this case, the four polls had about 600, 900, 500 and 1100 respondents, or about six times more than 500. I think that means the error is about 4.5/sqrt(6), or about 1.8%-points.

[bernard11]

If I poll at 20% with an error of 4.5%-points, I don't think that means there is a 95% chance that the 9%-point interval around the result includes 50%.

Yeah. That was stupid.

It's 95% that the interval around 20% includes the true proportion.

[ducksalad]

Several things could be happening:

1. As Bernard11 points out, Walker has discredited and beclowned himself. That's probably the biggest factor.

2. Some number of would-be Democrats truly believe attacking the legitimacy of certified elections is a problem. They realize Abrams has continued to question her certified loss in the previous election, while Kemp stood up to Trump and his team.

3. In general, maybe people want a break from strident loudmouths and want some calmer, quieter politicians.

[Estragon]

On the same week Eugene is running a post on lies about elections, we get this quote:

“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted.”

Is that irony? Because it sure is delicious! I look forward to this also going unmentioned by the proprietor.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, because what one law professor posts is the entirety of commentary on the issues of the day. Why don't you give it a rest. (RAK at least has the excuse of having severe psychological issues. What's yours?)

[Estragon]

The entirety of his commentary on this whole saga is… nothing. I’m not complaining, but it does re-enforce my growing perception of Eugene and his willingness to engage with certain issues that might be uncomfortable for him, his personal friends and colleagues, or his target audience.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Partisan blowhard? Loud-mouthed coward?

[bernard11]

When will the Secret Service agents who claimed - through an anonymous third-hand spokepserson - that Cassidy Hutchinson was lying, testify under oath?

So far, they seem to be dodging.

Still calling her a "confirmed perjurer," Brett?

[OtisAH]

What they said was they would debunk “The Lunge” story, which was the only hearsay during her testimony. That was the limit of what they claimed they were willing to testify to. My guess is someone told them “Yeah, no, we will not swear you in, ask you about The Lunge, and let you leave.” And that put the kibosh on the entire deal. Then a few started lawyering up, which also probably foreclosed any appearance until they’re called.

[Estragon]

I’d guess all those deleted texts could have shed some light here… oh well.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How effective would attempted deletion be in the context of a motivated searcher with plenty of resources and authority?

[bernard11]

What they said was they would debunk

Well, that's what someone said they told someone else..

And I wonder why they are unwilling to testify. At least one is known to be a strong Trump loyalist.

[ducksalad]

No opinion on the disputed facts.

But I can easily see an ordinary citizen with nothing to hide preferring not to testify on an open-ended subject unless required. For the same reasons an ordinary citizen with nothing to hide might prefer not to talk to the police on an open-ended subject, unless required.

And a lot of that decision has to do with the demeanor of the police officer, or congressperson. Openly hostile cop. Adam Schiff.

[bernard11]

I can easily see an ordinary citizen with nothing to hide preferring not to testify on an open-ended subject unless required.

Sure. But they are not exactly ordinary citizens here.

In any case, if they don't want to testify they maybe shouldn't have opened their yaps and called Hutchinson a liar, especially as indirectly as they did. If you want to do crap like that then stand up and do it under oath.

They chose to get involved, and now they scurry away.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"In any case, if they don't want to testify they maybe shouldn't have opened their yaps and called Hutchinson a liar,"

Why not? If you had personal knowledge that someone was lying under oath, it's not conceivable that you might want to disclose that fact without being exposed to open-ended questioning from a bunch of hostile politicians?

If the committee cares about the truth, they'll let the people testify to what they're willing to testify to, or subpoena them.

[bernard11]

They appeared for a deposition before Hutchinson's testimony.

Plus, AFAICT, they not only are unwilling to testify under oath,they haven't even directly contradicted Hutchinson on the record to a reporter. Instead we have, "Someone said that someone in the Secret service said, that they dispute the claim."

And what exactly are they afraid of being asked?

[OtisAH]

At least a couple to a few, like Ornato, are loyal Turnipists. And *they* might have legal exposure here. But I believe it’s likely the SS would have to confirm much/most/all of Hutchinson’s testimony. And, considering the organization’s mission, they might prefer not to have to do that if they don’t have to.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how they can testify under oath, if the committee refuses to call them as witnesses. Which would, naively, seem to have been something the committee should have done the moment they knew what Hutchison was going to testify to.

"So and so said this" or "saw this", says one witness. Isn't calling So and So to testify the obvious thing to do? I'd call the failure to do so something of a dog not barking in the night.

[bernard11]

The committee hasn't subpoenaed them, true, but Cheney has said they welcome testimony from the agents.

Stop making stupid excuses.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're the one making excuses here. You think they can actually testify before the committee without an invitation? I don't think Congressional committees actually work that way.

Explain to me why the committee would NOT want to verify Hutchison's testimony with eye witnesses. Can you think of one good reason?

[bernard11]

No, Brett.

Cheney told ABC that the panel had spoken with Tony Ornato, then-White House deputy chief of staff, and Robert Engel, who was the Secret Service agent in charge on January 6, 2021 -- and at whom Hutchinson testified that she was told by Ornato that Trump had lunged.

"I don't want to get into too many details," Cheney said. "The committee has spoken to both Mr. Ornato and Mr. Engel, and we welcome additional testimony under oath from both of them, and from anybody else in the Secret Service who has information about any of these issues." ....

Cheney added, "We have been working with the Secret Service, we have interviewed, as I said, a number of individuals in the Secret Service. We will continue to do so. And I think it is important that their testimony be under oath."

Stop kidding yourself. The SS guys have lawyered up, and all they need to do is tell the committee they want to testify.

They haven't done it.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, they did talk to them, but unlike Hutchison's testimony, it's a secret what they said? And this doesn't lead you to suspect that what they said didn't advance the committee's desired narrative?

You think maybe the committee members aren't typical politicians, or something silly like that?

[bernard11]

Brett. Just stop.

They talked before Hutchinson's testimony, so the issue didn't come up.

it's a secret what they said?

You think they can't reveal what they said - that they don't have transcripts? No. It's neither secret nor relevant to Hutchinson's testimony.

Besides, you seem to be convinced, beyond all doubt, that if Ornato says Hutchinson lied, it;s not possible that Ornato, instead, is lying, despite being someone who is a strong Trump loyalist, and who has, shall we say, not a great reputation for honesty.

You want to explain that?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's neither a secret (But they won't tell us!) nor relevant to Hutchinson's testimony? (About what had happened in their presence!)

Sure, I suppose it's possible she'd be telling the truth, and they'd be lying. No particular reason to think that, but it's possible.

But this is what happens when it's arranged that all the members of a committee are on the same page before anything starts. Anything that might contradict the narrative gets suppressed.

[Nige]

Sooner or later it might occur to yout that all this evidence supporting Trump that is being magically erased and supressed doesn't actually exist.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Brett, this doesn't hold together at all. Your speculation can't really act as countervailing evidence to sword testimony.

I suppose it can in your own mind, if you are really bad at critical thinking.

[Don Nico]

Cheny is talking out of two sides of her mouth. Let her ask for a subpoena.

[bernard11]

Nonsense, Don.

Don't be a cultist.

[Don Nico]

Cultist?
I don't understand your comment. The two fellows volunteered to testify.
Can they actually do so without permission from superiors unless there is a subpoena? My guess is "No."
Think about it.

[David Nieporent]

The two fellows volunteered to testify.

No.

[bernard11]

To be clearer, why should she use limited committee resources to issue a subpoena and fight in court, etc.?

These guys are making claims. They put themselves in the picture. They can either back their claims up under oath or not. Up to them. If they don't want to, to Hell with them.

Bullshit walks.

[bernard11]

Here it is.

Witness comes in and testifies, under oath, that X happened. Now some guy in the peanut gallery says, "no it didn't, but I'm not going to say so under oath."

So the committee is supposed to start issuing subpoenas every time that happens?

Fuck that.

[Kazinski]

That's not the way it's been working Bernard. Lawyering up didn't help Steve Bannon, they indicted him and convicted him of contempt of Congress rather than negotiate.

If they want the testimony they can get it, unless of course DOJ has told them that they won't indict any secret service, or other law enforcement, that's certainly a possibility.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What is there to negotiate? Bannon claimed bullshit privilege that didn't exist.

He was told it was bullshit, and he still decided to give the committee the finger.

Notably "they" didn't indict him, and "they" didn't convict him.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hey Bernard,

You may want to read this. Seems Miss Hutchinson has been called before by the January 6th Committee. Months ago. And disparaged them greatly. And there are a bunch of text messages where she disparaged the committee.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/26/exclusive-in-private-cassidy-hutchinson-joked-about-riot-called-j6-committee-phony-praised-trump-before-changing-story/

My question is...what changed for her between her original subpoena in 2021 and now? Is someone holding something over her head? Seems odd the sudden switch....

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I see a lot of supposed quotes.

I see a lack of evidence that they are legitimate.

Maybe you shouldn't read and spread bullshit, but then what would your purpose here actually be?

[Sarcastr0]

AL appears to subsist largely on the Federalist and NY Post. So his bullshit detector is like reversed or something.

[apedad]

States Whose Economies Are Failing vs. States Whose Economies Are Thriving

The Tennessippi states aren't doing so well (although Tennessee actually is doing well!).

Good for the coastal states.

https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/economy/states-economies-failing-vs-states-economies-thriving/

[M L]

Interesting stats but some parts of the list don't make a whole lot of sense.

North Dakota and Kansas are "failing" with 2.9% and 2.5% unemployment rates, and 9.4% and 9.3% poverty rates, while California and the D.C. are "thriving" with 4.9% and 6% unemployment rates and 10.6% and 14.6% poverty rates? But, the latter two had better one-quarter GDP growth. So it depends on what you mean by failing and thriving, particularly which metrics and which categories of people and interests within those states whose success and profit you choose to emphasize.

Side note, check out the laughably askew D.C. figures. They have a per capita GDP of $233,500! That's about 3 to 6 times the per capita GDP of the other states on the list. And yet D.C. also has the highest poverty rate AND the highest unemployment rate by a wide margin! That's a perfect commentary right there by itself. (You also have to consider that poverty levels aren't adjusted for cost of living, so an poverty rate in a high COL urban area is worse than an equal poverty rate in a low COL rural area.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps this would make sense of it?

California has a Gini coefficient of about 0.487, DC about 0.512. Both above the national average.

North Dakota? 0.456. Kansas? 0.450. Both below it.

It's easy to have average good economics, with high unemployment and poverty, if you happen to have high income inequality. All it means is that a small fraction of the population are doing REALLY well, while a lot of people are suffering.

Over half the income in DC is made by the top quintile of the population. That leaves a lot of room for DC to be wealthy, AND have a lot of poor people.

[M L]

The same issue as immigration economics.

"But look it raises GDP because we dumped an extra hundred million people in!"

[Estragon]

Jimmy! 5 years in federal lockup for just taking pictures!! This guy needed you on his defense team

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/26/ponder-sentencing-jan6-prison/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do people buy insurance for trivial routine things like birth control or checkups?

Do they think it's smart money math to pay a third party a premium for a product that costs as low as $8 a month or $100 once a year?

I can't think of a single $8 thing that would make me want to get insurance to cover it. But the Left seems to think that's super super important. So much so they want to force nuns to spend $8a month on behalf of employed women.

Does the Left not understand what math is?

[Bored Lawyer]

It's not money, it's another victory in the culture war.

[OtisAH]

Idiot.

[Bored Lawyer]

Thank you for your incisive commentary.

[OtisAH]

Why would I waste incisive commentary on an idiot’s idiotic response to an idiotic question?

[Bored Lawyer]

So instead you spew empty blather, and show yourself to be an empty suit. Good call.
Is RAK's condition catching?

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord.

Talk to a woman for once in your life. Plenty of women have nontrivial birth control expenses. It turns out to be a complicated system!

No, it's not virtue signaling, you blinkered partisan.

[Bored Lawyer]

See the comments below. Mandatory coverage is either economically foolish, or a means of enforced subsidization by those who do not need something to those who do.

[Sarcastr0]

Or see the other comments below and realize how risk pooling works.

You make coverage too individualized and you're not insurance anymore.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's the point. In most cases of birth control, it's not risk pooling. It's just paying for something through a third party.

Risk by definition means covering somethign unexpected. Like getting cancer, or a heart attack, or breaking your leg.

Birth control, in most cases, is just someone deciding to be sexually active and wanting to avoid pregnancy. Not a bad thing, but not traditional insurance risk pooling. (Nor are many other things provided under today's health insurace.)

[not guilty]

Covering birth control lessens the risk that an insurer will need to pay for prenatal care and delivery.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And that's why they were forced to provide it? Because they couldn't figure out these economic benefits and needed some lifer bureaucrat at HHS to make them save money?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You make coverage too individualized and you're not insurance anymore."

Sure, but if regulations require you to charge the same price for insurance regardless of the risk of pregnancy, then you're not risk-pooling, you're subsidizing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You make coverage too individualized and you're not insurance anymore."

And that's not true with respect to pricing based on individualized expected cost. That's what true insurance does.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Health insurance is no longer risk pooled. It's community rated.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Further, even if it were, why make people who cannot have children carry family planning insurance?

That's not pooling any risk.

[John F. Carr]

Democrats want to subsidize contraception, which they do by requiring everybody to purchase insurance for something that primarily benefits 16-40 year old XX people. The math works out fine if you understand the goal.

Does "checkups" mean the "free" annual physicals? There was a theory that free checkups would cause expensive diseases to be caught early. In practice they are an opportunity for the medical industry to pile on more charges once they get you in the door. If the doctor asks how you are feeling and you answer with a complaint, the encounter is billed as a physical and an office visit for a few hundred extra dollars.

[not guilty]

Uh, men who have sex benefit significantly from contraception, too.

[Krayt]

I lived through the formation of HMOs and their "preventative model", that supposedly would save money in the long run.

My new dentist (the dental assistant) suddenly found several things that needed drilling, that my old dentist never had problems with. They passed it by a real dentist, I assume, for legal reasons, then went to town.

It occurred to me this was just front loading charges under the chimera of preventative care.

Important note: This was the same time that medicine went from being called medicine and doctors, to "Health care and health care workers", a rhetorical shift by that same greed class to demystify it from the intensive education and capacity of doctors into just another thing.

So much shit like this goes on constantly. Oh lookee, a new drumbeat to exaggerate something. And nobody follows the money, journalists being largely pig ignorant fools who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Democrats want to subsidize contraception, which they do by requiring everybody to purchase insurance for something that primarily benefits 16-40 year old XX people. "

Some medical treatment primarily benefits younger (perhaps mostly the youngest) people; other treatment primarily benefits older (sometimes mostly the oldest) people.

Some treatment primarily benefits men; other treatment primarily benefits women.

As I understand insurance, the risks and benefits are intentionally pooled, for good reason and with desirable consequences. The person who objects 'I don't need [hip replacement] [contraception] [prostate surgery] [obstetric care] [hospice care] [childhood vaccinations]' is not a contributor to worthwhile debate.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Rev, you're about 15 years behind the times. Risks used to be pooled until the ACA, and now they have community ratings.

This means insurance is no longer insurance as we know the term, but a buyers club for your zip code.

That's why they make everyone have family planning, whether or not you have any risk for it. That's why they make everyone have PrEP and AIDS coverage, even if you're heterosexual.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why do people buy insurance for trivial routine things like birth control or checkups?"

People buy insurance for things that they don't want to carry the risk for, and insurance companies will cover preventive care when it makes sense economically.

So if it costs, say, $60 a dental checkup and there is no reason to insulate yourself from that risk, no insurance company will sell you insurance that doesn't cover checkups for $60 less than one that does, because you could choose to skip the checkups and make the insurance company eat the cost of the drilling.

Otoh, Obamacare requires companies to cover birth control at the same price regardless of risk, so sure, that's a subsidy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What risk are you avoiding by having insurance for contraception?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, if you are a woman, you might be avoiding the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

Left to its own devices, an insurance company would determine if covering birth control would reduce the amount of claims for pregnancy by more than the cost of the birth control, and if so, it would choose to cover it.

But if an insurance company is required to cover it and to charge the same premium regardless of the risk of pregnancy, then sure, that's a subsidy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Having insurance for contraception means you can't get pregnant?

[jb]

It decreases the probability. Insurance companies are in the business of probabilities. Sorry if that makes it too hard to understand.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How on Earth can the mere state of having insurance reduce the probability that a woman can get pregnant?

If insurance companies were into probabilities they wouldn't require sterile woman have contraception coverage, but they do. Maybe they aren't as good at probability as you believe.

[Brett Bellmore]

Thanks to the ACA, the insurance companies aren't ALLOWED to not require you to have contraception coverage. That's the issue: More and more the exact details of the sort of coverage they're allowed to offer are dictated by the government.

[apedad]

Prospective homebuyers don’t want to put down roots in Democrat-run cities

Rounding out the 10 most frequently abandoned cities are New York City, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Boston, Detroit, Denver, Chicago, and Minneapolis — all areas run by Democratic mayors. R

Along with Miami and Tampa, frequent destinations for homebuyers who leave their cities are Phoenix, Arizona; Sacramento, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Cape Coral, Florida; San Diego, California; North Port, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and Dallas, Texas. Florida and Texas cities dominate the list.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/prospective-homebuyers-dont-want-to-put-down-roots-in-democrat-run-cities

Looking forward to the (relatively near) future when these areas turn purple then permanently blue.

[Bored Lawyer]

You don't think someone who is fleeing from, say, New York to Phoenix, is not smart enough to realize that the reason he left New York was the policies there?

[apedad]

You think someone moving from NY to Phoenix is going to also change their values and opinions on abortion, SSM, etc?!?

[bernard11]

Hardly the only possible reason.

[ducksalad]

One could easily understand that a city has a nicer selection of housing at more affordable prices but not understand (or care about) the reasons that's true.

And out of the ones who do understand the reasons, some are selfish enough to want to buy in cheap and then "close the door behind them" to drive up the value of their property.

One might also understand personally that the specific promotion or job offer is available in Phoenix, but not understand (or care) why it happened to be there. You just go.

[Noscitur a sociis]

My anecdotal experience is that, while footvoting outmigrants tend to be more conservative than the average resident of the blue areas they're abandoning, they also tend to be more liberal than the average residents of the red states they're moving to. And that seems consistent with the changes in voting patterns in the states that are the most popular destinations.

[apedad]

And the hits keep coming!

2022's States with the Best & Worst School Systems

https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/5335

Overall Rank
42 Alabama 39.81 45 23
43 Mississippi 38.65 43 45
44 Oregon 38.07 44 39
45 Oklahoma 38.01 46 25
46 South Carolina 37.31 42 51
47 West Virginia 37.18 47 18
48 Arizona 35.11 48 34
49 Louisiana 34.09 49 40
50 Alaska 33.05 50 30
51 New Mexico 26.07 51 43

[ducksalad]

DC ranked first in ACT scores and dead last last in SAT scores.

In college admissions they're considered so highly correlated that many schools use either interchangeably, based on almost universally accepted equivalence table.

Something going on here.

[Sarcastr0]

The only two cities that have lost population since 1970 are Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-the-fastest-growing-cities-in-the-united-states/

[Krayt]

That includes the suburbs, where people go to flee the big corruption machines and crime, so doesn't contradict anything.

Detroit proper was crusing near its max of 2 million in 1970, and is under 750,000 now.

[Sarcastr0]

I think your goalposts are too finely tuned. A commuter city is still a pretty legit and successful city.

[Brett Bellmore]

I used to live near Detroit. It's been ages since Detroit was actually a "commuter city", with the people in the burbs driving in each day to work. The jobs are in the outer ring these days, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, that's nothing like the scenario Krayt is describing.

And Detroit is a pretty special case, as I'm sure you know. Yet despite that it's still been only flat since 1970.

For all the right wing takes on cities as crime-ridden hellholes, people like them.

[Brett Bellmore]

If by "flat", you mean dropping like a rock, sure. Note that Detroit's population decline has been almost linear since 1950. It's "the Detroit metropolitan area's" population that hit a peak of about 2M in 1970, and has been fairly steady since.

But that's because the suburbs have been growing about as fast as Detroit itself was shrinking. Cities in decline really love to count the population of places outside their actual borders to disguise the decline.

[David Nieporent]

. Cities in decline really love to count the population of places outside their actual borders to disguise the decline.

More Brett paranoid theorizing. No such city, of course, is identified; no such example of any city doing that is identified. Nor is it explained how a city would do that in the first place, since cities don't count populations; the census bureau does. And of course "cities" can't do that; only individual people can. Does Brett mean mayors?

[Brett Bellmore]

Detroit, specifically, has been identified.

[David Nieporent]

Where did you see Detroit "counting the population of places outside their actual borders to disguise the decline"?

[Brett Bellmore]

I told you, I used to live near Detroit, I was born there. Grew up within walking distance of Detroit, until the Detroit riots stopped close enough to our house to hear the shouting, and my parents moved out to the country. I grew up reading Detroit papers, the News and Freep.

Always, Detroit government would be "Detroit Metropolitan area" this, "Greater Detroit" that. Continually pretending that growth happening outside their borders was "Detroit" growth. Advancing proposals for state laws that would let them annex the suburbs. (Which wanted as little to do with Detroit as possible; The suburb of East Detroit changed it's name to East Pointe so people would stop thinking it was inside Detroit!)

We ended up living an hour from Detroit, and we were still inside "Greater Detroit" according to some of the maps those clowns were putting out!

Look at figure 2 in that link I provided above: "Metro Detroit". Most of 'Metro Detroit' isn't Detroit! The region is doing great, but Detroit isn't really part of the region, it's the hole in the donut.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Since 1970? More than 50 years ago?

That hides a lot of data. You really want to look in the last 10-20 years.

[Sarcastr0]

Good thing it's a graph, then, so you can pick a start date anytime you want and follow from there!

Foolishness.

[Ben_]

Looking forward to more red states with more members of Congress and more electors.

Unless those people are moving to transition their gender or to take advantage of young children who’ve been introduced to sexual topics at age 6, I don’t thing Dems have much to offer them.

[apedad]

Every state that recently changed colors went blue with one exception: West Virginia (and that was because a single issue: coal).

And look at GA, TX, NC, AZ, etc., i.e., they keep inching towards blue too.

Good luck in your future on the losing side.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

West Virginia (and that was because a single issue: coal).

I believe you understate the prominent roles of bigotry, religion, and lack of education as West Virginia continues to be drained by bright flight. It is difficult for residents of advanced communities to comprehend today's West Virginia.

[Jimmy the Dane]

OK Groomer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(including territories; 52 ranked)

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
West Virginia 44

BACHELOR'S DEGREE
West Virginia 52

ADVANCED DEGREE
West Virginia 50

West Virginia is a drain and stain on our nation. Clingers seem to love it, though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That list frequently concludes (temporarily) the contributions of those who prefer our lesser states.

[Frank Drackman]

Reverend Arthur/Jerry Sandusky has gone
10 YEARS, 1 MONTH, 18 DAYS

without buggering any young men,

*as far as we know, https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

Frank D

[Ben_]

Even if you weren’t wrong and living in the past, there’s gerrymandering.

[apedad]

GOP Gun Bill Loses Support Amid Outrage From Hunting, Conservation Groups

The legislation, dubbed the RETURN Act (Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) was introduced last month by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) and dozens of other House Republicans. It takes aim at a tax that gun and ammunition manufacturers and importers have paid for more than a century. Since the passage of the bipartisan Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937, money collected through the tax — 11% on long guns, ammunition and archery equipment; 10% on handguns — has been distributed to states to pay for wildlife management and research, habitat conservation, land acquisition and hunter education.

Despite that long history and the popularity of the Pittman-Robertson Act among hunters, anglers, conservationists and the firearm industry, Clyde and other sponsors have painted the tax as an assault on the Second Amendment.

Though it is clear that many of the bill’s sponsors have fielded angry calls and letters from constituents, few have taken as much heat as Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.). More than a dozen hunting, fishing, angling and conservation groups in his home state signed on to a letter urging the at-large congressman to rescind his support, The Daily Montanan reported.

In May, well before the bill’s introduction, a group of more than 40 hunting, outdoor recreation and gun advocacy organizations sent a letter to Senate and House leaders warning against any change in the status quo.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gop-bill-pittman-robertson-gun-tax-withdraw-support_n_62e1930de4b0c60a56648a99

One definite thing about politics - your position depends on who's putting $$$ in your wallet.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Does anyone else think it is sort of odd that every single article about a Russian soldier dying is celebratory? Say what you want about that armed conflict, but they are still a casualty of war and one that most Russian soldiers are fighting in because they have little choice in the matter. The way our media portrays and frames one of them being killed is rather flippant and arrogant.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't say that I've seen any of these celebratory stories you're talking about. Where are you seeing them?

[Krayt]

Certain sketchy sites, where out of control organizational trolling from both sides wages battle, I'd guess.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Agree sits are sketchy. CNN and MSNBC.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have trouble mustering all that much outrage about celebrating a military victory over an army attempting an unjust war of tyrannical conquest - but I also agree with Brett Bellmore that I have no idea what articles you're talking about.

[apedad]

The videos with "celebratory" music are coming from Ukrainian military sources (like drone hits), and someone then dubs in the music before posting them on line for the world to see.

I agree the music should not be aired on traditional new sites, and the video should support a news story and not be gory just for the gruesome factor.

At the same time, you can see them all over certain social media sites, i.e. Reddit.

[John F. Carr]

I find the online comments and the overdubbed commentary from some of the clip compilers an unpleasant combination of vapid and bloodthirsty. The people dying in the videos are not the ones making the decision to invade Ukraine, bomb hospitals, etc. A lot of the roasted Russians didn't want to be there. The ones who do want to be there (Wagner group) star in clips showing victory rather than defeat.

That's how war works. I didn't sympathize with the argument that we couldn't attack Iraq because its military had conscripts and I don't think Ukraine is obliged to hold back. But I don't celebrate the body count either. This isn't 'Nam.

The editing is also unconvincing. Shot of gun firing, cut to shot of explosion, direct hit on the first shot! Except there are 100 craters on screen where previous shots missed. Guy firing missile cut to drone's eye view of explosion. I don't believe there is any connection between the two.

Some of the videos are worth watching to get a feel for tactics being used. They connect a photocell to a motor or solenoid so when the drone operator turns on an exterior light a small bomb is released. If you can track the antitank missile from launch to impact that is probably not faked.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean you could apply that logic to Nazi soldiers.

War is a tragedy, but that doesn't mean you must only see it through a dour lens lest you be flippant and arrogant.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You don't need to be flippant and arrogant when trying to make the case that.....oh never mind just noticed it is gaslighto.

[M L]

ICYMI. WEF drops hot promo trailer for the Great Reset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rAiTDQ-NVY&ab_channel=WorldEconomicForum

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Unless I missed it, this blog has operated for 20 days without using a vile racial slur.

Prof. Volokh may be immersed in a huge project, or devoting some of his summer to a family vacation.

Or . . . dare we dream . . . might he and this blog have improved, becoming at least slightly less conservative?

[Jimmy the Dane]

OK Groomer.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nobody's said "breakfast taco" in 20 days? Hallelujah!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh surely is grateful for your efforts to defend his frequent use of vile racial slurs . . . well, at least until he reads what you wrote.

[ThePublius]

I'm quite surprised that there has been no discussion of the Biden administration's or Democratic party's efforts to redefine "recession" away from the traditional definition to deny we're there.

[jb]

Hasn't the way recessions are declared been the same for like 45 years?

Helpful reading from the people who actually do it: https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequently-asked-questions

[Kazinski]

Except that they often don't declare a recession until after it's over. Nobody waits for them to declare one.

But Biden and his administration trying to claim we aren't really in a recession isn't news, everyone knows they're desperate, they were desperate before GDP came out this morning, nothing's changed.

[Brett Bellmore]

About the only time they don't declare a recession until after it's over is when it's a short one. They do kind of drag their heels about declaring one, but this is the first time I've seen them actually try to change the definition, rather than just fudge the numbers.

[bernard11]

Who has changed the definition?

And cut the paranoid crap about "fudging the numbers."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The reality-rewriters are already hard at work on Wikipedia.

lol

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

[Brett Bellmore]

The definition has been two quarters of negative growth for as long as I can remember; I've seen efforts before to deny that we were in negative growth, but this is the first time EVER I've seen an administration deny that 2 quarters of negative growth even was a recession.

And cut out the pronoia about the government being the only 100% honest institution in society.

[Kazinski]

Here is a good explanation from Forbes:
"In 1974, economist Julius Shiskin came up with a few rules of thumb to define a recession: The most popular was two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. A healthy economy expands over time, so two quarters in a row of contracting output suggests there are serious underlying problems, according to Shiskin. This definition of a recession became a common standard over the years.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally recognized as the authority that defines the starting and ending dates of U.S. recessions. NBER has its own definition of what constitutes a recession, namely “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.”

The NBER’s definition is more flexible than Shiskin’s rule for determining what is a recession. For example, the coronavirus could potentially create a W-shaped recession, where the economy falls one quarter, starts to grow, then drops again in the future. This would not be a recession by Shiskin’s rules but could be under the NBER’s definition."

What the Biden administration is doing here is grasping at straws, although I will admit maybe the NBER will end up saying it wasn't a recession if we get a sharp rebound. But they do want plausible deniability that we are in a recession until after the midterms.

Although 3rd qtr GDP will come out a week before the recession, and it maybe better to just bite the bullet now and admit it. Although I would not put it past them to deny it all the way until 3rd qtr GDP is released then say: "That's old news."

Not that it would help.

[Brett Bellmore]

They can just release good news right before the election, and then quietly revise the numbers back into negative territory after it's safely past. Wouldn't be the first time.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

San Francisco just declared a Public Health Emergency over Monkey Pox.

Just pay attention to what these people did to normal people during the last Public Health Emergency and note what they won't do to the people who are spreading Monkey Pox.

Also, take a note on this prediction: when/if Monkey Pox spreads out of the bathhouses and into the general population (it's already spreading to underage boys, naturally), they will pink-wash the genesis of the disease.

[jb]

Monkies?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The FDA just warned that puberty blockers are causing vision loss, among other life-altering effects in children.

Why are they just finding this out?

[M L]

FDA warns puberty blocker may cause brain swelling, vision loss in children https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/fda-warns-puberty-blocker-may-cause-brain-swelling-vision-loss-in-children-rachel-levine

The warning seems to conflict with U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine’s claim that “there is no argument among medical professionals” that youth access to “gender-affirming care,” such as puberty blockers, is valuable and important.

Levine’s critics have charged her with conflating “opponents of LGBTQ equality” with those seeking to limit minors from accessing certain potentially life-altering gender transition therapies...

Florida Department of Health spokesman Jeremy Redfern, whose agency updated its guidelines earlier this year to restrict minors from obtaining gender transition therapies, told Fox News Levine’s claim that “every major medical association” agrees offering so-called “gender-affirming care” saves kid’s lives “isn’t data.”

“It’s an appeal to authority that is in stark contrast to the best available evidence,” Redfern insisted to Fox News. “The [Florida] Department of Health is following the evidence. The federal government is following the eminence.”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is it constitutional for the CDC to coordinate censorship of COVID information with social media platforms like Twitter?

[mydisplayname]

I'd like to contribute an apple to the fairest winner of today's open thread!

[M L]

In other news, Joe Biden is literally Hitler.

Seriously. Remember when this was racist?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/biden-administration-fill-border-wall-gaps-yuma-arizona-rcna40567

[Ben_]

Bussing migrants to Washington DC works!

Every red state and county should be sending all the illegals to blue states. Preferably to rich neighborhoods in blue states. Pay migrants cash incentives to go.

[John F. Carr]

My area is mostly limousine liberals who call the cops on brown people, but we do have a few who help refugees from less glamorous places like Somalia and Sudan.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wow, you had to go back to the 1800s lol to find a win.

lol wow I like how you people out of one side of your mouth point to the Coloreds as proof of your success, while out of the other side of your mouth you burn down cities because life is so bad for the Coloreds.

lol you f'n people I swear

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Show your work.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Maybe this?

https://www.city-journal.org/in-portland-the-sexual-revolution-starts-in-kindergarten

[Brett Bellmore]

Representing DC instead of Wyoming, I'd assume.

[Kazinski]

She's lost the confidence of the voters.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You should read from across the spectrum.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/whistleblowers-reports-reveal-double-standard-in-pursuit-of-politically-charged-investigations-by-senior-fbi-doj-officials

[Nige]

Yeah, if America is the greatest country on Earth how come people still got problems?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I see, so the only problems with CRT, Cancel Culture, Wokeness, and Pronouns are what the supporters and instigators say are problems, and those are just nothingburgers so you don't need worry about it!

Yeah dude that's not gaslighting at all!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So you got nothing.

Ok.

[Brett Bellmore]

Jim Crow was trimmed back in the 20th century. Parts of it are still in place, and racial segregation is actually making a resurgence under new excuses.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Explain. Can you try articulating your points?

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie. Great comment, bruh.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yep. Born in Madison Wisconsin. Spent "part of 6th grade and 7th grade" in Wyoming, but graduated from Northern Virginia high schools. Bounced back and forth from DC to NY for most of the rest of her life.

It's pretty clear she doesn't represent the people of Wyoming.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Because the Federals have too much control over our country, and more broadly the Progressives have accumulated too much institutional control and power.

Socialism and Progressivism, in general, are only beautiful theories. In practice, they are Hell on Earth.

[Don Nico]

Because American politicians are ever more extreme supported by extremist tribes of voters.
We get the government that we deserve

[Nige]

Yes, but most of the problems you complain about are effectively made up.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Let's adopt France's abortion laws nationwide? Or maybe Italy's? Germany's?

[DaivdBehar]

Great idea, dude.

[Jazzizhep]

How is it easier? You walk into PP and schedule an appt. Well up until a few weeks ago. Lol. Now you can’t. Double lol.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh.... It's called a primary source.

[Nige]

Got no hang-ups about some kids turning out to be gay or trans.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I think if we're going to have districts, rather than just at large elections, the people representing a place should actually live there.

But you misunderstood the point: Her not having spent much time actually IN Wyoming might be the cause of the problem, but the actual problem is that her votes in Congress don't reflect the views of the Wyoming electorate.

And isn't that a good reason for somebody to lose an election?

[Armchair Lawyer]

In general, the phrase "carpetbagger" is used for a reason.

If Liz Cheney is more in line with the voters of NoVa instead of Wyoming, as is increasingly apparent, yes, she deserves to lose.

[DaivdBehar]

Cool comment, bruh. Queenie is my fav. Frankie, you stay away from her.

[defaultdotxbe]

After the decision my wife asked why I didn't want to move to Germany, didn't I want to live in a place where people had actual rights?

Made for an interesting conversation lol

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And their voter ID laws too

[Brett Bellmore]

S 2938, for one. Gun control is not terribly popular in Wyoming.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a fucking Rufo article.

Find a source who hasn't proudly tweeted how he's a liar.

[defaultdotxbe]

Pot, meet kettle.

[Michael P]

Your alleged facts are effectively made up.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Articulate your insinuations about me. Can you read words?

[bernard11]

Well, that's up to the Wyoming voters, I guess, and from what I read, it looks like she is going to lose.

Still, let's not pretend that this has anything much to do with issues other than the Jan. 6 committee. Apparently, most Wyoming voters are Trump cultists, and can't abide someone who won't swallow all his BS, and stands up to his lies and subversion.

[David Nieporent]

but the actual problem is that her votes in Congress don't reflect the views of the Wyoming electorate.

Except, of course, that she's got one of the most conservative voting records in Congress. This is about Trump, nothing more.

[Nelson]

"her votes in Congress don't reflect the views of the Wyoming electorate."

Her father was a bought-and-paid-for sleaze, so I assumed she was both deeply conservative and lacked integrity.

As it turns out, she actually has integrity and principles. She is also deeply conservative.

I'm not sure what votes you think don't reflect the views of the Wyoming electorate, but to be any more conservative she would have to be wearing a powdered wig and marveling at electricity with Ben Franklin.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you expand further? You're just pointing into some vague general direction and hoping I'll find your argument.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Says the guy who believes Peter Schiff. lol

[Nige]

CRT and raging wildfires are equally real and damaging problems?

[bernard11]

Yes. We're not hearing much about how strict European abortion law is any more, once people started pointing out the facts to the RW'ers pushing that BS.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sounds better than the current abortion laws in multiple states which allow for killing a healthy child just 1 day from the due date because of any reason.

[Krayt]

Idiotic rage phrasing like sexuality (read: 2 genders) "of white colonizers" doesn't even make sense.

Almost all cultures have the exact same concept since time immemorial.

I'm not saying the concept shouldn't change some, but to lay the blame so idiotically and illogically is pure domestic politics.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ad hominem argument. To be ignored.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's a fucking Rufo article.

Find a source who hasn't proudly tweeted how he's a liar."

Ad-hom again? Can you refute the article?

And you're fucking lying about what he tweeted out.

[bernard11]

Grassley - "across the spectrum."

Hilarious.

[Sarcastr0]

No, primary sources are not generally hearsay about some other source. At least not unless you're talking history.

Hearsay may be probative, but this is just partisan trash and you seem to kinda know it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"we get why that one didn’t occur to you.".

What's that point? Why didn't that occur to me?

Serious question, is English your first language?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I know what a confounding variable is.

You explain to me which ones you think are explaining the differences.

Wow, it's like talking to a 10-year-old.

[ReaderY]

Perhaps arguments are nothing but empty words, and the only thing that matters is whether the people who make thhe argumejts are the right people or the wrong people.

If your “look at who supports the argument” approach is valid, then people who say it’s grossly unfair to accuse Trump of being a neofascist are equally right. Look at who his supporters are, they say. They’re Americans, not Germans! They’re the right people, not the wrong people. Fascism is a foreign idea, and they’re not foreigners. So they can’t possibly be fascists, can they?

Frankly, your argument is pretty similar.

[ReaderY]

Democrats have generally supported outsiders against insiders, although that rubric is starting to change. In the first half of the 20th century they supported Southerners and segregationists, in the latter half, rhe list of approved outsiders in the coalition started changed. But the rhetoric often didn’t. The same rhetoric which had justified slavery and segregation was often brought to bear to justify new constitutencies and activities, often little changed.

I think I have a right to point out that this is an inherent weakness of this type of rhetoric. Zealots can easily convince themselves that their opponents are acting out of blind hatred, superstition, etc. pretty much no matter what. I think it’s worth pointing out just how easy it is. When we see ourselves doing this, we need to apply a grain of salt.

[Jazzizhep]

Empirical history and sociology? I knew you were an idiot, but that really takes the cake.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Annual cost of birth control pills $268.

https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/birth-control/annual-cost-of-birth-control#:~:text=For%20those%20paying%20cash%20at%20the%20pharmacy%20for,pill%20is%20Sprintec%2C%20a%20generic%20drug%20of%20Ortho-Cyclen.

Do you buy insurance for socks too? Lol stupid ppl

[Sarcastr0]

You're misaligned here - I take factual issue with the claims in the article.

Until someone other than Rufo posting from anonymous sources comes out, this is bullshit.

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie. Super great comment, bruh.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Well, those female majority electorates keep picking Dems but gerrymandering, electoral college and such thwarts them."

Huh? That must be some pretty fancy district line-drawing, to gerrymander districts to disenfranchise women.

And all states are states are majority-female, so the electoral college doesn't disenfranchise women either.

Other than that, great comment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Germany where abortion is illegal, but isn't punished under certain circumstances, you mean?

Under 12 weeks, the woman must undergo psychological counseling which is specifically supposed to discourage the abortion in the interest of defending fetal life. After 12, it must be as a result of a rape or serious medical necessity. And the doctors (It requires two to agree on this.) face rather severe penalties if that latter determination is found to have been fraudulent, which is rather different from the regime under Doe v Bolton.

[Armchair Lawyer]

When the primary source is the very senator that the FBI agents directly complained to......

Well, it's evidence you haven't done your research.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Hearsay may be probative, but this is just partisan trash and you seem to kinda know it."

Lol. It's probative if it supports your narrative, and partisan trash if it doesn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually think that's why she felt free to vote for that gun control measure: The voters were already going to fire her on the basis of her impeachment votes, and participation in the January 6th committee. So she no longer had to pretend she agrees with them about anything.

One of the weaknesses of representative democracy is that, once a representative decides or realizes that they're not going to be reelected, they still have just as much power, but they no longer have to care what the people who elected them think about anything.

[Randal]

That's the fault of the voters of Wyoming, Brett, not "representative democracy."

Vote for people who share your principles, not for people who promise you things.

[Don Nico]

Randal,
As Romney observed (much to his regret) people vote for those who promise them things.

[Randal]

It's ok to vote for someone who shares your principles and promises you things.

As far as I can tell, precious few people share Romney's principles.

[defaultdotxbe]

Multiple people can't have the same point of view?

Such a ludicrous statement.

[defaultdotxbe]

Hell by your logic anyone homeschooled in a two parent household is receiving more than one point of view, so your entire premise is flawed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You:
Jim Crow was defeated in the 20th Century, but, again, we get why that one didn’t occur to you.

My immediate reply:

Explain

Must’ve been a shift change on the account

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Show your work.

[Illocust]

Later rulings building in Roe explicitly banned rewiring concurring opinions before allowing an abortion.

[Nige]

Sounds quite liberal by comparison with Republican demands. Of course, health care, contraception and child-care aren't ruinously expensive or under threat from Christian Nationalists in Germany, and Maternal Mortality rates are significantly better.

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the history of that German law, Brett...not the best example.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It’s said when any person chooses those lifestyles.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Woah, $2000 a YEAR of an expense you know you will incur?!?!

I better go buy insurance for it! Does anyone sell utility bill insurance, water bill insurance, grocery insurance, car payment insurance, clothing insurance, streaming service insurance, or sock and shoe insurance??

[ducksalad]

His point is, once you've figured out with your doctor the appropriate method, there is nothing unexpected or unplannable about it. If someone prefers to pay MORE to have it covered by a third party, fine, but no reason to make everyone buy it.

And to address your probable next objection, complications from birth control should be insured, but that is a separate issue. The same way tennis equipment is not covered but any medical results of tennis are covered.

Now, if your real objection is some equalitarian idea that men (and women not sexually active) ought to cover part of the cost, then just go ahead say that, instead of making up nonsense objections you don't believe yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the origin of that word sometime.

[David Nieporent]

Liz Cheney is more in line with the voters of Wyoming than she is of Northern Virginia. To reiterate: she has one of the most conservative voting records in Congress.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus, read up on fallacies sometime.

Ad hominem is saying an argument is bad because of who made it.

This is not an argument - it is a factual claim. An anonymously sourced factual claim. The credibility of the author absolutely matters in evaluating that.

[Sarcastr0]

...You just described hearsay.

What's evident is you need to look up more definitions.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

JFC you get dumber by the month.

The primary source would be those who are doing the complaining - not the person to whom they allegedly complained.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Weren't you just in another thread bemoaning the inherent unreliability of hearsay? Yet, here you are taking it as gospel. You should have more than two settings (perfect cynic or perfectly gullible).

[Nige]

Only if it leads to abuse from bigots and repression from politicians. Otherwise it's fine.

[Nige]

Also the free movement of people between jurisdictions within the EU and great public transport systems across borders are probably helpful, too.

[I Callahan]

Those abortion laws in Germany are by NO MEANS liberal. The Dobbs decision, which allowed Mississippi to set theirs at 15 weeks, is WAY more liberal than Germany's abortion laws.

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Did you even read Brett's comment?

[Bored Lawyer]

So what? Yes, they realize they have more opportunity here than there. Does not mean we are obligated to let them in, or be selective about only letting in those we believe will contribute to the country.

[Kazinski]

The real problem with that is that you are disappointed that he doesn’t drop everything and post on what concerns you.

If he dropped everything and posted on what concerns him then it would just lead to more disappointment.

But you seem to get disappointed easily he can’t even invite someone to guest post on a subject without you getting upset they may not say what you want them to.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The link contains 200 pages of the purported materials, which appear to be consistent with the descriptions in the article.

Are you saying that you think they are fabricated?

[Armchair Lawyer]

It is a factual claim. Nothing of which you have rebutted. Your only rebuttal is a claim that "this person is a liar". Which is the practical definition of an ad hominem argument .

If you care to rebut any of the facts presented, do so.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess you could call Doe v Bolton a 'later ruling'; Same day, but a bit later in the day. Georgia had a law requiring a three doctor panel review for findings that abortions were medically necessary, the Court struck it down, ruling that such a declaration of medical necessity had to be unreviewable.

Seems to have been some dubious happenings around Doe v Bolton.

[Randal]

You're right, that is the problem. You'd think the Jan 6 hearings would concern him. They obviously don't, and it's very mysterious.

[rsteinmetz]

Origin
mid 19th century: originally applied to people from the northern states of the US who went to the South after the Civil War to profit from the Reconstruction.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Remind me to post that any link of yours in the future in "hearsay" according to you.

[Nige]

Did you even read mine?

[Harvey Mosley]

Check out the history of Planned Parenthood, Sarcastr0...not the best example.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yep. Out-of-staters who ran for election within the state.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t think they ran for election. I grew up around people that remembered carpetbaggers. They profiteered off of the misery of rebuilding southerners. Wouldn’t have won an election because people hated them.

I guess maybe they’re heroes today or something, but if they did today what they did back then they’d be prosecuted.

[Armchair Lawyer]

A surprising number ran for election and won.

Remember, the 14th Amendment basically took the entire political class of the South....any federal or state official...and banned them from future government, local state or national. Anyone from the South with ANY real political experience was banned from running.

So, people like this would end up winning Senate elections.

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

[Kazinski]

It probably has very little to do with the Jan 6. hearings.

Cheney's goose was cooked when she voted to impeach Trump, well before the January 6th committee was formed. Her role on the committee has hardly rehabilitated her with her constituents though.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's fair that plenty are taking that stance, but there is middle ground. All hearsay isn't trash, but some of it is. A wise person would be skeptical of claims like this, which involve highly partisan sources making unsourced claims.

The some skepticism is warranted regarding the hearsay in the January 6 hearings. Notably, it was first level hearsay and provided by people with the same ideological commitments as the prior administration and who were loyal until the saw and heard what they heard.

We don't know what ideological commitments these FBI agents had or where they are getting their info (second, third hand?). So the fact that it's all coming from right wing sources, warrants a fair bit more skepticism.

(The story isn't implausible, FBI agents have been known to engage in double standards. But we also know FBI agents have selectively leaked info to be damaging as well, so hard to tell whether these whistleblowers are exposing politically motivated bad actors or are politically motivated bad actors, especially when we don't even know who they are.)

[Illocust]

I'm seriously impressed you managed to interpret my auto correct.

[Nige]

I can't think of a single Democratic politician I would describe as 'extreme' except Joe Manchin who is extremely in the pockets of the coal industry, while you have actual Qanon-influenced Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene and a bunch of others who cheered on an attempt to overthrow the election result.

[Life of Brian]

I can't think of a single Democratic politician I would describe as 'extreme' except Joe Manchin

In your absence I had forgotten what a truly unserious person you are.

[Nige]

Oh I'm deadly serious.

[David Nieporent]

She has lived in Wyoming for the past decade.

[bernard11]

Over Trump. Nothing else.

Shame on the voters.