Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

It has now come to light that John Eastman wrote in a December 31, 2020 email to two other private attorneys working on Trump election challenges, Alex Kaufman and Kurt Hilbert, regarding Donald Trump's certification of bogus "voter fraud" data, “I have no doubt that an aggressive DA or US Atty someplace will go after both the President and his lawyers once all the dust settles on this.” https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/02/trump-lawyers-saw-justice-thomas-as-only-chance-to-stop-2020-election-certification-00064592 Mr. Hilbert represented Trump in a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia, Trump v. Kemp, 511 F.Supp.3d 1325 (N.D. Ga. 2021), wherein Trump swore to the falsehoods about which Eastman expressed concern.

This is fertile ground for federal prosecution for conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and prosecution in Georgia for perjury/conspiracy to commit perjury under state law. I suspect that state charges will be brought sooner.

[Kazinski]

Is any of that going to matter after the midterms?

[Dan Schiavetta]

We’re about to have an election and you don’t care about people overturning elections or refusing to certify them?

[Frank Drackman]

Like this guy??
James Enos Clyburn (born July 21, 1940) is an American politician and retired educator serving as a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from South Carolina. He has served as House Majority Whip since 2019. He is a two-time majority whip, previously serving in the post from 2007 to 2011, and served as House assistant minority leader from 2011 to 2019.[1]

Clyburn was one of 31 House Democrats who voted not to count Ohio's 20 electoral votes in the 2004 presidential election.[36] George W. Bush won Ohio by 118,457 votes.[37

Frank "5 moves ahead, like Bobby Fischer"

[Nelson]

Whatabout?!?! Whatabout?!?!

Almost 20 years ago a guy did something, then stopped after the issue was investigated and found to have no basis! That's exactly the same as the Big Lie. If by exactly you mean not accepting hundreds of investigations (many by those who desperately want to find wrongdoing) found no evidence whatsoever.

But still: whatabout!!!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I love how you people suddenly criminalize the decades long behavior by your side and apply only to your political opponents, and we're all supposed to just ignore it and think it's okay.

What the Democrats are doing right now are what tyrants do. Hopefully they'll meet the same fate that tyrants deserve to meet.

[Nelson]

Making an accusation and accepting the result of the adjudication is normal. That's what everyone else in the history of American elections has done, until now.

That is not what Trump and the various credulous fools/useful idiots who believe his nonsense have done. No matter how many times they are proven wrong, they just keep believing.

As an extra layer of dishonesty, we have candidates who are running on and amplifying the lie to gain power for themselves. They know it isn't true, they're just that manipulative.

It's distressing to those of us who love this country, but you can't outlaw stupidity or naive credulity.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Making an accusation and accepting the result of the adjudication is normal

Yeah, it's not like many on the left (up to and including Hillary Clinton) spent the entire 4 years of the Trump admin publicly declaring that he stole the election and was not a legitimate president, let alone trying to remove him from office. They all just accepted the result because of their love and respect for democracy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

These people live in a reality where that didn't happen, where men can be women, and where BLM didn't burn down cities or our sacred capitol for months on end.

They are also rewriting the COVID terror where they were the good guys and calling for amnesty.

[Nige]

As I recall Hilary conceded the election and Obama conducted the transfer of power in the normal way, both of which were acceptances of his legitimacy. Which is a lot more than Trump did.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Obama and Biden colluded with Democrats in the FBI to spy on and undermine the Trump Presidency.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol

[Nige]

They did exactly none of that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As I recall Hilary conceded the election and Obama conducted the transfer of power in the normal way, both of which were acceptances of his legitimacy."

Certainly true, but Hillary later claimed that the election wasn't legitimate.

[Nige]

Did she? Did anyone actually hear her say it? Or care that much?

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Did she? Did anyone actually hear her say it?”

I did. You can if you want:

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

I don't know how much anybody cared.

[Sarcastr0]

Truly the same thing as Trump, TiP.

Just embarrassing.

[Nige]

Yeah, the contrast between the two is entirely illustrative.

[DonP]

Blatant hypocrisy, utterly without shame, appears to be a prized Progressive value.

[Nige]

Endlessly groping for false equivalences to justify their own terrible behaviours appears to be a prized conservative value.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: Hillary. Conceded. Immediately.

There was no attempt by "many on the left (up to and including Hillary Clinton)" to overturn the 2016 election. There were no attempts to "decertify" complete elections, or just ignore their results. Removing him from office for his post-election crimes was entirely legitimate and followed the constitutional order, and even if successful would have resulted in Mike Pence — not Hillary Clinton — becoming president.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Oh, and that's also why they (again, up to and including Hillary Clinton) are already publicly declaring that Republicans are "stealing" the 2022 mid-terms and painting it as an illegitimate election, even before the election has happened.

[David Nieporent]

Another thing that didn't happen.

[MonitorsMost]

It’s not wrong to point out that Democrats don’t exactly have a stellar record on accepting the results of elections. Even as a theatric protest that they knew would not work.

But to the extent you point it out, you would also be wrong not to point out that what Trump did was turn that sort of behavior up to 11, in a way that meaningfully worse and grotesque.

[FivebySixThree]

and you are playing the same whatabout bullshit game as him... pot, meet kettle, seriously ya'll just need to skip it.

you can guarantee in every election cycle more democrats will challenge election results than republicans. look it up; and I am only talking about office holders and those seeking the office

[Mr. Bumble]

It will be interesting to see how many election results are challenged this time around.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm curious if you actually have any principles?

[Kazinski]

Well I did have principals.

And I spent lots of time in their offices when I was young.

[Nige]

No wonder you built up such an aversion to them in later life.

[BillyG]

Golf clap. I resemble that joke!

[Frank Drackman]

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others

[not guilty]

After the midterms, the special investigative grand jury will continue to sit in Atlanta. The multiple grand jury investigations in D.C. will continue apace. Indictments are likely to follow in both jurisdictions.

What is the point of the question as to what is or is not going to matter?

[OtisAH]

My guess is he’s assuming MAGA retakes the House and is confusing their likely shuttering of the 1/6 commission. But he might be referring to them taking over Judiciary and trying to monkey around with the doj’s cases. Including, I’d expect, seeking out the next Page/Strzok to screech about.

[Frank Drackman]

That Ole B'rer Rabbit Kevin McCarthy (does have a Leporine appearance) is gonna throw that Ole' Uncle Remus/Bennie Thompson in the Briar Patch January 3, 2023

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why would the results of the midterms affect the viability of a prosecution under the theory suggested by not guilty?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose you could screw with the prosecution by immunizing testimony. Otherwise I don't see it.

[not guilty]

Congress can compel witness testimony under a grant of immunity, to the extent that the witness cannot be prosecuted based upon his Congressional testimony or upon evidence derived therefrom. That does not preclude prosecution altogether of the immunity recipient. The burden would be on the government to demonstrate that it obtained all of the evidence it proposes to use from sources independent of the compelled testimony.

A Congressional committee controlled by Republicans would in all likelihood be disinclined to elicit testimony inculpating Donald Trump from an immunized witness, so that the DOJ would likely not seek to use information generated by or from testimony at such a hearing. The impact upon a trial would accordingly be minimal. I surmise that the grand jury investigations to this point have generated a considerable amount of evidence, such that the government could carry its burden at a Kastigar hearing. (The defense would benefit somewhat from getting a preview of the government's proof if such a hearing is conducted prior to trial.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Why would the results of the midterms affect the viability of a prosecution under the theory suggested by not guilty? "

That is a question for a legal blog. This is a white, male, faux libertarian clinger blog.

[Kazinski]

Because it’s 99% political, and the politics have failed.

[Sarcastr0]

So you are just a nothing matters nihilist type?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Is any of that going to matter after the midterms?"

Prof. Volokh's endorsement of John Eastman -- an un-American loser -- will matter, as a stain on the record of Prof. Volokh, at least until Prof. Volokh is replaced.

[David Nieporent]

Why wouldn't it? The midterms — or, rather, 1/3/23, when the people elected are sworn in — may lead to the Republicans ending the 1/6 committee to carry Trump's water once again, but they have no bearing on federal or state criminal investigations.

[Life of Brian]

regarding Donald Trump’s certification of bogus “voter fraud” data, “I have no doubt that an aggressive DA or US Atty someplace will go after both the President and his lawyers once all the dust settles on this.”

Actually if you were to read the entirety of the email exchanges subjected to the latest ham-fisted leak rather than the bits selectively surfaced in the Politco red-meat article, you'd find that 1) the core issue was that the Georgia SOS was dragging its feet forking over the actual data so the expert declarations submitted with the original state complaint had relied on whatever secondary sources they could scrape up; 2) the email exchange was precisely to avoid Trump re-certifying the earlier state complaint since some of the information the experts relied on was now known to be inaccurate; and 3) the current complaint and verification were extensively qualified on that basis -- precisely to avoid untoward use by an overly-aggressive DA/US Atty down the road.

But do keep on fanning the flames on the latest desperate distraction from next week's well-deserved bloodbath.

[not guilty]

"[T]he email exchange was precisely to avoid Trump re-certifying the earlier state complaint since some of the information the experts relied on was now known to be inaccurate."

And John Eastman's concerns about inaccuracy notwithstanding, Trump incorporated by reference in his sworn certification to the federal court the inaccurate figures. Is perjury a big deal only when Bill Clinton does it?

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so you're claiming the qualifying language the attorneys worked out in the email thread to put in Trump's federal certification did not in fact make in into the certification? If that's correct, that would certainly make for a more interesting story than the rag-tag bits Politico tried to stitch together. It also seems like all the breathless media articles would be showing the actual content of the federal certification rather than quoting handfuls of words from the boilerplate language.

Which would be why -- shockingly -- that's not what happened. The qualifying language laid out in the email chain appears (I'd expect verbatim, but feel free to redline it) in footnote 4 of the federal complaint.

Now back to your regularly scheduled partisan hackery.

[not guilty]

Judge David Carter outlined the details of Trump's false swearing in his October 19, 2022 order finding the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applicable. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23168524-ruling-on-eastman-documents pp. 16-17.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so now we're back to "if a federal judge said it, it's golden?"

Address what I said or buzz off.

[not guilty]

A judicial finding that then-President Trump more likely than not committed a crime is not something to be easily dismissed or disregarded, like it or not. Judge Carter amply supported this finding based on the evidentiary record.

[Life of Brian]

Ok, my shameless partisan friend -- I want the last couple months of my life back enduring your endless litany of "Judge Loose Cannon" and variants.

Putting aside the fact that (as I'm sure you understand from your professed 25 years of practice) the evidentiary standard for probable cause is vastly lower than that required to convict, you've simply found a judge that did a bit of perfunctory handwaving under that lower standard and reached a conclusion you agree with, and now you're just mindlessly appealing to that authority.

As I originally stated, the email exchanges read as a whole shows a group of attorneys conscientiously engaging in the garden-variety practice of making sure they and their client don't make a false representation to a court. If you really do have the background you claim and thus understand that full well, it's clear why you don't want to substantively engage and instead just scurry behind the judicial frock.

[not guilty]

I practiced law for 28 years before retiring, not 25. Judge Carter's findings were pursuant to a preponderance of evidence standard, which is higher than probable cause. (My principal gripe with Judge Cannon is that she has not required the party bearing the burden of proof to submit any evidence whatsoever.) In any event, probable cause is sufficient to indict, whether in Atlanta or in DC.

As detailed in Judge Carter's order, Donald Trump swore to a verification in federal district court containing statements which John Eastman had advised included inaccurate vote "fraud" figures. No amount of yapping and yammering by blog commenters will change that.

[David Nieporent]

You can't swear to the accuracy of something but then say, "Oh, but I had my fingers crossed so it doesn't count."

[Life of Brian]

Well then it's certainly a good thing that's not what happened here!

[John F. Carr]

I believe the alleged perjury is footnote 4 on pages 6-7 of the main document of docket entry 1 at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/28917289/trump-v-kemp/

I would not convict Trump based on that weasely lawyer language.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep hope alive!

[Kazinski]

Ok, here's my prediction for the midterms:

House GOP +40 to 252
Senate GOP +4 54-46
Governors GOP +3.

We will probably know pretty early (Pacific time), if Bolduc wins in NH, and Dixon beats Whitmer in Michigan then I'll be pretty confident in my prediction.

[AmosArch]

Once the GOP takes back control I wonder if they'll be the bigger men or follow the Dems example and impeach Biden at every possible opportunity.

[not guilty]

Gerald Ford, then minority leader in the House of Representatives, said in 1970 that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history. In 1998 Newt Gingrich and Company proved that Ford was correct.

[Krayt]

Sadly it may only get worse before it gets better. When the Democrats came out for endless investigation and an impeachment, it was just the Republicans’ behavior with Clinton coming home to roost.

Yet at the same time there were calls for the Republicans, when they eventually got back control, that if there were a Democratic president, they should immediately move to impeach him.

Reason: to make its cheesy political move even more obvious, and hope to generate momentum for correction.

Laugh? Last week a Conspirator posted a bunch of constitutional changes, including ways to make impeachment easier.

So…gets worse before it gets better. The shoe may need to be on the other foot for the fourth or fifth time in 70 years, and kicked around, hard, to make opportunistic partisan fools on both sides realize the error of their ways.

I don't agree with that action, but at this point I'm Willy Wonka sighing and cynically saying, "Wait. Don't. Stop."

[Brett Bellmore]

I don’t think there are any institutional or procedural solutions to our present difficulty. Essentially what’s happened is that we’ve sorted ourselves out too well.

Lack of regular exposure to opposing views causes a trend towards extremism, and enables people to develop really ugly and unrealistic notions of what the opposing side are like. It’s easy to view the opposing side as a bunch of monsters when all you really know about them is people on your own side competing to discuss them in the most negative possible terms.

Aggravating this are two other factors.

1) Increased federal power. Everything is on the table now, nothing is off limits, and if you win at the federal level, you can impose your views on parts of the country where you lost.

2) A collapse of the norm of not doing big things with small minorities. It now seems normal to attempt large, irreversible policy changes on the basis of slight and transitory majorities.

The result is that losing an election is seen as potentially an existential crisis, not a momentary set-back, because the stakes have become so high, and you don’t need to have lost by much to lose it all.

I said I don’t see any procedural fixes to the sorting, but maybe these latter problems would be amenable to one: Require that laws be passed in two successive sessions of Congress to take effect, unless passed with a supermajority. In the latter case they would take immediate effect but only be temporary unless reenacted.

I think there are actually a lot of procedural patches needed at the federal level, to deal with abuses that were formerly assumed to be off the table. You need rules where good faith can no longer be assumed.

But for the sort? I don’t know what to do. Maybe just finish it, and go our separate ways?

[Nige]

‘it was just the Republicans’ behavior with Clinton coming home to roost.’

No, it was a direct response to the actions of Trump, his election campaign and his supporters.

[Krayt]

You do understand there are those who scream the Clinton impeachment was all above board and driven by same, don't you? And thus that had nothing to do with GIT 'IM of a political opponent?

"That's the story, and thou shalt stick to it."

[Nige]

Yes. I am also capable of distinguishing between diffefrent events and players and not pretending that they are all exactly the same. The idea that the Clinton hunt wasn't a GIT 'IM is laughable.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

When the Democrats came out for endless investigation and an impeachment, it was just the Republicans’ behavior with Clinton coming home to roost.

While I always thought the Clinton impeachment was a bad idea (no matter how legit the charges might have been), I don't know that you can cite it as the path to the Dems' approach to Trump when their hatred of him and refusal to accept that he won was so intense that some announced the day after the election that they intended to impeach him.

[Nige]

Amazing that they managed to hold off for three whole years.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, it is amazing

[Frank Drackman]

He’s [Gerald Ford] a nice guy but he played too much football with his helmet off.”

― Lyndon B. Johnson

[Kazinski]

I don’t think so, I’m certainly not in favor of impeaching Biden.

I agree with Kevin McCarthy:
"I think the country doesn’t like impeachment used for political purposes at all,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) told Punchbowl News in an interview published Wednesday. “If anyone ever rises to that occasion, you have to, but I think the country wants to heal and … start to see the system that actually works.”

However I think there might be a case for impeaching Harris for not invoking the 25th amendment. Obviously the “might” would have to be investigated thoroughly and get testimony on what Biden’s doctors think and the opinions of White House insiders.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm on record as saying that basically every President in my lifetime has done something that was properly impeachable, except maybe Carter, who was just feckless. Of course, the Democrats would never go after a Republican on one of those genuine abuses of power, might set a precedent they wouldn't want to live with. So they settle for BS stuff.

But there's little point in impeaching when the party of the officer being impeached doesn't care about the offense, like Democrats didn't care about Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice, or Republicans didn't care about Trump not being a Democrat.

[Frank Drackman]

won't get the chance, Biden looks like a dead man walking. (Natural causes, not from hammer attack by Illegal Alien Nudist)

[OtisAH]

They’ve been screeching about “revenge” for investigating Turnip’s crimes for two years now.

[John F. Carr]

Biden is not hated the way Trump was. He is merely disapproved of.

And as others have already noted, he has impeachment insurance. Like Bush had Quayle and McCain would have had Palin.

[Commenter_XY]

Kazinski....Pretty optimistic numbers for Team R. The trend has slowly and inexorable moved in Team R's direction (if you read RCP polling data). Should be an interesting evening.

Then what? I am much more interested in what Team R will do when in charge of the Congress. It would be nice to see a meaningful change in energy policy, and the regulatory climate.

As for impeachment, it is a political tool. I expect it to be deployed more frequently in the future, not less.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Team R will do when in charge"

Biden still has a veto. So nothing except spend money, a bi-partisan thing.

[santamonica811]

I'm sure the first thing the Rs will do is pass their health care bill. And then . . . ha, ha, ha...sorry, I thought I could get through that with a straight face.

If it's an R House and an R Senate; the one thing I'd be willing to bet the house on is that my Republican party will run away from that issue as fast as, as fast as, well; as fast as they did when they held the Senate, House, AND presidency.

What's the opposite of profiles in courage?

[bernard11]

They will do nothing constructive, XY. It will be performative all the way.

Idiotic investigations, a debt ceiling crisis, some other red meat.

[Kazinski]

Congress can't get much done unless it's bipartisan and the president supports it. At best they may be able to unwind some regulations.

But the most important thing is to stop digging the whole deeper.

A great example is the Inflation Reduction Act, which supposedly did reduce the deficit, but really was just Green Pork. And then of course Biden cited that supposed deficit reduction as "paying for" his student loan forgiveness.

I'm hoping for some steep budget cuts, but that's a year out, and if Biden wants to try another government shutdown in response let him, but they should be clear there won't be back pay for federal workers this time.

[bernard11]

Somehow I doubt many Republicans are eager to run campaigns in 2024 bragging about how they cut Social Security and Medicare.

There aren't going to be any deep budget cuts.

[Kazinski]

Cutting SS and Medicare will be off the table, I'd say the best place for cuts would be the federal workforce.

And of course reversing the green pork, and opening up federal lands for pipelines and energy production would also be anti-inflationary.

[Commenter_XY]

Reduce federal workforce by attrition, Kazinski? Seems the most painless way to do it.

[Kazinski]

Move them out of DC and let them quit.

Or maybe reduce their salaries every year by the inflation rate until new staffing targets are reached then freeze them.

[bernard11]

Reducing a workforce by attrition is a lousy way to do it, IMO.

That's how you lose the best people.

(And before the stupid snark starts, yes, there are plenty of good hardworking civil servants.)

[Commenter_XY]

Is there a 'good' way? I said painless, bernard11.

The goal is to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy. People who leave on their own - no problem. Best of luck. But do not replace them.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
I checked what the Federal attrition rate is:
In fiscal 2021, the attrition rate was 14.5% for GS 1-4 employees and 8.7% for GS 5-7 employees, 5>0% for GS 13 - 15 and >9% for SES
Even that would lead to a healthy reduction in 4 years, allow for limited hiring and be much less painful than other ways.
That approach would open promotion opportunities for the brights early and early-mid career staff.
Push bright young people and cuts costs at the same time.

[Noorondoor]

Make it a law that any recipients of social security and medicare don't get to vote and then we can talk.

[Nige]

Can we include the members of any corporate entity that gets government funding, subsidies or tax breaks?

[Noorondoor]

Absolutely!

No one who gets direct transfer payments should get to vote to continue them.

[Nige]

Go for it.

[AmosArch]

Update to the Cloudflare/Kiwifarms situation Eugene wrote about awhile back.

KF continues to be pursued relentlessly by the rainbow crowd.

Even though there are some much smaller alternative antiDDOS services, Cloudflare is a near monopoly and provides advanced protections these alternatives don't which has been problematic since this has enabled the rainbow crowd to ratchet up a constant DDOS attack on the site large enough to cause many providers to blackhole it. The DDOS attacks are professionally organized and probably have significant funding behind them. This probably isn't some lone garage hacker.

Additionally the rainbow crowd have started a pressure and harassment campaign on current and possible internet service providers of the site (and in some cases the relatives of employees) and have managed to start getting KF kicked off of Tier 1 networks. For those curious Tier 1 networks are the 'backbone' of the internet. Theres only a handful of Tier 1s in the world. You get kicked off of enough of these and you are effectively (for most regular intents and purposes) banned from the entire internet.

All in all a surprising and impressive amount of power on display from this supposedly oppressed and disadvantaged group. And quite an interesting event for those curious how concentrated power is on the supposedly 'decentralized' internet.

[Sarcastr0]

Super toxic group getting shunned by private companies.

This is normal. You don’t get to be an asshole and then demand I bring over my Nintendo and play with you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Everybody's super-toxic to somebody. It bodes poorly for freedom in America if being regarded as "super-toxic" can have consequences on this scale, without any actual criminality.

The real problem is most people in a critical industry like IT having a shared notion of what's "super-toxic".

[Sarcastr0]

We have discussed what KiwiFarms deal was. If you want to hand waive that to feed your persecution complex, that’s on you.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? I don't CARE what KiwiFarms was like. If they were doing something illegal, go after them through the courts. If not, leave them the fuck alone.

[Nige]

Yes, you see you NOT CARING is the thing, isn't it? You DON'T CARE about the details of a lot of the things you defend.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of like the ACLU didn't care if the marchers were Nazis?

[Nige]

The fact that they were Nazis is exactly why they cared. They were aware of how loathesome they were, that was the point, which is why it's regarded as a courageous exercise of principle. But you don't even want to acknowledge the awfulness of KF, you just want them to be left alone to carry on making life hell for their targets because you hate to see their targets stand up for themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's actually exactly the same.

You put somebody beyond the pale, the pale moves, and somebody else is the next guy to be put beyond the pale. And that keeps up until there's enough push-back to stop the process, only push-back keeps getting harder if getting put beyond the pale directly compromises your ability TO push back.

The ACLU defended the ability of the Nazis to march, because they knew if the Nazis could be prevented from marching, so could the Commies. And they actually cared about the rights of Commies.

I don't necessarily care for Kiwifarms, and whatever they do, but I know that a lot of groups I'm associated with, such as the NRA, are in the crosshairs, too. And I want to stop this process BEFORE I'm having to fight to get pro-gun groups restored to being able to use the internet and banking services, while being handicapped by being cut off from them myself as soon as I start defending them.

[Nige]

You seem to be pushing the pale back from ‘marching’ to ‘doxxing and harassing and terrorising anyone they don’t like, mostly LGTBQ people.’ I’ll support anyone’s right to march, I’ll oppose anyone’s doxxing and harassing people, I won’t pretend they’re essentially the same activities just because I’ve boxed myself into a political corner where I have to support it because it’s a major form of my side’s political expression.

Organisations get put in crosshairs by political movements all the time – just ask Planned Parenthood. And the ‘scandals’ used to attack PP were invented, unlike those associated with the NRA.

[Brett Bellmore]

And if you ever catch me proposing that PP should be denied access to banking services, or be cut off from use of the internet, you'll have me dead to rights for hypocrisy.

[Nige]

Shutting them down completely would do both, of course.

[bernard11]

The ACLU defended the ability of the Nazis to march, because they knew if the Nazis could be prevented from marching, so could the Commies. And they actually cared about the rights of Commies.

Is it even possible, in your mind, that they were acting in good faith?

[OtisAH]

No, nothing like that at all. Not even a little.

[Nige]

Brett's embrace of moral relativism is near total.

[OtisAH]

And yet it’s still somehow a one-sided moral relativism.

[bernard11]

You disagree that Kiwi Farms is super-toxic?

[AmosArch]

Sorry that Big Lie that libs have been parroting the past few years that they are only against free speech due to business rights which they suddenly love in this and only this case, is out the window now that Dems are demanding Musk censor twitter or the state will step in.

[Sarcastr0]

Man, you are envious of that big lie rhetoric.

Speech having social consequences that may have economic effects is not like some new diabolical Democratic tool.

[AmosArch]

lol, I liked how you ignored that I debunked your lie. The mask is off. Leftoids will stamp out opposing opinions by any means necessary.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, you seem to have mostly made that up.

[John F. Carr]

Is there criminal liability for DDoS without corresponding extortion demands? Republicans may control the DoJ before the statute of limitations expires.

[jb]

So you're mad that a site that's famous for sending bands of people to harass others is now themselves being targeted by a "rainbow crowd" and getting a dose of their own medicine?

Or you're mad that one particular company who happens to be the best at what they do, but clearly not a monopoly, has chosen not to do business with a bunch of terrible people?

[AmosArch]

By far the ones who actually harass others and are openly bragging about it right now are your side. But I guess its okay when you guys do it!

[NOVA Lawyer]

What a coward. Instead of engaging with the fact that KiwiFarms is harassing others and openly bragging about it which is what made them a target, you retreat to: "Well other people do it more. I think."

This is what is generally called a concession. You're just too cowardly to admit that jb was right.

[not guilty]

Carlton Reeves, a U. S. District Court judge from Mississippi, is presiding over a criminal prosecution wherein the accused has questioned whether the federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional. Judge Reeves has invited the parties to weigh in on whether the Court should appoint a historian to serve as a consulting expert pursuant to Fed.R.Evid 706. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23255743/us-v-bullock-historian-order.pdf

Appointment of such an expert makes a boatload of sense to me. As Judge Reeves explained:

This Court is not a trained historian. The Justices of the Supreme Court, distinguished as they may be, are not trained historians. We lack both the methodological and substantive knowledge that historians possess. The sifting of evidence that judges perform is different than the sifting of sources and methodologies that historians perform. See [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111,] 2177 [(2022)] (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“Courts are, after all, staffed by lawyers, not historians.”). And we are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791. Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good for him!

Sometimes experts really do know more than the rest of us. They can even be “expert” (to use the adjective form).

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure. But they can also be biased, and let that bias skew their expertise. I mean, imagine the Court in Bruen had hired Belesilles, or just somebody interchangeable with him who hadn't been exposed yet, to provide objective information.

Experts are all well and good, when the topic is totally apolitical. A rapidly shrinking domain... (Or maybe not, thinking about bite mark analysis.) You need to let the sides in the dispute hire their own experts and have the court see what dueling experts have to say. If the court itself hires one expert, there's no adversarial process to expose bias.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“The facts have a well known liberal bias.”

[Frank Drackman]

That the Paul Pelosi attacker is an Illegal Alien??? That the Hunter Biden Laptop is real?? That Hunter Biden committed a felony when he attempted to buy a handgun?? That Barak America was against SSM and John McCain was for it?? That Eric Holder defied Congressional Sub-penis's and is yet to be prosecuted?? That Stuttering John Fetterman has pubicly denounced Fracking?? That "Dr." Jill Biden's Thesis would be lucky to get a "C" in a Highschool Expository writing class??

[Brett Bellmore]

According to liberals, anyway. Go figure.

[not guilty]

"If the court itself hires one expert, there’s no adversarial process to expose bias."

Wrong. An expert appointed by the court pursuant to Rule 706, per subsection (b):

(1) must advise the parties of any findings the expert makes;
(2) may be deposed by any party;
(3) may be called to testify by the court or any party; and
(4) may be cross-examined by any party, including the party that called the expert.

Moreover, Rule 706(e) states explicitly that "This rule does not limit a party in calling its own experts."

Once again, Brett is simply making shit up.

[Life of Brian]

Such feigned pedantry. I suspect after such a cross-examination you yourself would be the first to triumphantly note that the only material contradictory to the court's appointed expert was presented by attorneys, not by another expert. That was clearly Brett's point.

[David Nieporent]

No, that was not clearly Brett's point, and is wrong anyway. Apparently you don't understand how cross-examination works, and ignored the citation to 706(e).

[not guilty]

Brett's claim is that there is no adversarial process to expose a court appointed expert's bias. That is simply untrue. As John Henry Wigmore famously observed, "Cross-examination is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth."

The scope of impeachment for bias is broad, and it is the same for a court appointed expert as for any other witness.

[Sarcastr0]

Experts are all well and good, when the topic is totally apolitical.

Which neatly means no experts ever, I guess!

[bernard11]

You need to let the sides in the dispute hire their own experts and have the court see what dueling experts have to say.

If the judge has no expertise how is he supposed to evaluate what the dueling experts have to say?

I don't think I could accurately judge a debate about some issue in quantum physics.

[shawn_dude]

We see this all the time in technology-related cases where judges use their teenage grandchildren to set up their apple-pad-thingy.

[Life of Brian]

If the judge has no expertise how is he supposed to evaluate what the dueling experts have to say?

Part of the job of an expert witness (as well as the questioning attorney) is to present their subject matter in a way that a lay judge/jury can relate to and conceptually understand, even if they can't follow all the excruciating details. The factfinder then makes a call based on which expert's testimony they find the most sensible/credible.

That said, I can see how that could be much more difficult for a less-objective subject like history than it is for hard sciences etc.

[bernard11]

Frankly, LOB, I find that dubious.

To repeat my analogy, I don't see how I could tell which physicist's testimony was more sensible/credible.

Some years ago I watched, on Court TV (is that still around?) a trial involving the whole "shaken baby" business. Both sides had all kinds of experts - neurologists, other physicians, etc. It struck me that I had no clue which side was right and that if I were on the jury I would have no choice but to acquit, based on "reasonable doubt."

But that doubt only existed because I had no way to evaluate the expert testimony involved.

[Life of Brian]

To repeat my analogy, I don’t see how I could tell which physicist’s testimony was more sensible/credible.

Much as you would with any other witness. Even though you may feel like you can much more readily wrap your head around the subject matter when a witness testifies, for example, which car disregarded the traffic signal, when two witnesses testify to completely contradictory facts you often don't have any way to break the tie other than sizing up their credibility (e.g., how they acted on the stand, particularly under cross-examination) and how probable/improbable their testimony comes across. It's not a perfect system by any means, but juries cut through all the noise and reach what most would consider the right result the vast majority of the time.

It struck me that I had no clue which side was right and that if I were on the jury I would have no choice but to acquit, based on “reasonable doubt.”

I grant you it's a harder problem in the criminal context with the elevated burden of proof, but if a criminal defendant could hang a jury simply by throwing in an expert to speak a train of gobbledygook over the jury's head, we'd have a lot more hung juries than we do. Instead, jurors are specifically instructed not to defer to experts -- here's a pretty typical example from the 9th Circuit model instructions:

[Expert] opinion testimony should be judged like any other testimony. You may accept it or reject it, and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case.

[Don Nico]

"no expertise how is he supposed to evaluate what the dueling experts have to say?"
That has been the central argument against public health issues (such as COVID-19) being litigated in front of judges.

[bernard11]

Don,

Frankly, I think that litigating complex technical issues in front of judges is ridiculous.

There is a sort of "lawyers know everything" syndrome that infects our legal system.

[Don Nico]

Nonetheless, no one else is empowered to perform that function. There could be a whole new case of judges but from whence would their authority derive.

[Martinned]

Well, for one thing you could have (more) specialised judges/courts. In other countries, there is much more sorting of specific types of cases to specific judges with relevant extra training/experience. In the US there is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Southern District of New York for all things to do with securities law, and there are the corporate law specialists in Delaware, but that's about it.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
That could work up to a point. But by the time a dispute requires adjudication in an Article III Court that approach breaks down to some degree. Remember we are not asking the judges to decide on the technology or science per se, but to determine if the laws have been followed and whether Constitutional guarantees have been respected.
As a for instance, we do not expect that judges are expert in anthropology or sociology in the present Harvard/UNC case.

[Martinned]

The other option is to abandon the adversarial model a bit and have the court appoint the expert.

[David Nieporent]

And if the court gets lucky and picks the one expert who knows the Truth out of the multiple experts with different theories, I guess that would work!

[Hank Ferrous]

David N,

Limitations of reasonmag's commenting system, I can't reply directly to your reply. Do you have a possible solution? Your comment is one I've considered more than once. Possibly while denigrating folks for considering themselves 'experts' due to having prepared for a case, or written a white paper. I will admit to not having a solution in mind, and occasionally being less mature than I could be.

[David Nieporent]

Limitations of reasonmag’s commenting system, I can’t reply directly to your reply. Do you have a possible solution? Your comment is one I’ve considered more than once. Possibly while denigrating folks for considering themselves ‘experts’ due to having prepared for a case, or written a white paper. I will admit to not having a solution in mind, and occasionally being less mature than I could be.

I have no solution beyond the adversarial system, with some judicial gatekeeping to exclude non-experts masquerading as experts. It is by no means perfect; anyone paying attention can identify numerous flaws. But it at least guarantees that each side gets a chance to put forth a theory in support of its case if that theory has any plausible scientific basis.

[John F. Carr]

The judge observes that historians favor government regulation of guns.

It looks like this is being set up as a test case. If the court appoints an expert, is a defendant represented by a public defender also entitled to its own expert at public expense? I'm sure the prosecution can afford its own expert too.

[shawn_dude]

We hold this idea (barely) that judges are able to be neutral about the cases they oversee and speak to the law as written rather than their own political preferences. If such a judge appoints a historian and directs them to avoid their own political preferences as well as to correctly cite sources, then I don't see a problem here. We've recently seen the alternative in the overturning of Roe where the justices declared that history and tradition are key to understanding the Constitution and then proceeded to make up history and tradition based on their own political worldview.

[Jacob Grimes]

I seem to remember SCOTUS suggesting that the parties would bear most of the burden of making a historical argument.

Also, couldn't a lot of the historical analysis be derived from previous cases after a certain point? Think of all the historical sourcing performed and arguments made in the Bruen filings alone. In a few years, there will probably be a lot more to draw from just from briefs and amici in gun cases.

[John F. Carr]

I was thinking of the process used in some states to admit evidence from speed measuring gadgets in traffic court. If you make an objection in the proper form at the proper time the prosecution needs to convince the court that the UltraLyte 100 LR is a reliable device. One company used to have an astrophysicist come in as an expert witness and say their device so good even NASA uses it. (A modified version, but who needs to know.) Once one court in the state took judicial notice the others could say, "if it's good enough for judge Brown it's good enough for me." Usually this resulted in a domino effect in favor of the prosecution. There was a speed bump in New Jersey after a laser gun showed the courtroom moving at implausible speed. Fixed with a firmware update -- LTI guns no longer measure speed indoors, only at ranges larger than the size of a typical courtroom.

[Randal]

I mean, we already knew this but... after all the hand-wringing over the non-attack on Kavanaugh, here's what conservatives have to say about an actual attack on Pelosi:

Arizona GOP nominee Kari Lake mocks attack on Paul Pelosi at campaign event

Trump pitches a Pelosi conspiracy theory

NC Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson mocks attack that sent Pelosi’s husband to hospital

The GOP's mockery of Nancy Pelosi goes beyond cruelty

In the midterms, GOP extremism allows no sympathy for Pelosi's husband

They are so bereft of human decency that they find hammer attack on an elderly man comical

Donald Trump Jr. retweets photo of underwear and a hammer with the caption “Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready”

Good one, conservatives.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Owning the libs” has become their only value.

[Ben_]

People watched how Trump was treated, and George Bush before him. People learned that the behavior you’re complaining about is clever and funny.

[Sarcastr0]

So in one of these cases someone got hospitalized. In the other you are angry people weren’t decorous enough to Presidents you like.

[Moderation4ever]

Every President gets flak and headwinds. Just look at history. Most accept it and do their job. Trump was the first President to ever just sit and whine. Did Reagan complain when he was said to be old and senile, did Clinton complain, did Bush complain, or Obama when Republicans said he was not a citizen and demanded his papers. Trump just stewed from the first minute when he did not get as many people at his Inauguration as former Presidents.

[Ben_]

Tell it to Randal

[Randal]

Huh? A broken skull is different in kind from "flak and headwinds."

[Ben_]

None of the people you’re complaining about caused any injury.

[Randal]

Oh sorry, I forgot how stupid you are! I guess "stupid" is inaccurate. But "brainwashed" isn't quite right either. Brainwhittled. As in, most of it's been stripped away, and what's left is a crude reflection of a single, simple idea. Not unlike a bot, really.

[Ben_]

Congrats on exhibiting bad behavior in a thread where you pretend to care about other people’s bad behavior.

[Randal]

Thank you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's what was actually said...

“I reached out to the Speaker. I called her, I know she was on a plane to California, but I was able to text with her to tell her about our prayers for Paul. Thankfully he’s gonna be OK,” McCarthy said.
“But thankfully the attacker — he’s a deranged individual — but thankfully he is arrested,” he continued. “And we’ve watched this with Lee Zeldin, we’ve watched this with Supreme Court Justices, this is wrong — violence should not go. You watch what happened to Steve Scalise and others. This has got to stop.”

Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), the No. 2 House Republican, offered a more forceful response Friday, tweeting from his account: “Disgusted to hear about the horrific assault on Speaker Pelosi’s husband Paul” before adding: “Let’s be clear: Violence has no place in this country.”

""Horrified and disgusted by the reports that Paul Pelosi was assaulted in his and Speaker Pelosi's home last night," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Twitter. "Grateful to hear that Paul is on track to make a full recovery and that law enforcement including our stellar Capitol Police are on the case.""

But....don't pay any attention what was actually said...

[Sarcastr0]

Here is what this looks like.

Republicans get threatened, security is tightened. Because both Dems and Reps are into preventing Republicans from being assasinated.

Dems get threatened, it’s all a laugh. Because most Republicans are kinda okay with Dems getting assassinated.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I think you've got a certain sort of blinders on, if that's what you took away from the quoted comments by Republican leaders.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Now quote some the other Republican leaders.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ted Cruz:

"What happened to Paul Pelosi last night is horrific. Heidi & I are praying for him & Nancy & the entire Pelosi family. May God’s protection be upon them. We can have our political differences, but violence is always wrong & unacceptable."

Rand Paul:
"No one deserves to be assaulted. Unlike Nancy Pelosi’s daughter who celebrated my assault, I condemn this attack and wish Mr. Pelosi a speedy recovery."

[Armchair Lawyer]

Chuck Grassley

"Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tweeted, “I wish Mr Pelosi well & pray for a quick recovery Everyone deserves 2b respected & violence is never okay.”"

[Bored Lawyer]

NIce sentiment. The "2b" is barbarous, and reflects why Twitter should be burned to the ground.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, there is a big fat conspiracy theory floating around the GOP at the moment on this event, and radio silence on that.

And, of course, no actual action proposed.

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't know what or whom you are addressing. Is there some conspiracy theory about burning down Twitter I did not hear about?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sorry, which conspiracy theory are you talking about?

The one where the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant who should've been deported years ago?

Or the one where the Capitol Police had cameras at the home, but just weren't actually...monitoring them....for some reason?

Or the one that for some reason, Pelosi didn't have a simple ADT security system installed to alert the cops or Capitol Police if there was a break in?

Which one?

[BillyG]

If the "conspiracy" is Paul pelosi was hammered by his gay lover.... It's called trolling. Something you're familiar with.

[Commenter_XY]

Bored lawyer, it took me a minute to get it; thanks for the laugh. You are so right about that. It grates on one's grammatical sensibilities.

[Moderation4ever]

I think this is a good point many Republicans were horrified and spoke out. I would be nice if they were the dominate voice and not the party crazies.

[Nige]

There was a time when you could roll your eyes a bit at rote sentiments expressed by public figures after such an event, now it's like, wow, some of them actually took a courageous stand and expressed sympathy for the guy who got attacked with a hammer.

[Jerry B.]

They probably do, but you won't see it in the media.

[Bob from Ohio]

"nice if they were the dominate voice"

GOP leader, GOP whip, GOP leader, next president pro tem, US senator

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Assuming you're not actually denying what was referred to above, you appear to be saying that the positive things said by some Republicans somehow offset the negative things said by other Republicans.

It's not a contest.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, he is saying that smearing all Republicans by the actions of a few jerks is cheap theater at best and outrageous at worst. See my comments below.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

I'm sure counsel can speak for him/herself.

But it's great to hear that the Republicans mentioned by Randal do not represent the majority of Republicans/Republican voters, and that the majority have conducted themselves with honor in relation to this matter. We just don't hear from them as much as we do the "higher profile" individuals.

It's a bit like "not all Muslims are terrorists", isn't it?

[Armchair Lawyer]

What negative things were said?

If you're talking about "Republicans" you tend to look at national leadership, and not a random assistant deputy county clerk somewhere.

[Bored Lawyer]

Best take I have seen on this is Byron York, here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democratic-reaction-to-scalise-shooting-is-model-for-gop-today

To summarize:
1. The guy who went into Pelosi's home and attacked her husband is seriously disturbed. (I would add that his politics seem to be, shall we say, eclectic).
2. When Scalise was attacked, Dems condemned it, expressed good wishes to Scalise, without taking on collective political guilt. (This is not 100% true, but mostly is true.)
3. Republicans should do the same.

Most Republicans have more or less followed this course. Shame on those who have not. Also shame on those who seek to exploit the event to smear half the country.

[shawn_dude]

Nit Pick: Registered Republicans are not half of the country.

"Most independents in the U.S. lean toward one of the two major parties. When taking independents’ partisan leanings into account, 49% of all registered voters either identify as Democrats or lean to the party, while 44% identify as Republicans or lean to the GOP."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/

And really, a good portion of the 44% registered/lean Republicans aren't 100% on board with the "Big Lie" and all of the conspiracy nonsense the party has come to stand for. It's really the core primary voters and the whackos they get on the general ballot that are the problem. As long as violent conspiracies are used to motivate GOP voters, we're going to see more crazies attacking people while shouting Qanon B.S.

[Frank Drackman]

Again, I thought this was a blog for Mouthpieces (HT J. Sacrimone)
but of course closest you've come to being a Shyster is watching Law & Order (Cell doors closing sound effect) but there is a Federal Statue covering what Big Brain Brett's potential Assassin (If Lee Harvey Oswald had chickened out at the last minute did he commit a crime? show your work)
18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876

Frank "Immaterial, Irreverent, and umm, can't remember the last one..... Oops!"

[Jacob Grimes]

"The millions of voters and thousands of representatives of this political party have no decency. As proof, here is what four of them said."

You wouldn't do this shit with religion, don't do it with politics.

[Randal]

Politicians in a democracy were put there by their supporters. It's fair to assume they're representing their constituencies. If you think these guys are saying disgusting things, vote them out! Until then it's on you.

[Frank Drackman]

This guy makes sense. Kill him!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jacob Grimes]

Even if every elected representative's authority was limited to casting a single vote in a particular way on a single bill in a single instance, you'd still be wrong to suggest that voters bear some responsibility for his or her personal character.

[Randal]

Whoa, what??? You don’t think voters bear responsibility for electing people of bad character? That’s a new, weird mind-trick for excusing the bad behavior of the GOP. It’s not our fault we elected a misogynist seditious narcissist as president, we’re character-blind!

What’s next, are you going to start electing sociopaths? Criminals? Immigrants?

[David Nieporent]

Whoa, what??? You don’t think voters bear responsibility for electing people of bad character?

Not retroactively!

[Randal]

What's this theory that candidates who seem fine during the campaign suddenly go bad in office? Almost always, they had the same character traits before they were elected as after.

Anyway, most of the above quotes came from GOP candidates who are currently campaigning! This is the sort of personality that Republicans are looking for. Do you think Kari is going to suddenly tank in Arizona because of this?

[Nige]

That only works if the candidate was incredibly succesful in hiding or obscuring certain character traits that later emerge, otherwise, the voters can eat the blame.

[David Nieporent]

That's incredibly stupid. You know this isn't the UK, right? You can't dissolve Parliament and call snap elections. Nobody can "vote them out" until the next scheduled election.

[Kazinski]

What does the attack have to do with actual conservatives?

I totally agree with Rand Paul's statement:

“No one deserves to be assaulted. Unlike Nancy Pelosi’s daughter who celebrated my assault, I condemn this attack and wish Mr Pelosi a speedy recovery,”

As a reminder after Rand Paul was attacked by a neighbor, who was idealogically motivated, severely enough to need part of his lung removed, Christine Pelosi tweeted ' Rand Paul's neighbor was right".

This isn't to endorse, or really even to condemn, the insensitive reactions to attacks on ones political enemies, but just to note it's normal human behavior.

As is the need to try to capitalize on it politically.

[Sarcastr0]

Rand Paul's neighbor was not ideologically motivated - it was a dispute about their yards
That doesn't mean assaulting Rand Paul was cool, but it does make your bullshit 'apology by way of attacking Nancy Pelosi's daughter' rather a fucked up way to respond.

just to note it’s normal human behavior
Hard to think why you'd want to note it other than to normalize it.

[Bored Lawyer]

Steven Scalise was attacked by an ideologically motivated person. Aytacked means shot at and wounded.

[Sarcastr0]

No one here is disputing that.

People ARE disputing that this guy was ideologically motivated, and now Kaz is making shit up about some lawn dispute being partisan.

[Kazinski]

Rene Boucher was a registered Democrat, and nobody could find any other motivation.

Plus he had a lot of motivation to claim it was something else like a property dispute because he would have been sentenced much more stiffly if he had actually said he was politically motivated. As it was Paul was awarded 580k compensation, and was sentenced to 8 months in prison.

But I will concede there is no more evidence of the political motivation of Paul's attacker than there is of the motivation of Pelosi's attacker, except that all the evidence shows that Pelosi's attacker was certifiably mentally ill, and there is no evidence of mental illness motivating the attack on Paul.

[Sarcastr0]

Rene Boucher was a registered Democrat, and nobody could find any other motivation.

Oh, well then. Eveyone knows registering as a Democrat is clear motive for assault!

It was about yards - the other neighbors talked about the ongoing petty feud.

there is no more evidence of the political motivation of Paul’s attacker than there is of the motivation of Pelosi’s attacker, except that all the evidence shows that Pelosi’s attacker was certifiably mentally ill,

You mean the QAnon-ful webite? I'm down with crazy as a main motive, but this guy by all reports went from disturbed to insane via QAnon.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Don't forget the "journal". Police recovered Depape's journal after his arrest (it was found in the backpack he had brought to Pelosi's house), and its contents have yet to be publicly disclosed.

Should be interesting.

[BillyG]

The guy who attacked pelosi is a Canadian in the country illegally. Pot head addict. LGBTQ flag flying Nudist from Berkeley.

And you're claiming he's an ultra maga conservative. Really?

[Sarcastr0]

You…may want to check some other source.

[Ben_]

They’ll say anything. Don’t take it too seriously. They’ll say the exact opposite thing next time. It’s just noise.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben, your extreme partisanship doesn't mean you can just assume away facts that are linked to and discussed here as lies.

I suppose you can, but then you become an insane person unmoored from reality and driven only by hate for those libs.

Which is not the way anyone should want their life to be.

[Ben_]

Very noisy

[Hank Ferrous]

'Your extreme partisanship doesn’t mean you can just assume away facts that are linked to and discussed here as lies.' You may want to try this standard for yourself.

[Nige]

Well he was trying to attack Pelosi, favourite whipping girl of the right, so yeah, there might have been some evolution in his views and his politics.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And yet, Liberals CELEBRATED a guy assaulting Rand Paul and breaking his ribs, calling his neighbor "right" for doing it....

[Sarcastr0]

Who did that?

[Armchair Lawyer]

See below.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Christine Pelosi is just one person, as far as I know.

[Don Nico]

"was not ideologically motivated – it was a dispute about their yards"
So what. Christine Pelosi showed herself to be an asshole. Her comment was ideologically motivated.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I asked earlier about principles, and here you are uttering bald-faced lies.

Thank you for providing a definitive response.

Rand Paul was attacked by his neighbor for being an asshole in regards to a dispute over yard waste. The fact that Paul was a Republican asshole was merely a coincidence.

I see now why you don't care about perjury. You're a willing and prolific liar yourself.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And liberals said attacking Paul was "Right"

[Sarcastr0]

Do you mean like twitter rando assholes?

[Armchair Lawyer]

No, like Nancy Pelosi's daughter, among others.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I was not aware that Pelosi's daughter was an elected official.

Perhaps you're confusing her status with that of say, Kari Lake, or Glenn Youngkin, or perhaps even Clay Higgins?

Brett said certain judges should be hung from lampposts. Republicans are in favor of executing judges!

I suspect I already know the answer to this, but do you see how stupid you sound?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah. You think Kari Lake is currently an elected official?

Well, that goes to show your lack of intelligence.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You think there's a important difference between being elected and candidacy?

I noticed that you're too busy defending your moronic whataboutism bullshit to respond with any substantive remark about the other names.

Perhaps because you're full of shit and you know it? It would be a miracle, but there's always time left for someone like you to have a moment of self-awareness. A fleeting moment, but a moment nonetheless.

[Sarcastr0]

So by liberals he means one person.

Lame.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Among others. "

It also includes, for example Iowa Democratic Senate nominee Mike Franken. Who said it was right for Rand Paul to be attacked. There are others, easily found via google.

Now I've provided more than enough quotes to support my position here. Perhaps you should actually look things up, rather than consistently be wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

There are others when you are already delving into some deep cuts.

You have manifestly failed to make any kind of case about what ‘liberals’ said. I think you know that by now.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The answer is obvious: The Congress should impeach when there are legitimate grounds for impeachment, as in Trump's two impeachments and Nixon's would-have-been-had-he-not-resigned impeachment, and not when the charges are silly fluff that has nothing to do with national security or any other national interest and isn't a high crime anyway, as in Bill Clinton's impeachment.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and it's thinking like this that leads many Republicans to ask why should we play nice?

As for impeachment: to date no President has ever been convicted after impeachment (the closet being Johnson) and impeaching Biden would fail as well.

Biden is a one term president and wasting time on an impeachment and trial would only serve to give him more credibility than he deserves (not to mention that a conviction would result in a President Harris). Much better for the country if the Congress would get back to doing the job it is authorized to do and stop all of this theater.

[Frank Drackman]

Perjury not a high crime? thought this was a Blog for Shysters

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, by some definitions it would only be a high crime if it concerned some governmental matter. But having government employees going around destroying evidence and suborning perjury on his behalf would qualify by any definition.

[Kazinski]

It wasn't just perjury, it was obstruction of justice.

The testimony and deposition were the result of Paula Jones' lawsuit which Clinton was using his presidential powers to try to frustrate.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Lol. No bias in that list. Committing an actual crime while in office is fine.

[shawn_dude]

If obstruction by lying about your extramarital affair is a crime worthy of impeachment, Trump should have been impeached more than twice and it should be sufficient to keep Republicans from re-electing him going forward. Right?

[Bored Lawyer]

Did I miss the pending civil action in which Trump testified about his affairs?

What about obstrucing an Article III court in its work do you not undertand? Once that case went forward, then perjury during its course obstructed the workings of the federal court in Arkansas.

What proceeding did Trump obstruct? (Not that he is not a lying scumbag, but if that were a disqualification, we would have many fewer politicians.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

We know he obstructed the Muller investigation, and we know he obstructed the certification of the Electoral votes.

We also know that he's obstructed the investigation into his theft of national security secrets.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

I don’t buy your excuse for Clinton’s blatant perjury, but I otherwise agree that there was enough evidence to have held a proper “trial” in each of those cases.

However, if we have learned anything about the impeachment process over the last 50 years or so, it is that impeachment is not a useful Constitutional process--if it were deleted from US Constitution v2.0 it would not be missed.

[Bored Lawyer]

The really odd thing is that the Constitution had no mechanism for removing someone who is simply not capable of doing the job. And the 25th Amendment seems to be quite impotent, too.

[John F. Carr]

A credible threat of impeachment worked on Nixon 48 years ago. It may work in the future if we become less partisan.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's because the elders of the Republican party, including Barry Goldwater, went to Nixon and told him the case was hopeless.

And besides, Nixon was smarter and had more self-control than Donald Trump.

[Don Nico]

Toady,
So you don't think perjury, and taking advantage of a power imbalance for sexual gain aren't serious?
Bill Clinton did many admirable things as President. Likely he is the last who will ever have a year with a balance budget.
But this day and age, most CEOs would NOT survive such conduct.

[David Nieporent]

No, "taking advantage of a power imbalance for sexual gain" — which is not what happened — is not serious.

[Don Nico]

It certainly is what happened and in most place someone gets fired. That kind of behavior is highly unethical, although not illegal. Perjury is illegal.
Should Clinton been impeached? No.

[Nige]

I dunno, it was a high stakes game with multiple players and on that score he lost - he committed perjury. No question. Impeachment followed. It might have been a pyrrhic victory, though - a daring gambit if planned though that seems utterly unlikely - set beside all the actual claims and accusations of the Republicans.

[David Nieporent]

It certainly is not what happened. Lewinsky pursued and propositioned Clinton, not vice versa.

[Nige]

At the time, nobody gave a shit about the power imbalance in the relationship, even many people who should have known better. Nothing that happened in their relationship, however, came anywhere near the power imbalance of the abuse she received, from damn near everyone.

[Don Nico]

You are correct that no Democrats cared about the power imbalance regardless of how unethical the behavior was. Your are also correct that most people excoriated Lewinski.

Other than that what's your point. That Bill's behavior was correct or even laudable?

[Nige]

No, I think now, between the age difference and the fact that he was her boss, he'd be fired, or rather the focus would be on whether he should be fired - I don't know if it would be politically feasible - whereas at the time, she was blamed for being intoxicated by power, or whatever, ugly misogynistic shit. My point is there was far more misogyny and abuse in her treatment afterwards than there was in her relationship with Clinton.

[Don Nico]

". My point is there was far more misogyny and abuse in her treatment "
No argument at all on that point. She was terribly and most unfairly treated.

[darkknight9]

There's another thread regarding ev's and the push to mandate them and/or ban ice engine vehicles completely. Lots of arguing over what's better but no one ever brings up cost to our governments.
Right now, with no tax break in effect to lower gas costs, how much do local/state/fedgov agencies receive in gasoline tax? I know the thought is to save the environment but I haven't met a governmental system yet that didn't greedily hold onto revenue streams.
Some states already charge ev tax charges to make up the loss of yearly gas tax funds. But that's a drop in the bucket to nationwide gas usage...
So, if the gas engine is even 50% replaced in the US, where is the $ lost from gas tax going to come from? And why do none of the people complaining about materials, efficiency, cold weather, station access etc ever talk about it?

[apedad]

Here's one good argument for EVs: Won't have to worry about catalytic converters thefts (apparently a $545M problem).

Justice Department Announces Takedown of Nationwide Catalytic Converter Theft Ring

The United States is seeking forfeiture of over $545 million in connection with this case

Federal, state, and local law enforcement partners from across the United States executed a nationwide, coordinated takedown today of leaders and associates of a national network of thieves, dealers, and processors for their roles in conspiracies involving stolen catalytic converters sold to a metal refinery for tens of millions of dollars.

Arrests, searches, and seizures took place in California, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia. In total, 21 individuals in five states have been arrested and/or charged for their roles in the conspiracy.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-takedown-nationwide-catalytic-converter-theft-ring

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Another good way to stop catalytic converter thieves is to kick the jack out from under the car.

[Commenter_XY]

If only....EVs were affordable. 😉

[shawn_dude]

EVs are tech. Tech has a general tendency to get cheaper over time, quite rapidly in some cases. Since the goal is 2035, assuming we'll be using the exact same battery tech with the exact same cost would be ahistorical. Also, the multi-billion dollar government subsidies for the oil industry may not last that long, either, which could change the math for whether an EV is "cheap" or not.

The California 2035 date is for new vehicles, too, so used ICE cars and light trucks will continue to drive around for as long as people can afford the fuel.

[Commenter_XY]

If only...EVs did not induce 'range anxiety' and take hours to charge to 80%. 😉

[shawn_dude]

Range anxiety isn't a technical problem but yes, the 30 minutes on average it takes to charge a Tesla is a lot longer than the 5 or so minutes it takes to fill a gas tank. Luckily, solid state batteries with faster charge times are on their way out now. Estimates are it would take about 15 minutes at a high capacity charger.

[Don Nico]

Shawn,
sure EVs are tech and costs will drop and credible rates are known. BUT unless they are highly subsidized they are going to remain out of reach of the working class for decades.
Try readying the literature, for example the 350 page MIT report, The Future of Energy Storage."

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thanks for the interesting source paper.

[Don Nico]

You're welcome. The paper and supporting research was a two year self-supported effort by the MIT Energy Initiative

[shawn_dude]

Don, no disagreement there, but measuring the success of electric cars based on whether people who already cannot afford new cars in most cases seems a bit of a stretch.

The Nissan Leaf is $27K before incentives. The average new gas car price for 2022 is about $40K and the low end new car price runs about $20K. $27K is in the range of a new Elantra, Corolla, or Civic.

The Ioniq and Kona also run around $30K.

Electric cars do cost more, but not that much more that the average cars families buy now and that's before tax incentives. After 10 more years of development, when we reach the 2035 goal, things will have improved. Meanwhile, the used market will still exist for both gas and electric.

[Don Nico]

Exactly, and a large fraction of society will not be able tp afford one until decades after the Newsom ban.

[shawn_dude]

I don’t buy this. Your “large fraction of society” are people who cannot afford a $30K car today when the average new car costs a bit over $40K. A good number of those people already buy used. Entry level new cars are running just under $20k. The gap between entry level new gas and electric cars is about $7-10K before tax incentives. In 13 years, it’s going to be at least somewhat better than that.

[Don Nico]

shawn,
You are just being dishonest.
Very few four passenger new cars are under $20K.
The tax incentive BS is just that. The batteries alone for a Chevy bolt are $30K. Present batter costs for 10 kW-hr are $8K uninstalled. An auto needs at least 40 kW-hr for a decent driving range unless the person only commutes within his/her city limits.
Try being honest instead of ideological motivated to spread misinformation.

[ThePublius]

I am concerned about this issue as well. This will shift the tax burden to all electricity consumers, not just ev owners, as they will tax electricity to make up for lost gas tax revenue. It will be very bad for the poor and low income population.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they wanted to be sensible, you could set up a system where each car had a transponder and receiver. The transponder wouldn't report the identity of the vehicle, just its weight class. The receiver wouldn't record the location of the road, just classes of road traversed. Once a year your transponder log would be recorded, and your taxes computed, while the logs from the road would permit allocation of the funds.

This would allow calculating the actual contribution of each vehicle to road maintenance expenses, without allowing tracking of individual vehicles. It would also be dandy for handling toll roads and toll lanes.

I suppose some provision would be needed for out of state vehicles.

I don't expect government would actually implement the system this way, because they'd have being able to track individual vehicles as a design goal, not something to be avoided...

[John F. Carr]

Anonymous transponder or not, they're going to take a picture of your license plate anyway.

[bernard11]

Of course, there is no reason this only works with EV's.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I didn't suggest it only be used with EV's. It's a proposed replacement for the gas tax, that would work for all vehicles.

[bernard11]

I'm all for it, Brett.

My only point, with which I suspect you might even agree, was that since we are not doing it now I think it's unlikely we will do it in the EV-dominated future.

By the way, I have read that while weight is a big factor in how much wear a vehicle imposes on the road, this is non-linear, and that heavier vehicles like trucks cause wear that is disproportionately large for their relative weight.

Is this correct?

[BillyG]

I'd do it by mileage but require reporting by mechanics or an annual report by the owner. Require mileage to be reported whenever the car is sold. Sure someone could cheat a little. Cheating a lot would be hard. If the odometer is too far off what's reported, big fine.

[jb]

Almost everyone uses roads; it's not clear to me that we need a usage-based tax scheme here, although it was convenient with gas. Seems like it would be fine to just fund out of general revenues and raise taxes a bit to make up for the lost revenue from the gas taxes.

[John F. Carr]

As I see it, a network of roads connecting buildings is close to a public good. Not in the strict economic sense, but we need those roads even if we ride solar powered bicycles and a balkanized system where you pay tribute to 30 different landowners to go across town works poorly. Those roads benefit property owners without their own vehicles. They should be built out of general funds.

The extra capacity beyond two lanes past every driveway could be paid for with user fees.

[Voize]

Building local roads might be a general benefit but what about highways and arterial roads? Not only are they more expensive to build but far more expensive to maintain, with almost all of the damage caused by heavy vehicles.
The rule of thumb the road maintenance industry uses, based on studies done in the 1950s, is that the road surface damage a vehicle does is roughly proportional to the fourth power of its weight per axle. A commercial truck bearing 5 tons per axle compared to a 1 ton per axle sedan causes 625 times as much road wear. Should the general public pay for that too?

[shawn_dude]

I think it's premature to think that there will necessarily be a transition of use-tax from something that gets direct wear-and-tear to something that doesn't. Increased electricity use from a move away from fossil fuels, including heating, cooking, and other non-car uses, will require grid improvements. However, massive mobile battery systems (aka: electric cars) are also a solution to some of those problems.

[Don Nico]

Actually the Greens don't worry about those poor working class folks

[Nige]

You're unlikely to hear anyone else point out the disproportionate negative effects of air, water and ground pollution on poorer communities. Nobody gets as outraged about cancer corridors and sacrifice zones as they do about the idea of being inconvenienced by transitioning away from the things that cause them, except Greens. (Not the US Greens, obviously, they're an empty shell for running spoiler candidates.)

[Don Nico]

No disagreement there. Poor folks often live in far less healthy environments.
As for the German Greens they'd rather burn coal than support a major LNG terminal.
And regarding the US greens, thank Jill Stein for the Orange Clown

[Martinned]

German Greens are actually strongly divided about energy policy at the moment, but sure.

[Nige]

We’re in, at best, a transitional phase that will require the balancing of any number of considerations and compromises, a highly contentious process. Relying on existing fossil fuel processes rather than investing in new ones while building renewables infrastrusture is ugly, but defensible.

[Don Nico]

But right now there is little commitment to build large scale energy storage systems that are a must for intermittent generation and in fact there are perverse economic incentive to drive down investment in such technology just as the fraction of renewables increases.
Germany has been at the forefront in crafting indefensible energy policy and Putin is sending the chickens home to roost.

[Nige]

Should have listened to the people who were warning about those things, the same people warning about the long term costs of fossil fuel dependency.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't love the Greens either, but at least I take them as they come, not with a dollop of editorializing assumptions.

[Don Nico]

Meaning what exactly? or is that post merely mild nay-saying?

[Sarcastr0]

They're pretty populist-idealist; your 'they don’t worry about those poor working class folks' is not based on their stated motives, but your own analysis of the consequences of their actions.

As an institutionalist-pragmatist, I think they're pretty wrongheaded; but by their own terms they care about the working class.

[Martinned]

"your own analysis of the consequences of their actions" when viewed in isolation, too. The whole point of the Green New Deal as a package is to make (non-renewable) energy and other choices with negative environmental externalities more expensive while providing lower income households with compensation to make them at least as well off on average.

[Don Nico]

"but by their own terms they care about the working class."
Oh, I agree that is what they say, but actions speak louder than words.

[shawn_dude]

so you're arguing bad faith and not just a disagreement over which set of good intentions are better?

[Sarcastr0]

So it is as I said - editorializing assumptions.

[Hank Ferrous]

I suspect this is correct. The burden for EV's will be shifted from 'the few' to the many.

[Frank Drackman]

they could just tax the Natural Gas/Oil burned to generate the Electricity that charges the Electric Golf Carts, I mean Cars.

[ThePublius]

It's complicated. You shouldn't tax all electricity users for road use by EVs. And you can't tag or dye electricity as you can fuel oil. And you can't guarantee that all EV charging will have separate meters from everything else in the house; it would be easy to defeat or bypass. But I don't think it's ultimately going to be a long term issue, as going totally to EVs is not going to work, not in this century, anyway.

One can make a credible engineering argument that moving an EV down the road uses more fossil fuel than moving an ICE-car down the road, due to electricity transmission and storage losses and inefficiency.

California is aggressive in pushing EVs, but to reach their goals they should have started building nuclear power plants and building our transmission infrastructure 20 years ago. They can't even keep the lights on now! And, they import a lot of electricity from neighboring states. It's a joke.

[Krayt]

Many places have separate metering allowed for air conditioners. In exchange for lower rates, you agree they can turn it off for an hour or two on hot days.

[shawn_dude]

That's going to be a hard one to prove, I think. Especially if one removes all impacts from subsidies, which will raise the price of fossil fuels much faster than EV costs. Our gasoline is heavily subsidized at the federal level.

Regardless, over a 10 year ownership period, which of these vehicles would have the lower total cost of ownership, including fuel prices? That answer varies depending on use case, but for the average commuter, it's the EV.

[John F. Carr]

So charge a fee based on typical use, and correct it based on odometer readings. The fee can be collected along with registration or property tax. In densely populated states you have to plug your car's computer into a state-monitored machine every year or two in case your check engine light is on. So the state knows how far your car has moved. Some interstate drivers will come out ahead or behind based on different tax policies, to a greater degree than they can now exploit different gas prices. That is not a serious problem, certainly not serious enough to justify the government's proposal to install a GPS tracker in every car.

[shawn_dude]

As I note just below, the taxes are also used to subsidize the trucking industry. Your proposed solution, while economically elegant, would be politically difficult given the impact it would have on long-haul cargo trucks.

Also, every US car effectively has at least on trackable GPS device in it whenever it's being driven. (Cell phones and built-in road assistance systems.)

[shawn_dude]

While there will always, for the foreseeable future, be a need for oil (grease, plastics, etc), the amount the US government and presumably some state governments spend subsidizing the oil industry should decrease dramatically--in the billions--as a result of the shift away from fossil fuels.

Note also that the majority of road damage is caused by the trucking industry and not passenger vehicles while the tax burden is largely shifted to passenger vehicles as another form of subsidy. If we were to remove or reduce that subsidy and move more bulk good transportation to rail, the roads would be less expensive.

[Don Nico]

"remove or reduce that subsidy and move more bulk good transportation to rail"
Do the real numbers. And also compute the inpact on the cost of basics goods for the working class.
I can afford the increased costs, many cannot. Also you underestimate the amount of tracking needed from railhead to final distribution.
Concepts are interesting but in the end it is a matter of the numbers.
Moreover, you have neglected alternative high energy density power sources that allow rapid refueling. Again do the numbers.

[Nige]

'I can afford the increased costs, many cannot'

Why, because you don't live in an area affected by floods, wildfires, droughts, sea-rise, hurricanes or heat-waves?

[Don Nico]

Another of your meaningless, non-responsive snarks.
Do the numbers and then come back to us.

[Nige]

Are there not numbers attached to the effects of fossil-fuel-generated climate change?

[Don Nico]

Compute the total costs to members of society. Task into account ALL environmental costs such as those of scarce material, costs of making batteries, of making solar photovoltaics, etc. Your electrified worls is not as green as you imagine. lso, take into account the disincentives to providing adequate base-load power.

By the way you switch the topic about transportation costs and their effects on working class families. Try to be honest once in a while instead of giving us the usual politicians' bullshit.

[Nige]

Sure, and do the same for the current regime. Don't forget the cost of the war in Iraq, the despotism of Saudi Arabia and the price of being dependant on Russia. Could it possibly be remotely as catastrophically destructive as the fossil fuel world?

[Don Nico]

Wow, whataboutism writ large

[Nige]

Climate change is a massive whatabout coming to bite everyone's ass.

[shawn_dude]

The real numbers show large, short-haul transportation businesses, like USPS and Amazon moving to electric vehicles. They don't show hydrogen as being a cheaper option for most (but not all) use cases. (Which is what I assume you mean by "neglected alternative high energy density power sources".)

[Don Nico]

Shawn, Amazon and Amazon very short haul vehicles are not large multi-axel (>2) vehicles. They move goods from warehouses not from railheads. Your tendency toward misinformation is rather sad, but it has become predictable.
There is no reason that such vehicles won’t use direct hydrogen or fuel cell technology in the future. Thar would mean faster refueling and vehicles not spend valuable refueling time during the day.

As for hydrogen being ruled out Chairman Toyoda, who knows far more about transportation than you ever will is betting otherwise. Fuels cell vehicles can become much cheaper, the problem is a poor fuel distribution system that could be fixed, just like Biden want to pay for hundreds of billions of dollars to build supercharging (30 min for car) stations across the US.

Try seeing allsides of the issue not just your ideologically favored one.

[Ben_]

Biden told voters Wednesday that we all owe it to elite government ruling-class types to vote for the things Washington cares about. We must all do what we’re told and vote for Washington priorities.

Ignoring what’s going on in Americans' lives and telling voters they should care about Washington narratives is the theme of this week’s election.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here’s the speech. At least they skipped the Riefenstahl optics this time.

His effort to link a left-wing Canadian lunatic to Republicans is pretty crazy, and if I were giving that speech I'd have avoided mentioning "big lie".

[Sarcastr0]

Holy fuck that guy was 100% MAGA. He had a blog.

[ThePublius]

You really believe that? That blog came into existence after the attack, and disappeared the next day, after it was used to construct the narrative that he was MAGA. All of the other evidence, including testimony by his neighbors, indicates he was both mentally ill, and identified with left wing movements, like LGBTQ and BLM. I suspect hte blog was part of a disinformation campaign.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's quite common for mentally ill people, in all the nonsense they spew, to spew some nonsense that looks right-wing. Other nonsense that looks left-wing. If you want to pin them on one side or the other, you just downplay the nonsense that matches your own side's rhetoric.

The guy was a nutcase. He could have as easily ended up going after a Republican as a Democrat, and all the battle lines would be swapped.

[not guilty]

"The guy was a nutcase. He could have as easily ended up going after a Republican as a Democrat".

I don't think so. David DePape told San Francisco police that he was going to hold Nancy Pelosi hostage and talk to her. If Nancy were to tell DePape the "truth," he would let her go, and if she "lied," he was going to break "her kneecaps." DePape was certain that Nancy would not have told the "truth." DePape said that he viewed Nancy as the "leader of the pack" of lies told by the Democratic Party. DePape also explained that by breaking Nancy's kneecaps, she would then have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress there were consequences to actions. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/31/us/david-depape-criminal-complaint.html

Sorry, Brett. These are not the words of one who could have as easily ended up going after a Republican as a Democrat. He was plainly focused on one particular Democrat, the House Speaker, and he was driven to kidnap and viciously assault her.

[Krychek_2]

The other thing is that even granting the guy is a nutcase, if you're going to spend 20 years demonizing Nancy Pelosi, as the GOP has done, how surprising is it if eventually some nutcase takes your rhetoric seriously and acts on it? It's probably a minor miracle that there haven't been a whole lot more of these attacks.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where was this concern after that Bernie Bro shot up the Republicans at that baseball field?

Does anyone even remember that?

[Krychek_2]

Have you really nothing to contribute except what aboutism? And to answer your question, there was much discussion at the time, including in the liberal media, about how demonization of the right contributed to that incident. I'm sure if you spend a couple of minutes on google you can find it.

So your whataboutism isn't even right on the facts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I know right, we're supposed to take your CURRENT POLITICAL CONCERN so super mega-important and have national conversations and also criminalize political opposition because this time IT'S A THREAT TO SACRED DEMOCRACY.

If it's not then, it's not now. It's convenient excuses for Democrat fascism.

[Krychek_2]

Who said we should criminalize political opposition? Seriously, who said that? I think you've finally lost it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The US President said Republican beliefs were a clear and present danger to the United States.

What should the government do to a threat that is a clear and present danger to the nation?

[Nige]

Get out the vote.

[Krychek_2]

Certainly not what you seem to think.

Do the voters have the right to elect a government that is a clear and present danger to their own interest? Of course. If Joe Stalin were running for president, it would be the right of the voters to elect him if that's what they chose to do. The people have the right to act however unwisely they choose to do, no matter how catastrophic the consequences may be. It's called democratic elections.

That does not mean, however, that a sitting president can't warn the voters that Stalin is a clear and present danger. One of the most basic duties of a president is to warn the country if he thinks it's about to be driven off a cliff. Which is what Biden did, and Biden said nothing to indicate that he wants to ban the GOP.

Now, this is a pretty thorough case of projection on your part, because based on your past posts, you probably actually would use violence against your political opponents. So you assume that Biden must have meant the same thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If a nation has a clear and present danger to it, they should vote the clear and present danger away?

You guys aren't serious. You guys also can't see the FBI raiding conservatives, nor other government agencies investigating Republican officials.

You see Joe calling MAGA Republicans clear and present dangers and threats to Democracy and applaud while also saying people who don't believe the narrative about Paul Pelosi are creating political violence.

You people are disgusting.

[Nige]

Either that or Republican officials are way corrupt.

[Krychek_2]

We're serious and we believe in democratic institutions. And those conservatives are being raided for reasons other than being conservatives.

[Brett Bellmore]

Could somebody please explain to me just how the left came by this notion that it's a crime against humanity to put anything they complain about into context?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Krycheck thinks DeSantis is being investigate for COVID funds because it's totally real investigation and not politically motivated.

Krycheck frequently also buys bridges from salesmen.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, it's not a matter of putting things into context. And most of the time you guys don't even do that, because upon review your whataboutism frequently turns out to be inapposite on the facts. It's more a matter of you guys thinking that your party is excused from moral and legal responsibility so long as you can find something that someone on the other side may or may not have done that, if you squint just right, kinda sorta looks a little like what we're talking about. Like here for example; BCD's whataboutism was completely wrong on the facts. Doesn't mean he's not sticking to it.

But that's not even the basic problem with whataboutism. The problem with it is that it basically excuses everybody from any responsibility. Hitler gets a free pass because what about Stalin, and Stalin gets a free pass because what about Hitler. So long as you can find a bad actor on the other side, nobody can be held responsible for anything.

Can you at least stipulate that the twenty-year demonization of Nancy Pelosi by the Republicans may have contributed to this unbalanced individual nearly murdering her husband? And that it's OK to have a conversation about that that is limited to a conversation about that?

[Krychek_2]

And by the way, Brett, one major difference between the attack on Paul Pelosi and the attack on the GOP members of Congress at the baseball park is that when the Republicans were attacked, the Democrats did not respond by launching outrageous conspiracy theories involving gay prostitutes. That in and of itself makes the two situations not comparable.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Whataboutism” is a counter argument totally lacking in intellectual effort. Republicans demonize Democrats, Democrats demonize Republicans. Every single day. So much that it’s become tiresome to us neutrals out here. The fact that your side and the other side both do it is obvious common knowledge. Hell, they do it to appeal to you.

To dismiss that fact with “oh whataboutism” is intellectually lazy. And complete chickenshit.

[Ben_]

What’s the not-outrageous conspiracy answer on why the home of the house speaker has no security ?

[Krychek_2]

Bevis, everyone speeds, and this is common knowledge. Yet, if you get a speeding ticket, do not bother arguing to the judge that you were only driving as fast as everyone else.

Yes, there are bad actors on both sides. But when a specific bad act is the specific topic of conversation, saying, But whatabout, is a thread hijack, pure and simple. No one is saying you can't discuss bad things Democrats have done; just that that doesn't happen to be the subject of this particular thread.

[Krychek_2]

Ben, because we're not that far removed from simpler times in which public officials mostly didn't need security, and because we like the idea of our public officials being "just folks". When Harry Truman was vice president he famously took morning walks unescorted. Courthouses didn't used to have metal detectors either.

We probably can't do that anymore and it's a shame.

[Nige]

'it’s become tiresome to us neutrals out here.'

You're not a neutral. You put too much work in to trying to make both sides equivalent for that to be true.

[Ben_]

So you just make up answers and declare others' made-up answers a conspiracy theory then. Good to know.

[Nige]

'to put anything they complain about into context?'

Prbably because this is indistinguishable from lying, trolling or trying to pwn the libs in various stupid ways.

[Nige]

I don't remember anyone working flat out to invent a weird conspiracy theory about it, or even denying that the guy was a Bernie Bro. Everyone condemned it, was grateful no-one was seriously injured and moved on. Ironically, it's the weird conspiracy theories that tend to keep particular stories alive, and then you complain when the incidents without weird conspiracy theories attached tend to get left behind.

[not guilty]

Both incidents were perpetrated by apparently unbalanced individuals, but where was the ritual demonization of Steve Scalise by Democrats before he was injured?

[Ben_]

Keep the focus on telling this story. Continue to ignore what voters actually care about.

[Krychek_2]

I doubt that anyone here believes that this story will change anyone's vote, but are you saying it shouldn't be talked about? If so, we just disagree.

[Ben_]

I just said to go ahead.

This sort of gotcha finger-pointing fixation is the only thing anyone expects from Democrats anymore. It's a lot dumber than usual this time, given this guy’s background, but just as irrelevant to the lives of regular Americans as always.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, do you think anyone really into QAnon is mentally ill?

It's not an easy question, IMO!

[David Nieporent]

I'm sure it's a coincidence that after spewing nonsense that "looks" right-wing (I mean, it was; it didn't just "look" it), he went after Nancy Pelosi.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

I don't know how "MAGA" he really was, but the blogs were not fabricated and have been reliably attributed to David Depape (the Canadian illegal immigrant/clothes-preferring nudist activist arrested at the Pelosi home).

The two blogs in question were created in 2007 and September 2022, respectively. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/10/29/david-depape-blog-pelosi-fairies/

Although you have falsely claimed that the blogs were fabricated, you do appear to acknowledge that their reported content does suggest that he was indeed "MAGA". I have every confidence that you will now be revising your opinions about Depape's beliefs, accordingly.

[Sarcastr0]

That blog came into existence after the attack, and disappeared the next day,

You believe this? Another commenter has addressed this, but I'm not sure the threading connected it to your comment here:

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/03/thursday-open-thread-108/?comments=true#comment-9775203

[Ben_]

That’s the Democrats' message to voters.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right wing illegal immigrant nudist who loves BLM and LGBTQ!

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Obviously, your statement is based on the belief that Depape most recently lived in a hippie schoolbus in Berkeley.

However, the police discovered that had been living in a converted garage in Richmond for at least the last two years.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/boss-recalls-david-depape-pelosi-attack/3064437/

"Three years ago, Ciccarelli worked out a way for DePape to move into a converted garage in Richmond. It was that single car structure with a plywood floor that the FBI searched over the weekend."

"Ciccarelli says over the years, he watched DePape’s steady descent into extremism. It started when DePape would turn off NPR news in the morning on the way to jobsites."

"“It was a gradual process – it was over six years,” he said, “day by day.”"

[Nige]

You really shouldn’t dismiss your side’s success at winning over people who once believed in BLM and LGTBQ rights and turning them into Trumpist MAGAs who think the 2020 election was stolen. Its quite an acheivement. Especially the vulnerable ones with mental health problems - your target audience.

[Kazinski]

Actually his wife came forward and filled in the details of his motivation:

"Hello this is Gypsy Taub. I am the ex-life partner of David DePape and the mother of his children," said Oxane Taub, calling from the Californian Institution For Women in Corona, California."

"He is mentally ill. He has been mentally ill for a long time," said Taub, who last year was found guilty on 20 counts, including the attempted abduction of a 14-year-old boy near his Berkeley high school."
"He came back in very bad shape. He thought he was Jesus. He was constantly paranoid, thinking people were after him," Taub said. "And it took a good year or two to get back to, you know, being halfway normal."

Tara Campbell: "Did he ever show any aggression towards politicians, were his political beliefs extreme in your opinion?"

Taub: "Well when I met him, he was only 20 years old ,and he didn't have any experience in politics, and he was very much in alignment with my views and I've always been very progressive. I absolutely admire Nancy Pelosi."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7news.com/amp/gypsy-taub-david-depape-san-francisco-pelosi-assault-who-attacked-paul-conspiracy-theory/12396990/

[bernard11]

And when Hilary Clinton was young she was a "Goldwater Girl." So I guess all her alleged malfeasances should be laid at the feet of conservative Republicans.

[Frank Drackman]

But hey, (man!) they're questioning the "220" Erection (totallly stolen from Severus Alexander)

[John F. Carr]

Scott Brown has gone from accidental Senator to deliberate high school basketball coach: https://apnews.com/article/sports-basketball-massachusetts-coaching-scott-brown-97b2417065e2ce2dc4446fc786687f3d

His claim to fame was being a sacrificial Republican candidate in a solidly blue state who happened to meet the worst Democratic candidate of her generation. Not the worst person or the worst policy maker, but the worst candidate.

[Frank Drackman]

Gotta be pretty bad DemoKKKrat to lose in Tax-a-chussetts, heck, the previous guy left a beautiful young woman to asphyxiate (NOT drowned, there's a difference) and got re-erected in 70', 76', 82', 88', 94', 00', 06', and if it was legal to run a Corpse (Pennsylvania this year is close) would have won in 12' and 18'. Of course, dying in Ear-Rock like Bo Biden did ended all that.

[Brett Bellmore]

The way I hear it, Republicans deliberately didn't go after Kennedy, on the theory that they'd be able to roll him any time they wanted by just whispering "Mary Jo" in his ear. Stupid idea from the stupid party.

[David Nieporent]

You did not, of course, "hear" that.

[bernard11]

Yes. Coakley was an awful candidate.

Remember when she said something like, "Do you expect me to stand outside Fenway Park shaking hands?"

[Don Nico]

Now that statement is really stupid. There is no better place to shake hands than outside Fenway

[John F. Carr]

My health care network now has a code of conduct which is basically don't upset the snowflakes. "Words or actions that are disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, hostile, or harassing" are banned. If you upset them, you will be denied non-emergency health care.

If it were an old-fashioned doctor's office this wouldn't be a big deal. It would be like Eugene Volokh banning discussion of usufructs on his blog. But there is a lot of consolidation in the health care industry. Having a small practice doesn't make sense considering high fixed costs related to regulations and insurance, and having a big practice makes you a target to be acquired by a bigger one.

I bet they will have to start making exceptions when people with mental problems find lawyers who invoke the ADA.

[Frank Drackman]

Sequelae of the degradation of Medical-Ed-Jew-ma-cation, most schools don't require the Screw-dents to dissect their own Cadavers, and almost all of the memorable mnemonics are race-ist-sexist-homo-fob-ist in nature, it's why they're memorable, Lets see,
"Fuck Little Titties", "Various African (redacted)" "Oh, Oh, Oh, to touch and feel a (redacted) and instead of teaching something useful (OK, old days weren't perfect, not like I use the Krebs Cycle to do an awake fiberoptic) every schools got a, hmm, lets see what my Almer Mater calls it.
"Psychological and social aspects of medicine and patient care are explored through content and application of principles of diversity, equity, inclusion and anti-racism in healthcare. This builds the foundation for practicing culturally responsive medicine. "

In the old days we called it "Learning why Black dudes don't eat (redacted)"

Frank

[Nige]

Just think, thanks to that code of conduct we're denied the right to sit in a waiting room while Frank stands on a table declaiming stuff like this at the top of his voice.

[Frank Drackman]

I could count the number of White patients I had in medical school on one hand.

[Nige]

But were you able to exercise enough self-control to be civil to the rest?

[Frank Drackman]

Of course, until they were anesthetized anyway, then it turned into a Jerky Boys album, never got the "Call me Ishmael" one of the Surgeons would say as he strode to the OR table (not for years later when I read "Moby Dick" during Desert Storm(nothing else to read)
You know who the patients really hated? The sensitive touchy-feely types (usually Yankees) who would try and talk with a Southern Accent (See Rodman, Hillary) and act like they gave a shat.

Frank "Pull my finger"

[Nige]

Well, aren't you the best boy for meeting the lowest of expectations.

[Moderation4ever]

Not real sure what you are saying. If a patient comes in and say something offensive to the doctor or nurse, they don't get healthcare? Or are you saying the doctor can not say anything offensive?

[Nige]

It seems to be requiring a basic and not terribly onerous standard of courteous behaviour from staff and patients which neither John nor Frank seem confident of maintaining.

[John F. Carr]

If a patient is disrespectful, the patient may be denied health care.

[Moderation4ever]

Is this anything new? Serve is a two-way street and both sides need to show respect.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You have to show respect to access a basic human right?

What sort of nonsense is this? Where the conspiracy theorists right about why the Commies want to control our healthcare?

[Nige]

Another commenter not confident of being able to rise to basic standards of behaviour.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is that the qualification for accessing a basic human right like healthcare?

What about other basic human rights? Can we gate them too?

[Nige]

I can't think of a single place where the public are obliged to wait in each other's company for an appointment to become due for any service at all were standards of behaviour aren't expected. Can you? Where, do you think, when accessing services, regardless of whether they are basic human rights or not, is it appropriate or acceptable to be racist or sexist or hostile or harassing?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do many Democrats consider conservative/Republican ideas and actions and expressions to be "racist, sexist, hostile, or harassing"?

[Nige]

No. Then again, many Democrats are hopeless optimists.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Don't Sarcastr0 me.

[Nige]

You could do with a bit more Sarcastr0ing, frankly.

[Frank Drackman]

You don't fuck with the people who handle your food! (or your Intestines)

[Moderation4ever]

So, you're with the liberals who say health care is a basic human right? Is that correct.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

I'm still waiting for him to deliver the punchline.

[John F. Carr]

The context makes clear that this is the sort of policy that doesn't mean "be nice" but "don't offend people we like". The same sort of policy that gets the Babylon Bee banned but lets you call for the extermination of "orcs" which is somehow not "dehumanizing" because it's about people the moderation team wants exterminated.

[Nige]

Do you normally stand up in waiting rooms and call for the extermination of 'orcs?' And expect not to be asked to desist or leave?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If he stood up and said we should eliminate Whites, he'd get a cabinet position in Israel or a Democrat administration,oh and a blue check mark on Twitter and a free subscription to the ADL newsletter.

[Nige]

Yknow, I somehow don't think that's actually the case.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you elaborate on the context? Because as presented, it seems like what I would have assumed were the unspoken rules at pretty much any place of business.

[Commenter_XY]

Learned a new word: usufructs

usufruct
yoo͞′zə-frŭkt″, -sə-
noun
The right to the use and profits of something belonging to another.

In law, the right of enjoying all the advantages derivable from the use of something which belongs to another so far as is compatible with the substance of the thing not being destroyed or injured.

The right of using and enjoying the profits of an estate or other thing belonging to another, without impairing the substance.

[Reallynotbob]

You should talk to some doctors and nurses. So many patients act the fool in medical clinics. The clinics and hospitals are making the unremarkable choice to side with their highly trained and very valuable employees against squawking Karens.

[Frank Drackman]

Remember this Gang-banger (we called them, well heck, they were mostly "Gang-bangers") showed up at the Surgery clinic to get some drains removed, parked in the Chief Resident's parking spot.
Demanded to get "Numbed up" which we never did for pulling drains, since injecting the local anesthetic hurt more than just quickly pulling the drain. Dude got his "Anesthesia" Normal Saline with a rusty needle. Didn't seem to work very well.

[Reallynotbob]

If this is even remotely true, it's a confession to malpractice and criminal assault.

[Brett Bellmore]

I doubt the rusty needle part, since they probably wouldn’t have those on hand. The normal saline, that I’d believe. A potentially dangerous idiot demands a shot, that’s probably the safest option.

And, yeah, local anesthesia hurts like all get out. I got my prostate biopsy, six shots of novacaine direct into my prostate. God, that hurt!

Mind, I suppose the 27 shots with a nail gun into it afterwards would have been even more painful without the novacaine.

[Krayt]

My health care network now has a code of conduct which is basically don’t upset the snowflakes. “Words or actions that are disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, hostile, or harassing” are banned. If you upset them, you will be denied non-emergency health care.

Wow.

Wow.

One lawyer faction beating the drum that something is so horriffic they can sue for one third of massive damages, vs. an older lawyer faction beating the drum that something is so horriffic they can sue for one third of massive damages.

I wonder which will win. My working theory in related fights are the ADA will win over harrassment stuff. So I will hypothesize medical care suits will win over that boilerplate.

The tail shall not wag the dog. The former is merely drumbeat amplifying background assumed wisdom on how much damage is caused, to make one third of lots of money a little lottier. The latter is actual damage. A second reason for this prognostication.

Also, blockquote tag busting still happens on edit.

[shawn_dude]

And yet, the GOP is looking to pass laws allowing people to decline providing medical and other care to LGBT persons based on their religious beliefs. The rhetoric is that these denied persons can just go get healthcare elsewhere.

I think you provide a great example for why this is a cruel policy preference and why it will hurt Americans.

[BillyG]

You got a credible source for that? Sounds just like a hoax to me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Right on cue, CNN is attempting to change the definition of 'de jure' to carry water for Sotomayer'.

"A line of questioning by Justice Sonia Sotomayor about how Congress could address de jure segregation — meaning segregation created by government policy — prompting an intervention from Justice Samuel Alito to question whether there is contemporary segregation of that type. "

But it's not enough. Sotomayor didn't say anything about government policy:
"De jure to me means places are
segregated. The causes may be different, but
places are segregated in our country."

[ThePublius]

It's as if she doesn't know there's a difference between de jure and de facto.

[Mr. Bumble]

You question the capabilities of a "wise Latina"?

[Frank Drackman]

it's the Soup of the Day, I have it all the time.

[Don Nico]

at least she isn't a "wise Latinx."

[Randal]

I also winced reading the transcript. But, her comment is not necessarily incorrect, so maybe it's better to give her the benefit of the doubt, as a Supreme Court justice.

She may believe, in fact she likely does believe, that essentially all segregation is due to official policy somewhere along the causal chain, making it all technically de jure.

And there can be a plurality of government policies, such that "the causes may be different" while still remaining de jure.

There's also some gap between the de jure and de facto, where she may think of de jure as including private policies that drive segregation (like Banks'), especially when those private policies are tolerated by government.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"She may believe, in fact she likely does believe, that essentially all segregation is due to official policy somewhere along the causal chain, making it all technically de jure."

If she believes that the court shouldn't distinguish between de facto and de jure segregation, she should be capable of saying that. Bryer certainly was.

But in any event, de jure segregation doesn't usually refer to de facto segregation caused by the government. De jure segregation refers to laws requiring segregation, regardless of whether the laws result in segregation.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I suppose it’s conceivable that she has consciously made up her own definition of “de jure” and was using it instead of the established definition without explaining it.

I’m unsure why you think that would be better.

[Ben_]

Segregation du jour. They change it up every day.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In a tweet, Biden takes responsibility for inflation:

"Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership."

But then deletes it. Weird.

[ThePublius]

The tweet was not complete

[Krayt]

Of course.

[Reallynotbob]

So you do agree Biden doesn't have significant responsibility for inflation.

(Which makes sense, as no President has all that much control over it and, anyway, current inflation is lower in the US than in Europe and other First World nations. I'm sure you wouldn't credit the President with that difference either, right?)

[ThePublius]

The Biden administration had demonstrated that the president certainly can influence the economy, and cause inflation. Look at how he declared war on the fossil fuel industry, which changed the investment landscape, choked off fracking, and led to higher fuel prices, which influence most things in the economy. Then, the American Rescue Act, or whatever it was called, was a huge money printing operation, which directly drives inflation, in addition to discouraging return to work, which drives wage inflation, and so on.

"current inflation is lower in the US than in Europe and other First World nations"
That's not so. It is measured and reported differently.

Core inflation in the U.S., as of July, was 6.0% compared to the EU's 3.8%.

"Higher core inflation in the U.S. could be more concerning to global investors because it’s potentially more persistent. This data reflects higher consumer prices, rising rent/housing costs and higher wages. Early evidence suggests aspects of core inflation in the U.S. may be plateauing, but it’s uncertain when it may subside."

U.S. vs. Europe: A Tale of Two Inflations

[Commenter_XY]

It is energy policy. Start there. Everything dynamic in our economy seems to flow from cheap, abundant energy. The regulatory climate for energy and energy development changed from accommodating (Trump) to something way different than accommodating (Biden). Gasoline prices have risen by 50+% since 1/20/21. Domestic refining capacity needs serious expansion. We need pipelines for natural gas. Future expectations are part of what drives energy market pricing, and expectations are poor.

I do not understand the illogic of draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time where there is active conflict (a real shooting war) in Europe. It is amazing to me. Seems to me that the threat of war in Europe and/or Taiwan ought to be sufficient to keep the SPR topped off.

It all starts with getting energy policy right. Biden hasn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, you understand the logic:

The administration is determined to accelerate a transition to 'renewable' energy by choking off the supply of fossil fuels, and to hell with the pain it causes. They think it's important.

But they don't want to take a political hit, so they drain the SPR right before elections, to temporarily push the price of fuel down while people are voting, knowing that it will pop back up right after the election, when they close the spigot. (Gotta save some for 2024, after all!)

It makes perfect sense, once you understand their motivations.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus stop with your fam fiction. You can’t stop making up secret motives for everything.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett posits a political motivation. You disagree. Ok...so do you want to take a swing at it, Sarcastr0? = the illogic of draining SPR (an an example of misguided energy policy)

[Sarcastr0]

He points to a nefarious long-term plot with no evidence of such.

That's not a difference of opinion, that's a conspiracy theory, and I will generally call that nonsense out.

There are tons of potential motives for tapping the SPR, including short-term political pressure. I don't need to pick one and then advocate that that's the truth.

[Brett Bellmore]

These are things the administration actually talks about doing! Before voters started getting pissy about energy costs, they were publicly proud of how they were going to destroy the fossil fuel industry.

It's not a conspiracy theory if the guilty parties are publicly bragging about it!

[Sarcastr0]

The administration wants to transition away from fossil fuels, and are willing to absorb some price increases to get there.

That is very much not 'choking off the supply of fossil fuels, and to hell with the pain it causes.' Biden is not really a radical Green New Deal guy. Loves trains too much.

But more importantly, their energy policy is immaterial to the SPR thing. You've provided no evidence they'll mess with the SPR to make their energy pain goal happen.

It's your pattern. Action you don't like. Goal which, as characterized by you, you don't like. 'I'm sure the motives behind this action are to achieve this goal!'

[Brett Bellmore]

"The administration wants to transition away from fossil fuels, and are willing to absorb some price increases to get there."

Close. The administration wants to transition away from fossil fuels in a great big hurry, and are willing that WE absorb some price increases, and shortages, to get there. Some freaking big price increases, and horrific shortages.

But, they release oil from the SPR right before the election because they don't want to absorb the political cost of those price increases. The prices will go back up right after the election, when it's too late for the voters to take revenge.

You don't know what Biden is; Until a politician is in their last term in office, expecting to retire, they shade their politics to please voters. Once they know they're not facing the voters again, the drop the mask.

At this point I sincerely doubt Biden expects to ever face the voters again, so he's free to let his radical out, if he is one.

[Nige]

'so he’s free to let his radical out, if he is one.'

Sooner the better.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0, you are too much! Biden himself has said that he was tapping the SPR to lower gas prices. The motivation is obvious.

He also said during his campaign he would end fossil fuel:

'On September 9, 2019, then-candidate Joe Biden made a clear and unequivocal promise:
"I want you to just take a look. I want you to look into my eyes. I guarantee you; I guarantee you, we are going to end fossil fuel, and I am not going to cooperate with them.”'

What more do you need?

[Brett Bellmore]

He needs the "Bwah ha ha!".

[Reallynotbob]

Your linked source credits US fiscal policy with a "V shaped recovery" compared with the much flatter European recovery. It also says the US inflationary picture is driven by demand, while the European version is more supply-side (energy, significantly). I seem to recall the GOP seeking both of these conditions.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The fracking boom took off during the Obama Administration. In 2019, investors turned bearish on domestic oil production, and producers cut investment budgets. In 2020, the pandemic happened, which cut demand. There was even a point where the price of oil in the futures market went negative, meaning that traders were paying people to take oil off their hands. Production dropped as well, but not as much as demand: the United States was actually a net exporter of oil in 2020 and 2021. Domestic oil production has been growing steadily but quite slowly since it hit bottom in 2020.

You claim that investors are bearish on domestic oil investment,
- not because of the reasons they were bearish in 2019,
- not because they lost a lot of money during the pandemic,
- not because of any actual policies of the Biden Administration (at least you don't mention any Biden Administration policies), but
- because Biden said he was “declaring war” on the fossil fuel industry.

Even if you could find a quote where President Biden “declared war” on the fossil fuel industry, which I doubt, it doesn't make any sense to claim that something Biden said in 2021 or 2022 “choked off fracking” in 2019 and 2020.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Seriously? The energy part, which is a big driver, is all on Biden.

Biden contributed to the rest of it as well, but that’s not all him.

[bernard11]

The energy part, which is a big driver, is all on Biden.

Not even a tiny bit on Putin?

[Don Nico]

If you read Prof. Jeffrey Sachs essay last week, you'd see that a significant fraction of the Putin effect is due to US president since 1995.
But Biden really has help amplify the Putin effect.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Jeffrey Sachs is, of course going to backtrack his involvement creating the conditions that birthed the oligarchic state in Russia.

[Don Nico]

I see your ONLY reply is an ad hominen lacking specifics.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Both Biden and Trump have responsibility for inflation, which in the US was caused by the US printing large amounts of money to support pandemic spending.

IMO, Biden is more at fault because he continued to push for large scale spending for other reasons even after the pandemic was largely over.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

On the other hand, you could also argue that it was Congress which is chiefly "responsible" for inflation, because neither President has or had any independent spending or debt-creation authority.

But gotta LOL at the rest of the "incomplete tweet" excuse provided by White House spokesmodel Karine Jean-Pierre: "let's not forget ... about MAGA Republicans in Congress and their continued threat."

What a pathetic and insulting deflection that was.

[Mr. Bumble]

When will the Biden administration announce energy bill forgiveness?

[Reallynotbob]

Congratulations! You have asked about LIHEAP, the law Ronald Regan signed in 1981 and again in 1984 which provides federal money to low-income families who need residential utility assistance! Want to know more?

https://www.usa.gov/help-with-bills

[Bob from Ohio]

Biden's loan forgiveness is not limited to low-income families

[Nige]

Good, because middle-income families can be financially crippled by debt burden, too.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Biden gave a speech last night decrying Threats to Democracy.

Immediately after the speech he chaired a meeting to discuss the administration’s ongoing work to suppress the speech of people he disagrees with.

Self awareness is not a strength of our president.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never was.

[Reallynotbob]

Can you be more specific?

[Nige]

You don't think stuff like Chinese agents posing as MAGA bloggers with large followings might be a bad thing for US democracy?

[Bob from Ohio]

How about Chinese agents sleeping with a congressman on the Intelligence Committee?

[Nige]

So you're saying these sorts of foreign intelligence operations really are an issue? Thank goodness, I thought you'd just pretend it was nothing because of all the Russian agents swirling around Trump and Co.

[Bob from Ohio]

I think "sleeping with a congressman" to get info is a lot more important than a blogger.

[Nige]

That may be, but all you're illustrating is that foreign intelligence operations take multiple approaches. Presumably you would be shocked if the government responded to the sleeping-with-the-enemy incident, but not the major-MAGA-influencer-is-a-spy situation? Still, isn't one major difference that the congressman copped on and reported her, while the MAGAs didn't?

[Frank Drackman]

You mean Eric Balls-smell? what ever happened to that idiot, oh yeah, California, the state that literally elects Vegetables.

[shawn_dude]

How about a Chinese agent waltzing into Mar-a-Lago where, apparently, some of the nuclear secrets are kept?

[Don Nico]

What nuclear secrets shawn?
We have not heard a word about any SRD documents seized by the FBI

[Nige]

You'd have to ask the Chinese agent what she took with her.

[Don Nico]

Wow, you abound with complete bullshit.
In fact you know nothing about what the FBI took. And the media has tossed around the term "nuclear secrets" with no indication of what that means.
BTW China already has a long standing nuclear arsenal.

[Nige]

You know nothing about what the Chinese agent took.

[Don Nico]

You have no evidence that the "agent" took anything at all. you're just blowin' smoke.

[Nige]

Of course we don't! Because the security there was a joke!

[shawn_dude]

We know that Mar-a-lago isn't secure and we know that highly classified documents were stored there in various places. We know at least one Chinese spy was able to get into Mar-a-lago with a bag full of electronics.

"BTW China already has a long standing nuclear arsenal." And...? Is the only secret you're concerned about the recipe for making a bomb? Because that's pretty much public knowledge.

[Don Nico]

"Because that’s pretty much public knowledge."
Clearly you know zippo about nuclear weapon design. Your comment about a chinese with access to Mar-a-Lago is a red herring and address nothing about the claim that "nuclear secrets" were at risk.

But how about you tell all of us what "nuclear secrets" you are referring to. Launch codes? Storage sites? Maintenance schedules? re-manufacture schedules? Just what? Be specific rather than spouting blah-blah.

[Reallynotbob]

I would like to hear about our plans to build a Canadian/US border wall to keep out the murderous [Canadian] illegals.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pelosi-home-attack-paul-nancy-depape-1.6635640

[Reallynotbob]

Nothing?
But we aren't a country without borders!!

[shawn_dude]

We seem to only need them on the brown side for some reason.

[Voize]

Hammer guy entered from Mexico.

[John F. Carr]

On the 100th anniversary of the March on Rome, Imran Khan started a march on Islamabad. He was just shot in the foot and is expected to recover. Two weeks ago the U.S. ambassador was summoned for a tongue lashing over Biden's statement that Pakistan was dangerous because it had nuclear weapons "without any cohesion". On this issue I agree with Biden.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you're a government worker and you're coordinating with comrades in the private sector to censor politically inconvenient, but lawful, speech. Are you a good guy or a bad guy?

[Reallynotbob]

Example: local prosecutor or detective asks TV reporters not to air footage of particular aspects of an outdoor crime scene in aid of the investigation.
Good guys or bad?

[Reallynotbob]

Example: Local election official works with networking platforms to eliminate official-looking posts by political partisan that encourage voters to vote on the wrong day. Good guy or bad?

[Bob from Ohio]

Bad guy. Censoring jokes is bad.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If actual jokes were censored, you wouldn't have access to the internet.

[Nige]

Pretending your deliberate voting disinformation are 'jokes' is bad.

[Bob from Ohio]

"voting disinformation "

Ha. A joke that was used a century ago is voting disinformation now.

[Nige]

No, voting disinformation is voting disinformation, calling it a joke is trying to provide cover voting disinformation.

(But even if you could somehow prove that political partisans telling people the wrong day to vote on was some sort of joke, it's still disinformation.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why didn't the Democrat Inflation Reduction Act work to reduce inflation?

[Nige]

Not enough windfall profit taxes.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do they tax the Fed or something? Is that why that would work?

[Nige]

No, they tax the record corporate profits.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So the $40B in record profits from Pfizer, which was the result of government action caused inflation the $9T printed by the Fed and spent by the government didn't cause inflation?

[Nige]

Contributed, probably, but at this point it's the massive ongoing record corporate profits doing most og the heavy lifting.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are those massive profits greater than or less than the $9T printed by the Fed?

[Nige]

A greater effect on inflation, anyway.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How on Earth could "windfall" profits cause inflation greater than pumping $9T into the economy over a short period of time?

You can't be serious.

[Nige]

Well, see, if prices rise to record levels and corporate profits rise to record levels at exactly the same time then, I dunno, there might be cause and effect.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Well, see, if prices rise to record levels and corporate profits rise to record levels at exactly the same time then, I dunno, there might be cause and effect."

I wonder if there could possibly be a fallacy in that reasoning?

[Nige]

You wouldn't know a fallacy if one came along and criticised Jesus.

[Frank Drackman]

same reason the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act didn't Protect any patients or provide Affordable Care. If there wasn't an Invalid in the Oval Orifice, Jimmuh Cartuh Error levels of Inflation, Mayor David Dinkins Error Crime Rate, the annual Goat Rope that the "Obamacare" Open (sore) enrollment is would put the final nail in Dracula's Coffin (I like the Repubiclan Dracula look-a-like better, Rafael Cruz)

Frank

[Kazinski]

The Fed knows what causes inflation, and they are going to impose another 3/4% interest rate increase probably this week. just imposed a 3/4 percent hike today, a week before the election.

[Sarcastr0]

How do you know it didn't work? Do you have a crystal ball to alternate realities?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Biden falsely claimed again yesterday that his son died in Iraq.

Such purposeless mendacity is amazing. It's like he's trying to compete with Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, in Sleepy's defense, Bethesda MD does have a thriving Iraqui population, I mean, you can't call a Cab (dammit, now I'm sounding like Sleepy and his "Record Player" bit) I mean an Uber without the "Soup Nazi" pulling up.

Frank "No Ride for You!!!!"

[Nige]

You know that's not his claim, right? Everybody knows that's not his claim, and yet you still come out with this crap.

[Frank Drackman]

Tell Sleepy, he's the one spreading it
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-claims-son-beau-lost-his-life-in-iraq-as-he-declares-colorado-s-camp-hale-national-monument/ar-AA12TPJo
'I say this as a father of a man and won the Bronze Star, the conspicuous service medal, and lost his life in Iraq,' Biden said.

[Nige]

Everybody knows he's referring to the burn pits.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dude was a JAG who never left his air conditioned quarters or air conditioned office except when he went to the air conditioned mess hall.

He wasn't around burn pits enough to get a cough. Sucks he got cancer but sucky things happen every day.

In any event, he didn't die IN Iraq.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck you, Bob.

He worked near burn pits. Serving near them is tied to cancer risk, even if you have a desk job. And then he got cancer.

What an asshole you are!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Fuck you, Bob."

Sorry, not interested. Try Nige.

The link with burn pits is complete conjecture and highly unlikely in Biden's case. People get cancer every day for unknown reasons you know.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah well, if his thinking about how his son died is not rock-solid causally established, lets call him a liar!

Partisanship above humanity with you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not rock-solid causally established"

It is. He died in the US, not in Iraq, of cancer.

IDK why Biden lies about this, maybe its to have the listener think Beau was a soldier killed in action but it could just be dementia.

[Nige]

He's not lying. Burn pits in Iraq killed his son.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Ah well, if his thinking about how his son died is not rock-solid causally established, lets call him a liar!"

Huh? We were calling him a liar because he lied about where his son died. Please try to keep up.

[Nige]

No, you're desperately looking for a reason to call him a liar and once you've found a pretext you don't want to let it go, presumably because there aren't as many examples as when Trump opened his lying mouth-hole.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Then why lie about it. He said, "Excuse me, the war in Ukraine. I'm thinking of Iraq because that's where my son died."

That's a lie.

He could have said, "I'm thinking of Iraq because that's where my son was exposed to burn pits."

That would have been closer to the truth, although I'm not aware of any evidence that his son was exposed to burn pits.

[Nige]

Again, everybody knows that's what he means.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So take him seriously, not literally?

[Sarcastr0]

Parse English like a normal person, not a partisan with an axe to grind.

[Nige]

He has always literaly claimed his son died because of toxic burn pits in Iraq.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So in your dialect of English, "I was thinking of Iraq because that's where my son died" parses to the same thing as, "I was thinking of Iraq because that's where the burn pits that may have caused my son's cancer were located".

Are you really sticking to that story, Gaslightro?

[Nige]

Since that's what he has always claimed about his son's death, yes, it's pretty clear that's what it refers to.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Parse English like a normal person"

"in" doesn't need a lot of parsing. Did Beau die in Iraq? Yes or no? Its a simple question.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It depends on what the meaning of "in" is.

It's becoming a habit with Dems now.

[Nige]

It doesn’t take a lot of parsing to realise that he’s referring to the burn pits in Iraq that killed his son.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It doesn’t take a lot of parsing to realise that he’s referring to the burn pits in Iraq that killed his son."

Then why doesn't he say something different?

[Nige]

He's never said anything different. You're just looking for shit.

[Don Nico]

Again, you just want to shut your ears to what is the typical bullshit that emerges from the mouths of politicians.
It really is as bad as the many easy lies vomited by the Orange Clown

[Nige]

It's abundantly clear he's talking about the burn pits in Iraq killing his son, Trump never said anything that close to the truth, or what he believes to be the truth, in his sorry life.

[Kleppe]

He died of brain cancer from... burn pits? Simply stunning.

[Nige]

Man, you have a whole new world of discovering the horrors of air pollution opening up before you.

[Kazinski]

You seem very angry about this Sarcastro.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Would you provide a solid medical journal study that links Gliobastoma Multiformae to burn pits or other burning organic compounds? There is no evidence of any link to smoking/
You do know that somehow the mutagen has to get past the blood-brain barrier.
I sympathize with Mr Biden's losing his son, but your outrage is misplaced

Just to shed a bit of light on the subject
"One of the most notable glioblastoma risk factors is prior radiation exposure – especially a history of receiving radiation therapy to the head or neck. People who have undergone radiation therapy as a treatment for leukemia, fungal infections of the scalp or previous cancers of the brain have an elevated risk of developing glioblastoma.
Other risk factors include being male, being 50 years of age or older and having chromosomal abnormalities on chromosome 10 or 17. Certain genetic syndromes, such as neurofibromatosis (type 1 and type 2) tuberous sclerosis and von Hippel-Lindau disease can also make a person more likely to develop brain cancer. Some studies have suggested that excessive alcohol consumption may also increase a person’s risk, although smoking does not seem to be strongly associated with the development of glioblastoma."

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord we are not I. The realm of clinical medical science.

You come at someone saying this killed their son with that shit they’ll hit you, and you’ll deserve it.

Read the room.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
"with that shit they’ll hit you, and you’ll deserve it."

This is a new low for you. Biden makes a wrong claim plus a gaffe or maybe he makes a deliberate lie and you defend him that way?
I guess you don't follow (or care about) the medical the science after all.

Still I sympathize with Mr Biden for his loss. But he really needs to control his mouth.

[Nige]

I dunno, I think the comparable outrage over Biden – perhaps mistakenly? Who knows? – thinking the burn pits killed his son, and the outrage at the actual use of and effects of those burn pits on US personnel and Iraqis suggests a far far worse misplacement.

[Hank Ferrous]

You have no idea what his exposure level was, but I can guarantee based on where he was, and that he was JAG, it was extremely low. He would not have been near a burn pit. There are other potential causes for his cancer which you chose to ignore, because of your biases. Stick to topics with which you have some familiarity. You calling Bob an asshole while making false claims is really the height of sarcastr0 behavior.

[Nige]

You could be full of shit, or the burn pits could have been just that toxic, either way, everybody knows that's what Biden means when he refers to his son;s death in relation to Iraq.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"when he refers to his son;s death in relation to Iraq."

I dunno, I've never heard him refer to his son's death in relation to Iraq, just to his son's death in Iraq.

[Nige]

You do know. Now you're just lying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm lying by saying that Biden's son didn't die in Iraq? Weird world you live in. I live in the reality based world.

[Nige]

You know Biden thinks the burn pits in Iraq killed his son. If you claim you don't know that, you're lying.

[Ridgeway]

Even the NY Times is calling Biden out for this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/01/us/politics/biden-ukraine-iraq-beau.html

[Brett Bellmore]

Are they calling him out on having attended a historically black college yet?

[Bob from Ohio]

Or meeting the "inventor" of insulin?

[Frank Drackman]

He did meet J-hovah, right about the time he beat up Corn Pop

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Everybody knows he’s referring to the burn pits."

If that were his claim, that would be a lie too, because there's no evidence that the burn pits caused his son's death. But he chose to go with a different lie.

Choose facts. Choose reason. Every single time.

[Nige]

You're not choosing either. Biden thinks his son died because of the toxic burn pits in Iraq. You can run around squealing whatever you want, that has always consistently been true.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Biden can think what he wants, even if there's no evidence for it.

He knows his son didn't die in Iraq. But he says it anyway.

[Nige]

His son died because of burn pits in Iraq.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's no evidence of that.

[Nige]

There's plenty of evidence the burn pits killed people and caused long term health problems for others. Biden believes they killed his son. I don't think he's lying, he really believes that, and that's what he is referring to. You know this perfectly well at this point. The logical culture-war outcome of all of this is if it keeps up is you'll be arguing 'burn pits are good actually' in no time, and Republican opposition to benefits and compensation for burn pit victims will become a foundational political aim.

[Don Nico]

Nige,
I suspect that Mr Biden actually was informed by oncologist that glioblastoma had nothing to do with burn pits in Iraq. His grief forbids him from accepting the truth; at a human level that is understandable. That does not excuse the untruth of his statement, although it may explain it.
That these burn pits lead to serious health consequences for others is at least statistically nearly certain, even if specific cases may have some associated doubt.

[Nige]

Your suspicions are worthless. Accept that Biden knows more about his son's death than you do.

[Don Nico]

Mr Biden has no evidence to that effect. He is flailing to blame someone or something.

"One of the most notable glioblastoma risk factors is prior radiation exposure – especially a history of receiving radiation therapy to the head or neck. People who have undergone radiation therapy as a treatment for leukemia, fungal infections of the scalp or previous cancers of the brain have an elevated risk of developing glioblastoma.
Other risk factors include being male, being 50 years of age or older and having chromosomal abnormalities on chromosome 10 or 17. Certain genetic syndromes, such as neurofibromatosis (type 1 and type 2) tuberous sclerosis and von Hippel-Lindau disease can also make a person more likely to develop brain cancer. Some studies have suggested that excessive alcohol consumption may also increase a person’s risk, although smoking does not seem to be strongly associated with the development of glioblastoma."

[Sarcastr0]

There are already policies about burn pits out.

Almost as though value and risk doesn’t always rest on the latest paper yiu dug up.

I am very into science, but I also know when to bring it up and when it’s not the time.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
You bring up the science when the topic is on the table. You don't accept falsehood for the sake of defending a politician's false statement.
That there is no evidence that gliobastoma multiformae is linked to burning organics is not the latest paper. It is well known. Dont try the "latest paper" crap to plug your ears.

Accept that Biden was wrong and move on.

[Nige]

How on earth can you possibly know what evidence he has? Access to his own son's medical records, for a start, which you most assuredly do not, his military record, data on the effects of burn pits, presumably. You have no idea how he has reached this conclusion, based on what evidence.

[Don Nico]

Nige,
you are grasping for straws to tell us that Joe Biden knows what oncologists don't.

Biden is either lying, or he cannot control his emotions about the topic. I can excuse the latter.

But don't believe your partisan BS about his false statement or the underlying event.

[Nige]

That's a false dichotomy and you know it.

[Brett Bellmore]

He used to be blaming it on the burn pits. These days he just straight up claims his son died there. Just like these days he claims he attended a historically black college, and likely thinks it's true.

Look, the guy is losing his capacity to distinguish reality and fiction, truth and metaphor. His past is simplifying and being overwritten by lies he can no longer remember are lies. This happens in older people sometimes, and it's a horrifying thing to watch even in a retired parent who's not in a position to do any damage.

It's a scary thing to watch in a guy who's at least nominally President.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, this is proof of a very specific type of dementia that is otherwise concealed.

Trump though, is sharp as a tack. His lies are all media fakery.

Amazing detective work.

[Bob from Ohio]

"otherwise concealed"

LOL There are examples every day.

[Brett Bellmore]

Otherwise concealed except for being on public display every day.

No, Trump isn't sharp as a tack. Biden at this point isn't as sharp as a ball bearing.

[Martinned]

Sorry to interrupt this sophisticated discussion, but have you guys considered not electing an octogenarian for president? Rishi Sunak, for all his faults, is 42, and plenty of other countries have managed to elect younger leaders still.

(Here is that video of Sanna Marin dancing, that somehow got her in all sorts of trouble.)

[Don Nico]

Thank you Martin.
It is pathetic that the US is led by octogenarians. Geez, we should do far better.

[Brett Bellmore]

Our politics aren’t free enough anymore to do better.

I’ve occasionally compared the US political system to a computer that’s been running for years without a reboot, or update to the anti-viral software. Memory leaks have got it slowed to a crawl, every script kiddie knows the exploits, there are a half dozen key loggers at work.

Maybe it was a pretty good computer originally, with an OS that rocked. But now, even if you wiped it and did a clean install, it would be back where it is now very quickly, because the script kiddies DO know the exploits.

Time to wipe things and install an upgraded OS that fixes those exploits. If you can get the damned thing to respond to the keyboard, you’ve been mashing “ctrl-alt-del” over and over and nothing has been happening.

Getting time to resort to “ctrl-alt-yank-plug”.

To unpack the metaphors, 'campaign reforms' have rendered access to the ballot extremely difficult. Incumbent players have gamed the system to prevent the rise of challengers. Work-arounds for various parts of the Constitution the politicians found inconvenient have rendered it largely a non-factor in how the government works. Informal arrangements between near monopoly businesses and government have handed the government the power to censor our discourse and punish dissent, along with surveillance capabilities any 3rd world dictator would envy.

And this one rich dude crashes the party, instead of coming up through the establishment, and they went nuts.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He said:

Inflation is a worldwide problem right now because of a war in Iraq and the impact on oil and what Russia is doing. Excuse me, the war in Ukraine. I think of Iraq because that’s where my son died.

So I, for one, most definitely do not know what claim he was making other than that his son died in Iraq (because he seems to be explicitly saying that his son died in Iraq).

[Sarcastr0]

When people say something so easily checkable as wrong, I tend to assume they're tracking something other than what I'm picking up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why? People lie about things that are easily checkable all the time. Biden does, Trump certainly did, Hillary lied about sniper fire in Bosnia, etc.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, the level of denial that you guys will go through to justify lying by guys on your side... I can't say I'm surprised.

[Sarcastr0]

I say I like to think the best of people.

This makes you quite mad at me about this. Because believing Biden isn’t telling a needless and obvious lie about his dead son is impossible. Must be partisanship.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Anything's possible, if you're willing to deny reality when it conflicts with the narrative.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m all for seeing the best in people (although given that p the person in question is the president of the United States, I’d like to think he can handle himself without our help).

Sometimes, however, people don’t live up to their best. Biden in particular his a long history of fabulism in general, and bald-faced lying about the (unquestionably tragic) circumstances of his family members’ deaths—witness the years he spent falsely claiming that the truck driver involved in the collision with his first wife was drunk,

Biden made a clear, unequivocal statement which was unquestionably false. Throwing yourself into contortions to try to explain that it somehow could have been reasonable for him to think it was true does not do you credit.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, I guess I just don’t see it as the stretch you do.

Biden does have a history of telling stories that aren’t exactly true. But this is so remarkably easy to check, I don’t think it makes sense.

[Bob from Ohio]

"aren’t exactly true."

Let's parse this statement. Would "false" or "lies" save you some words?

[Brett Bellmore]

"When people say something so easily checkable as wrong, I tend to assume they’re tracking something other than what I’m picking up."

Or, I don't know, since it's easily checkable you could instead check on it. You'd have found it's true.

[Sarcastr0]

BlazeTV saying Biden lies isn’t really going to convince me of much. The actual words are not really in dispute here.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are shameless. Blaze TV is irrelevant.

You're right, the actual words aren't in dispute here, the only thing in dispute is whether he lied or is delusional. He's said so many stupidly wrong things lately I'm going with delusional.

[Sarcastr0]

So your link was not really material to anything under discussion.

OK, back to your pop-diagnosis bullshit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You know that’s not his claim, right?"

That's literally his claim. He's made it twice. You guys want to pretend that he's claiming something else, but that's just gaslighting.

"We know they are lying,
they know they are lying,
they know we know they are lying,
we know they know we know they are lying,
but they are still lying."

[Nige]

His claim has always been that he died because of the burn pits in Iraq. It's not that difficult.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who should we believe, you or our lying eyes and ears?

[Nige]

It does not surprise me that so many of your body parts lie.

[Don Nico]

His claim is baseless. And every oncologist at Walter Reed can tell him so.
But he was devastated and needed something to blame. That is human.

[Nige]

You have absolutely no idea what his claim is based on, or you're not bothering to think it through.

[Don Nico]

His claim is only based on grief. period.
I happen to know a great deal about gliomas.

[Nige]

You know nothing about his son's medical/military history as it relates to burn pits.

[Don Nico]

I do know about gliobastoma. But if you can produce hard evidence I would be please to see it.

[Nige]

I don't have access to his medical records either.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That may have been his claim in the past. (I’m not sure that there’s any evidence that the claim is true, but that’s a different issue.) But it certainly hasn’t always been his claim: his claim now is that his son died in Iraq. You can tell that that’s his claim because he said (i.e. claimed) that “ Iraq” was “where my son died.”

[Brett Bellmore]

To be charitable, it may have started out as a metaphor, Iraq being where he thought his son contracted the cancer, and metaphorically thus "where he died", only with a delay.

And then the dementia patient lost the capacity to comprehend metaphor.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If people want to believe the Democrat narrative about Gay Pelosi and J6, why won’t they offer full transparency and release all video and audio recordings of the incidents?

Or is it just another Epstein jail cell situation where only the die-hard bootlickers will believe the State Story while rubbing their hands glee-fully while FBI Gestapo bludgeon Normies for not falling in line?

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

I'm happy for there to be a clear rule about when such evidence is released to the public, but you know, if applied universally, nine times out of ten the "full transparency" you're calling for would be used against the police, not the Pelosis...

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes 'Why are you angry about the utter bullshit I made up? Burden is on the people I'm making shit up about to be transparent!'

Nope. You suck, and we owe you nothing to indulge your suckitude. Especially because nothing you demand will make you suck less.

[Estragon]

It truly boggles my mind to see the number of seemingly reasonable commenters spending time and energy day after day trying to substantively engage with mr “Michelle Obama has a penis” Charlie delta.

Life is short people.

[Jaypd]

Wow a lot of people concerned about politics when the REAL story this week was the one where Josh shared all his old pictures of himself on this amazing blog that used to be something I could cite in court arguments and be taken seriously but now hey I assume I can mention Josh to the kids doing tictoc and they'll be like oh yeah he takes great selfies

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

That was weird.

[Frank Drackman]

Josh left out the one from his fraternity days (0:13 of the clip)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUrQItjXypY

[bevis the lumberjack]

To all of you hyper-partisans out there, you’ve accomplished something remarkable. Gallup poll out today.

61% of Americans think the Republican Party sucks.

57% of Americans think the Democratic Party sucks.

56%(!!) of Americans think we need a new, third political party.

Great job, folks. Y’all have completely alienated the majority of us out here.

Some moderate, reasonable politicians should take this information and run with it. Fix it before it’s too broken.

[Randal]

I've been waiting for this since the days of the Tea Party. I always thought the Justice Party would be a good party, except there's no ok way of referring to a member of it. You have a Republican, a Democrat, and a Justice? That doesn't work. So... a Justine? A Justicite?

I also once thought it could be the Libertarians until I spent enough time on this blog to realize that there's no substance there. Something which I think most people realized in the 90s. Too bad, really.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

"Just US"?

(Hang on, I need to go register that...)

[Brett Bellmore]

There was substance in the 70's and 80's. What happened in the 90's is that so much "campaign finance reform" had accumulated that the serious people decided the LP had been effectively outlawed, and went off to do other things.

[shawn_dude]

And then the 2000s hit and campaign finance reform turned into unlimited buckets of dark money and influence to buy the votes you wanted.

[David Nieporent]

There was substance in the 70’s and 80’s. What happened in the 90’s is that so much “campaign finance reform” had accumulated that the serious people decided the LP had been effectively outlawed, and went off to do other things.

This is of course a complete fabrication.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was an LP activist from the late 70's, and that's precisely why I left in the late 90's.

[Sarcastr0]

You are not exactly serious people.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Oops. Pew research poll.

For those of you who will insist that this is false and just made up:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/03/increasingly-dissatisfied-voters-favor-getting-a-third-party-choice.html?qsearchterm=over%20half%20of%20american

[Ben_]

Asking people whether they want more choices isn’t really useful. They will always say yes.

Sometimes when you give people more choices it makes them happier. Sometimes it has the opposite effect.

[John F. Carr]

"And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party, a third party, the Wild Party!" – Alice Cooper

[Frank Drackman]

Kudo's for the AC reference, imagine releasing "Only Women Bleed" in today's Woke environment.

[Frank Drackman]

And it's about "Domestic Violence" (they called it "Wife Beating" in 1975) not the monthly curse (my daughters still call it that)

[Randal]

I heard we're not allowed to say "don't wear a wife-beater to your interview or you won't get the job" anymore. Sad!

[Nige]

You won’t get a viable third party without changing the voting system. After that, you’ll get more parties who will tend to form coalitions and voters will get mad because of the deals and compromises they make with each other. I’m not saying it’s not a good idea – it’s a great idea – but if you think it will lead to voter satisfaction, you’re a sweet summer child.

[John F. Carr]

Placebos can cause satisfaction.

[Don Nico]

Sure, we need lots of little parties like Israel has. How is that working out for you?

[Ben_]

Do you really think a third “moderate” party will happen? What principles would they organize around? “Moderate” isn’t a very clearly identifiable principle.

They could organize around an individual personality, in theory. But any “moderate” person will get attacked relentlessly. You can look at JK Rowling as an example of this. She is a liberal and put in work pushing the left’s cultural agenda. Then the leftists decided they wanted men in the ladies room and she said no. Now she receives death threats and rape threats all the time and is “cancelled”. How is there any room for a “moderate”?

Do you think men in the ladies room is consistent with a "moderate" position?

[bevis the lumberjack]

The principles would be somewhere between “trump wuz robbed” on the right and “we want to dictate EVERYTHING” on the left. Good enough for us normies.

[Ben_]

So exactly one thing is excluded from "moderate" now. That doesn’t narrow it down much.

[Ben_]

I take a moderate position on whether Trump was robbed: there were issues but there’s not enough information to verify whether it would have mattered. It’s a close call.

I’m a moderate

[Randal]

It would start by rejecting the premise of the culture war and of grievance politics.

It would be heavy on federalism. I think people from both the right and left are more pro-federalist than has been true in a long time, so it's a good time to press that one.

It would be generally pro-rights. This probably means both pro-choice and pro-gun. Pro-free-speech and pro-religious-freedom.

It would be unambiguously capitalist, but without the religious reverence to free markets as a tool of obstruction.

It would style itself as solving problems with common-sense pragmatism rather than rhetoric and ideology.

[Ben_]

You know "common sense" doesn’t mean anything specific, right? It means if you don’t agree with me you don’t have any sense. There’s no test to distinguish a "common sense" position from any other position.

Also your "moderate" mishmash of notions is too boring to attract masses of people to a new party. What would make anyone pay any attention to it?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ben, your hard core belief in unreasonable extreme policies is doing the opposite of attracting people. The same is true of the progressives.

The fact that y’all can’t seem to comprehend a government run by principles related to compromise and freedom just drives home the point.

[Ben_]

You have yet to mention a single policy position on any issue.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Exactly.

[Ben_]

Also, "fix it" how?

Is a border wall a moderate position? Are fossil fuel pipelines moderate? Are school vouchers moderate? How about charter schools? Is a ban on plastic straws moderate? How about plastic bags? How about a fracking ban? How about electric car subsidies?

What are the moderate positions on policy issues?

Perhaps there are no answers and the entire idea just to complain…?

[John F. Carr]

Abortion policy gives us an example of a moderate position. There is little support for a total ban. There is also little support for abortion on demand up to (or beyond) viability. The parties have been captured by the fringes and offer all or nothing. The median voter would support a meaningful opportunity to have an elective abortion with strict limits at or beyond 15 weeks. Maybe God thinks a fertilized egg deserves basic human rights. Maybe not. But the people have an opinion and it is not what either party is offering.

[Ben_]

That’s why I didn’t include abortion in the list of questions. An arguably moderate position is easy to suggest: 14 weeks.

What about the other policies?

[BillyG]

The funny thing is a lot of Democrats would say 14 weeks is an extremist position.

[Ben_]

A lot of Democrats side with extremists. Some because they’re extremist, others for financial or social gain.

It’s not really working out for them this election. Whenever Republicans are willing to go to some 14-15 weeks standard, they will win the abortion issue.

[Martinned]

Sure, but whoever in the GOP does that gets called out for being a RINO and excommunicated. And so the slow death march towards Gilead continues.

[Ben_]

That’s what was passed in Florida. It made abortion an easy winning issue for republicans in Florida this election.

[Martinned]

Give it time...

[Ben_]

Good luck with your stories about the future. You can make anything work out any way you want in such a story.

[Bob from Ohio]

"fertilized egg "

Unborn human.

[Brett Bellmore]

Capture by the fringes is a natural thing when most people don't care about something. And abortion is fairly down the list of voter concerns.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ben, your views (and those of the left) and the behavior of all of the zealots is alienating more than half of the country. It’s possible to govern and do things that make sense. All y’all are doing (yes, both sides) is flinging shit at each other and screaming for extremist policies that will make it worse for the rest of us.

[Ben_]

Specifically, what are some "moderate" policy positions? Care to suggest some?

everyone but me is wrong, but I won’t explain any of the right answers is impossible for anyone to take seriously.

[Randal]

I don't think "fix it" means the Milquetoast Party that tries to find the compromise position on every issue and stands for nothing. That's not going to work. That's just taking for granted that the country is irrevocably divided and trying to please both sides. Won't happen.

If a third party were to succeed, it would need to reject the premise of the divide in the first place. It's not looking to be a "middle ground" between two extremes. It would take a different approach entirely. Some issues it would simply decline to care about, like bathroom stuff. On some issues, it would side with conservatives, like perhaps energy policy. On other issues it would side with liberals, maybe health care. I think the underlying philosophy would be pragmatism and common sense, with a generous helping of American exceptionalism (which is very different from MAGA-style nationalism, to be clear).

[Ben_]

Nothing specific then.

Yeah. Sounds like a great idea when I can just imagine it to be whatever. All the good stuff and none of the bad stuff (but no specifics about which stuff is good and which is bad). Yay!!!!!

[Randal]

I gave you three specifics. What is your problem?

[Ben_]

Hand-wavy generalizations aren’t specifics.

[Randal]

Hm also... strips of crispy bacon aren't water balloons! Woo this is fun!

[Ben_]

Fun is awesome. Yay!

You guys want a government that’s completely about how you want to feel about yourselves. Policy is not really needed, because words and feelings are your goals. That’s why you don’t have any specific answers about policies.

I want a government that has policies that serve Americans and make our lives better. Whatever some blowhard politicians say is not very important — except America-haters aren’t really likely to make our lives better with their America-punishment policies, so it’s informative to carefully listen to them.

[Randal]

I gave you three specific policy examples, and the one which is about the feels -- Bathroom Policy -- is the one I thought this new party should not even deign to opine on.

So again, what exactly is your problem?

[Ben_]

You keep saying you were specific, but never offer any details.

"Healthcare" is not a policy, much less a specific one. You know that right? Nor is "energy" a specific policy.

You have this cool scenario about how everyone is wrong except for you and the "moderates". But it’s completely insubstantial. So congrats on being right about whatever you imagine you’re talking about, I guess.

Usually communication involves people sharing ideas, not someone like you saying our ideas rule!!!! Healthcare! everyone else’s ideas are teh extreme and stuff. But you go with that.

[Randal]

You are so weird. “Energy” is not a specific policy, but that’s not what I said. I said it would adopt the conservatives’ energy policy. That’s a specific policy that exists. Same with healthcare.

Do you need me to describe those policies to you? Why? Look them up yourself.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The best way to see if the voters actually like third parties is to open up the ballot so that it lists the candidates who are actually running, not a curated list of those who meet the competition-restricting standards set by the two cartel parties.

Have an honest ballot with all the candidates and see if the voters like anyone who isn't a Demopublican.

If they don't, but instead stick with the Demopublicans who have serviced - I mean served - them so well, then you can say the voters aren't *really* alienated from the duopoly and their answers to pollsters is just a phase they're going through.

Guys, if you're so confident voters will keep supporting you even after they have multiple other options, why not free up the ballot, it will be no skin off your nose, will it?

[Randal]

Well, this is the problem with having a president instead of a prime minister.

It reminds me though, this new third party really has to be a new second party, which is to say, it must cannibalize one of the two existing parties entirely. Which one stays and which one goes? I've had different opinions over time. I think at the moment, it has to replace the Republicans, essentially because we need a new home for legitimate conservatism. It would be -- or at least start as -- the party for the "center right" that everyone talks about.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you could possibly have a party with principles that naturally dropped it in the middle. But a party whose principle IS being in the middle isn't going anywhere, splitting the difference doesn't have much of a constituency.

[Nige]

I have to say, when your analysis seems spot-on, I have to agree with you. Spot on.

[Ben_]

Do you really think it’s somehow useful to have 10 fringe candidates with 1% of the vote each?

[Martinned]

How about, just for sport, 10 candidates with >5%?

[Ben_]

Is that more useful in some way?

[Martinned]

Yes, because then you're not forcing voters to choose between two candidates they may well both dislike.

[Ben_]

The vast majority won’t get an office-holder they like. And anyone running for the office will know they only need to serve 30-35% of the voters to win.

That’s useful for someone who wants to empower a smallish minority to oppress a majority of the public. Is that your goal?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oh, please, this just shows why the current system is wrong - it manipulates the ballot to guide voters to a certain result and to exclude other results.

What if the voters vote for the wrong people? What if they vote strategically? These are not legitimate considerations for truncating the ballot and misleading the voters about who is running.

[Ben_]

What was the benefit of a longer ballot supposed to be? I have yet to hear it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Apart from listing the available candidates rather than a limited subsection of the candidates who are chosen under rules set by the Demopublican cartel?

I can’t think of any advantages.

Why not make the ballot even shorter, showing only one candidate? That would minimize voter confusion and reduce the chance they’ll vote for the wrong person.

[Ben_]

No, really. What are the advantages? Do you personally get paid to print ballots, so the more names appear, the more you’re paid? Is there a specific lucky number of candidates that we haven't been getting up to?

This is starting to be like asking the underpants gnomes their business model:
Step 1: longer ballot.
Step 2: ?
Step:3 Profit!

What’s step 2?

Are completely random, made-up names ok, or do the names have to be actual people in order to reap the magical benefit of …. something that must somehow be good … in some way you have yet to explain?

Please let us know what practical benefit we stand to gain, and what mechanism causes this benefit as a direct result of additional names.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Representative government is good for America and is required by the state and federal constitutions. If we agree on this, let’s go to the logical consequences of this premise:

Voters ought to be able to choose any qualified person to serve in major policymaking positions, rather than have the government tell them who is fit to be voted for. In a properly-functioning republic, the people elect their officers, the officers don’t appoint themselves or limit competition from electoral rivals.

The government should not put its finger on the scale by designating second-class candidates who are relegated to a write-in line, while government-approved candidates get their names printed on the ballot.

(caveat – if a candidate files before the ballots are printed up, then he may have to be content with a write-in line. Or if a candidate is capable of paying the expense of putting his name on the ballot but chooses not to do so, then he could be denied the “advertising space” of a ballot listing.)

(Possible exception – in Presidential elections, state legislatures can completely take the choice away from voters, and since they greater power includes the less, the legislatures can choose to give the voters only a limited choice among pre-selected candidates. My analysis refers to offices where the voters have the right to elect.)

[Ben_]

I think I figured it out. You feel bad about the set of people on the ballot. Therefore, any change in that set might somehow make you feel less bad.

As more names are added, you feel like the one name that might make you feel good might eventually be added.

It’s about optimizing your feelings and has nothing to do with how many people get how many votes. And you don’t have a strategy for how this name adding exercise causes anyone different to actually be elected to office.

Is that the answer?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It will surprise nobody to learn that this was not my answer.

[Ben_]

I don’t know what state’s ballot you’re complaining about. Every state has a different ballot procedure. The procedure you are alluding to that you dislike doesn’t match states I know about.

There’s not much reason to think someone who can’t pass a low bar to get on a ballot could pass a much higher bar to actually win a plurality of the votes in an election.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you are going to keep people off the ballot because they can’t win, why not remove Republicans from the ballot in gerrymandered Democratic districts, and vice-versa?

Of course the ballot I described exists – duopolist candidates plus candidates who jump arbitrary duopolist-created hurdles, plus nobody else.

[Ben_]

A bunch of states have top two primaries and end up with two of the same party in the fall election for some races.

But sure, keep complaining about some ballot in some state that allegedly has some requirement. And that somehow keeps some 3rd party candidate off the ballot who would otherwise somehow win.

You could just buy a lottery ticket if you feel that lucky.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, the open primaries are a Bad Thing. Primaries ought to be run by parties, not governments.

Now, if you will permit me to return to the topic…

Perhaps you could tell me which states *don’t* have a restrictive ballot of the sort I describe? There’s nothing hypothetical about it.

“And that somehow keeps some 3rd party candidate off the ballot who would otherwise somehow win.”

What is it with the straw men? I already argued that the popularity of a candidate is irrelevant to whether (s)he/zhe should be on the ballot. Let the voters decide who’s unpopular.

The mere fact that the duopolists and their apologists oppose an honest ballot is reason enough to support it. Even if the overwhelming majority of voters, on consideration, decide to cling to the duopoly, at least it will be because they deliberately chose to, not because the election was rigged to nudge them in a duopolistic direction.

[David Nieporent]

And I already explained, the last time you brought this up, that a ballot with 5,000 names would be bad, not good.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you’re worried about too many candidates, make every ballot line a write-in line, so that the voter writes the name of his preferred candidates – even duopoly candidate would have to be written in. That avoids the ballot clutter which you’re so concerned about!

But until we reach your scary scenario, then if we have names on the ballot at all, candidates (or parties on their behalf) who are willing to pay a nondicriminatory filing fee for the “advertising space” should have their names on the ballot.

Just so long as the government, doing the bidding of the duopolists, doesn’t promote its own favored candidates at the expense of others.

Is that too much to ask?

In the real-world, outside horrifying hypotheticals, the problem is the duopoly parties putting hurdles in the way of perfectly qualified candidates.

I can match your horror story with one of my own: What if New Jersey only lists the names of the Democratic candidates on the ballot? What if Utah only lists Republican candidates?

What justification do you have for government officials granting privileges to the parties they happen to belong to?

[Ben_]

Extra names on the ballot to get 10 votes each serves no purpose and only makes it harder for everyone but 10 people. You are welcome to feel like you wish for that.

I don’t think you’re going to convince anyone that a bunch more unelectable candidates getting a few votes solves any problems. Especially since your only arguments are more, yay!, GOP and Dems, yuk!, and ballot access conspiracy, Oooooo!.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If it's just a matter of 10 votes each, why do your guys try to keep these supposedly irrelevant parties off the ballot?

They work to keep Greens, Constitution Party, and others off the ballot even though they get more than 10 votes each.

Why would the duopolists spontaneously develop a disinterested concern for purging minor parties? Because it's not disinterested. Are we supposed to pretend it's disinterested?

[David Nieporent]

But until we reach your scary scenario, then if we have names on the ballot at all, candidates (or parties on their behalf) who are willing to pay a nondicriminatory filing fee for the “advertising space” should have their names on the ballot.

You still fail to explain why keeping someone off the ballot for not paying a filing fee is perfectly acceptable but keeping someone off the ballot for not providing sufficient signatures is horrible discrimination.

What justification do you have for government officials granting privileges to the parties they happen to belong to?

None whatsoever. Why do you think that this is an accurate characterization of the current process? (Do you know of any law that says, "Democrats and Republicans have special privileges not available to others?") Or that "Put every person on the ballot who feels like being there" would be the right solution if it were?

[David Nieporent]

If it’s just a matter of 10 votes each, why do your guys try to keep these supposedly irrelevant parties off the ballot?

Asked, and answered. And answered, and answered, and answered. A 25-page ballot serves nobody's interests.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’ve already answered your worries about a suppositious lengthy ballot. If ballots are too long with the names of candidates listed, have every ballot line a write-in line, so that even names of duopoly candidates have to be written in.

I think you are innocent of any knowledge of the history of the Australian ballot in this country. Preprinted ballots weren’t introduced under the rationale of limiting voter choice. The selling-point was that it would protect voters’ choices better than a system of private ballots where outsiders could observe the voters and retaliate against those who brought ballots for the wrong party.

Paying a nondiscriminatory fee doesn’t involve doxxing supporters of a minor party and violating the principle of a secret ballot. Petition signatories know that their names will be public record and that duopoly canvassers could come to their homes and pressure them to un-sign the petition. And of course the signatories could be fired or otherwise cancelled. The supposed secret-ballot benefits of our existing system will be negated. You *do* support the secret ballot, don’t you?

“(Do you know of any law that says, “Democrats and Republicans have special privileges not available to others?”)”

Just about every law on the books in the states.

There comes a point when your professed naiveté stops being cute and becomes genuinely irritating.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Just about every *election* law on the books.

[David Nieporent]

What election law on the books specifies that Democrats and Republicans have special rights not available to other parties? Simply ranting doesn't actually support your point. There are, to be sure, laws that advantage parties that have had past success over new parties or parties without any past support. But that's a horse of a different color than specifying that Democrats and Republicans get special privileges.

As for the rest, you're rambling all over the place. You've seemingly started with your conclusion and are working backwards for a justification. What do secret ballots have to do with this discussion? Nominating petitions are not ballots, and where exactly are these examples of people being "doxxed" for signing the former?

What exactly is the benefit to the public over the current system of having no pre-printed ballots and forcing people to write in all their votes?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“There are, to be sure, laws that advantage parties that have had past success over new parties or parties without any past support. But that’s a horse of a different color than specifying that Democrats and Republicans get special privileges.”

Lol. But at least you didn’t deny it was happening, as you do here:

“Nominating petitions are not ballots, and where exactly are these examples of people being “doxxed” for signing the former?”

“A day after Connor Harney received anonymous text messages asking him to retract his signature from a petition to qualify Green Party candidates for the November ballot in North Carolina, he said unidentified canvassers brought their “attempts to interfere with democracy” to his doorstep….

“Harney is one of more than a dozen signers mentioned in the lawsuit who reported receiving intimidating messages, calls or home visits.

“These signers said some canvassers declined to identify themselves or falsely claimed to represent the Green Party or the elections board. Others said they were sent by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – the driving force working to elect Beasley and other Democratic Senate candidates nationwide….

““This is not politics as usual,” [Western Carolina University political science professor Chris] Cooper said. “We expect political parties to want to win – that’s not the problem. It crosses the line when they appear to be resorting to intimidation and, in a few cases, lies.””

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-07-29/democrats-barenuckle-green-party-off-north-carolina-ballot

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"What exactly is the benefit to the public over the current system of having no pre-printed ballots and forcing people to write in all their votes?"

You tell me - you invoked the silly specter of 5,000 candidates or whatever. I suggested a solution to the imaginary "problem."

Of course, if the 5,000-candidate thing isn't a real scenario, then extreme measures (requiring duopolist voters to actually spell out the names of their candidates) would not be needed.

These are *your* voters - apparently you don't think they are capable of writing their candidates' names even if that were absolutely essential to an honest ballot and a functional Republic.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It’s interesting to see the duopolists close ranks against the threat of an honest ballot, which would risk enhancing the voices of third parties.

Plenty of voters tell pollsters they like the idea of a third party, though to date the limited menu of third parties allowed by the duopoly doesn’t satisfy them.

Perhaps these voters are under the impression that political discourse in this country is like…well, like this comment section. Wow, who would ever want an escape hatch allowing them to get away from such polarization?

Third parties would change the political dynamics in ways the duopolists can’t control. Even if the two major parties succeed in keeping potential voters on the duopolist plantation, the duopolists parties will resent the effort they have to put in to use persuasion and concessions to win back discontented voters.

Why not avoid the need to appeal to their discontented supporters and simply rig the system so that the poor voters are convinced they can’t escape the major-party binary.

It’s like a domestic abuser – you can’t leave, I’m the only one who loves you, you won’t find anybody else.

[M L]

ADL warns of “dire consequences” for Elon Musk if he lets Trump, Bannon and other banned people back on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1586480650957123591

I wonder what they are going to do?

[Nige]

It doesn’t say the dire consequences would be for Musk, though I expect it'll only help hasten the site's decline as a usable social media platform, which presumably won't be great for him.

[M L]

Ah so they are just looking out for his bottom line. That's nice of them.

[Nige]

Trump, Bannon and the rest of the white supremacists won't care, someone has to.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps they are troubled about the societal consequences of proliferation of bigoted, delusional falsehoods and invective likely to develop until the American marketplace of ideas (which includes advertisers, subscribers, and the liberal-libertarian modern mainstream) handles Twitter, Musk, and other antisocial, on-the-spectrum, conservative misfits.

[Ben_]

I hope ADL does their worst. Elon Musk can show the rest of the world how to stand up to ADL's bullying.

[Nige]

He's already multiplied the use of racial slurs on Twitter by over 300%! Take that ADL!

[M L]

Heck yeah, that'll show em! Of course, the increased racial slurs are all being posted by a small number of bots that were set up for the purpose of creating this story about increased racial slurs.

[Nige]

No, they were posted by nasty racists who were just waiting for Musk's new free-speech twitter where you can chant racial slurs to your racist heart's desire.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess we'll find out when Musk's war on bots goes live.

[Nige]

Yes, when that happens.

[M L]

No, they weren't.

https://twitter.com/yoyoel/status/1586542286342475776

"Over the last 48 hours, we’ve seen a small number of accounts post a ton of Tweets that include slurs and other derogatory terms. To give you a sense of scale: More than 50,000 Tweets repeatedly using a particular slur came from just 300 accounts.

Nearly all of these accounts are inauthentic. We’ve taken action to ban the users involved in this trolling campaign — and are going to continue working to address this in the days to come to make Twitter safe and welcoming for everyone."

Musk has made no changes to Twitter's content moderation yet anyway.

[Nige]

Musk's freeze peach fanboys got excited. Taste of things to come.

[shawn_dude]

They're lighting up their digital tiki torches as we type...

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean, like the Lincoln Project did?

[shawn_dude]

They're Republicans. Not sure how that's a "gotcha."

[Brett Bellmore]

Are the Lincoln Project people still pretending to be Republicans? I thought they'd given up on that.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you lie like this? I mean, it's more insulting than the usual lie, because you actually link to the part showing you're lying. They did not say anything about "'dire consequences' for Elon Musk."

[M L]

The tweet seems more like a potential (reasonable) misinterpretation than a lie.

"Throughout his Presidency, Trump used Twitter to spread hate and incite violence."

That sounds more like a lie.

[David Nieporent]

It sounds like incontrovertible fact.

[darkknight9]

Crap! I actually had a legit question and forgot to post it this morning.
If police put together evidence for a district attorney, are they the only ones? Do court 'fact finders' or 'trier of fact' do their own investigating or have investigators? What about District/County attorneys? Do they have investigators? Or does the system rely solely on evidence provided by leo's?

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

I know someone who was considering working as a DA's investigator after retiring from the PoPo, so I would have to say there must be such people working in DAs' offices.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Keeping in mind that things vary significantly between jurisdictions, virtually all criminal cases originate with an investigation by a law enforcement agency. Many prosecutors offices do have their own investigators who can assist with follow up, but they are generally also law enforcement officers. Criminal defense attorneys may hire private investigators, and public defenders offices will often have their own staff investigators as well. Trial judges and trial juries do not have their own investigators.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Judge Elizabeth Scherer is extremely bad at her job.

[M L]

I agree.

[TwelveInchPianist]

We need to modify the canons of judicial ethics to make it sanctionable for judges to hug anybody in the courtroom.

[M L]

Is it cool for reporters to be jailed if they refuse to reveal their sources?

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/31/true-the-vote-leaders-jailed/

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, actually it is cool. Because "reporters" don't have any rights anybody else doesn't have, and you or I could be jailed under exactly the same circumstances.

[M L]

Well I agree that "reporters" shouldn't have any special rights. But do they?

Regardless of "reporter" or not, is it generally OK to jail people who are speaking on a matter of public interest, in order to force them to reveal supposed sources? What if the sources are government officials or whistleblowers of some kind? Does it depend on whether the people are deemed to be full of shit and if so who makes that determination? Or is there no real answer or principle here, and this is all just regular ol' violence, power plays and war by other means?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Should a party to a lawsuit be held in contempt of court for willfully failing to comply with a discovery order?

Yes

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, ask Somin. No, they don't. Except statutory, in some states.

As a general matter, I don't think the government should be able to compel squat. In specific cases, such as investigating a crime for which their is probable cause, sure.

[M L]

In this case, if I understood correctly they are being jailed in connection with a private, civil suit for defamation!

[not guilty]

"Yes, actually it is cool. Because 'reporters' don’t have any rights anybody else doesn’t have, and you or I could be jailed under exactly the same circumstances."

Only partially correct. The Supreme Court in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), rejected a claim that a news reporter has a First Amendment right to avoid appearing before and being questioned by a grand jury. Several states have by statute provided some degree of protection against a news reporter being compelled to testify or give information as to his sources of information.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that comes down to the difference between "rights" and "privileges", doesn't it? In some states reporters have special privileges other people don't have.

[shawn_dude]

And yet, everyone benefits from a situation where whistleblowers can speak to reporters with some sense of security that they will be protected. And this isn't the only case of "special privileges" designed to protect people in the midst of their profession duties. Police, politicians, doctors, etc. all get protections.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are benefits and there are costs, to journalists being permitted to shield from the police people with information about crimes.

I'd suggest journalists would be a bit more secure in what is, after all, a legislative privilege, if they'd cultivated friends on both sides of the aisle, instead of so blatantly becoming an arm of the Democratic party.

[David Nieporent]

What reporters are you talking about?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is it cool for reporters to be jailed"

Always

[M L]

Sad . . .

The Procedure | An Animated Short

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTlrNEkwFW4&ab_channel=LOOR

[Kleppe]

I'm just here to observe that a man who was in the country illegally after entering via the southern border broke into Nancy Pelosi's home in the sanctuary city of San Francisco. Her husband attempted to defend himself against the deranged home invader with... a hand tool. This can't be real, right? Every single conservative talking point being validated in dramatic fashion, less than two weeks before the midterm elections?

[X] Illegal immigration
[X] Violent crime
[X] Self-defense with firearms
[X] Sanctuary cities

The simulation is winking at us. See you next Tuesday, Democrats!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The guy was a QAnon-level, disaffected, delusional, right-wing misfit.

See you down the road at every stop, clingers, as the culture war continues to arrange American progress against the wishes and efforts of our downscale, superstitious, bigoted, half-educated conservatives. Liberal-libertarian mainstream, as always, for the win!

[Kleppe]

"The guy was a QAnon-level, disaffected, delusional, right-wing misfit"

Without conceding any of your claim is true, at the very least he never should have been here. But Democrats and their total aversion to enforcing immigration laws, from allowing him to overstay and sheltering him in a self-declared "sanctuary city", sowed this wind, and Nancy Pelosi's husband was left to reap the whirlwind at 2am in his underwear with a hammer. Thank God it wasn't another conservative who was grievously wounded by an illegal immigrant induced to come to and remain in my country by leftist policies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Immigrant-hating, half-educated, backwater clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[BillyG]

Apparently the reverend thinks a Canadian in the country illegally. LGBTQ flag flying pot head. Nudist from Berkeley. Is somehow right wing.

The reverend is a robot.

[Frank Drackman]

Paraphrasing the Late (and not great) former Tay-hoss Governor Ann "Ma" Richards, "Poor Arthur! He Cain't Hep it! he was born with a Silver (redacted) in his Mouth!"

[shawn_dude]

How many deportations under Obama vs Trump? Trump vs Biden? Or do you have a unique meaning for "total aversion to enforcing immigration laws?"

Also, you have no idea what it actually means to be a sanctuary city. No undocumented person is "sheltered" in a sanctuary city. The law enforcement agencies responsible for finding and removing them operate in those cities just as they do in all others. Sanctuary cities comply with all federal enforcement laws as they relate to undocumented persons.

[JasonT20]

I’m just here to observe that a man who was in the country illegally after entering via the southern border...

The guy is Canadian, right? What did he do, take a boat to Mexico and then hire a coyote to sneak him across into California?

[Kleppe]

No idea why he entered via Mexico, but that's what the news media is reporting. San Ysidro land port of entry.

[JasonT20]

More details seem to make this a non-story, as far as border security goes. He entered via Mexico, yes. But he did so legally in 2008. Canadians generally do not need visas to enter the U.S. temporarily. He was listed at the time as entering the U.S. for pleasure. Officials did not disclose when exactly, he was no longer in the country legally.

Edit: not guilty also found that information an posted a few hours before me.

[Frank Drackman]

Ask the "Reverend" he knows all about ports of entry.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Is this a cui bono argument?

[Kleppe]

Not cui bono, but you’d be forgiven for thinking so. It turns out the person suspected of breaking into the Hobbs campaign office in Arizona was an illegal immigrant, too. Signs and wonders.

[not guilty]

"I’m just here to observe that a man who was in the country illegally after entering via the southern border broke into Nancy Pelosi’s home in the sanctuary city of San Francisco."

Actually Mr. Pelosi's assailant is a Canadian who entered the United States lawfully but overstayed his visa.

[Nige]

This is certainly a useful illustration of the sheer demagoguery of the Republican Party.

[M L]

Strong comment by Biden. Have to say I agree with him. https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1583256976305180673

[Sarcastr0]

Always fun to dig into ML’s sources.

Big election denier this time.

But doesn’t appear to be an actual Nazi, nor the sad failson Jack Probisec, so well above his usual crowd.

[M L]

I'm confused. Are you saying this video is not genuine? This is a real thing that just happened.

Or are you just interested and finding it "fun" to know how somebody learned of this gaffe? I don't buy the "fun" part, but I guess it makes sense to wonder how one learns of a Biden gaffe in this new bizarro media world where, apparently, the mainstream media no longer reports on such things. Anyway, I first saw this clip on an instagram reel and then couldn't find it again. It is pretty hard to find on Google but I eventually found this tweet through Google. Trying some different terms now I found a Daily Caller page that covers it too, but that's it.

[Sarcastr0]

Your snark based on a 12 second clip of Biden?

Yeah, I took that for exactly as much substance as it deserved.

No - I just always find your sources to be a safari of really out there right-wingers. Like, every time. This is not the first time you've walked me through your finding something, but then losing it, only to find it again at last on some lunatic's twitter.

[M L]

Well there's no reason to post something that's on the front page of WaPo just to spread the news, everyone already knows. What's interesting is that there are more and more things (from potentially small things like gaffes to bigger things) that fly under the radar being absent from media, and sometimes even hard to find on search engines when you already know what you are looking for. I'm glad your inquisitorial antics have you examining "my" "sources" far more than I do, though. If you have capacity I can send some more fact checking and research projects your way.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm unclear about your complaint; Are you alleging that the video clip is some kind of deep fake? Or do you just not like that it didn't come from a source that never would have published something like that?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm just observing, as I have done in the past, that ML has some wild media habits.

[M L]

Is it me that's wild?

Or is it the fact that ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WAPO, CNN, et. al. would al be yapping about this if it were a Trump gaffe, but being a Biden gaffe it is relegated to some digital hinterlands, rarely to be seen if it weren't for some TikToks and the remaining 5% of IG users who would post something like this that haven't been banned yet?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the actual problem here is that there's a wide range of objective facts that the sources you like don't care to report on. And you don't want to look at any sources that don't share that aversion.

You're defending your media bubble, IOW.

[Sarcastr0]

Once again, Brett keeps things at a high level to avoid actually identifying the sources ML keeps linking to.

Oh....you know the ones.

[M L]

My source is Joe Biden. What is your problem with Joe?

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, either say you think the video is fake, or give it up. Your focus on the source of information rather than the information itself is, again, just you defending your media bubble against information from outside it.

As a consequence of most people in the 'journalism' industry being on one end of the political spectrum, there are a lot of perfectly true stories out there that most media outlets, for ideological reasons, refuse to cover. Rejecting other media outlets just gives the left veto power over what you know.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The leftist comments and responses in threads like this have become predictable, banal, and non-sensical. Reading many sound more like a satirical post on a medium such as (the old school) Onion than something any adult ought to take seriously.

It also further demonstrates just how absolutely bankrupt the left is when it comes to ideas. The only thing they have are some issues from the 1970's and some made up garbage over the coming ice age. The king is indeed naked, but the media just won't tell him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you figure the Conspirators are breaking new ground or saying anything interesting with their repetitive, incessant, misleading, cherry-picked nipping at the ankles of the liberal-libertarian mainstream they despise and envy?

Do you believe the fans of this blog, with their constant, delusional, uninformed raving and whining, are offering fresh insights on anything other than the current state of America's backwater racism, misogyny, gay-bashing, immigrant-hating, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of right-wing bigotry?

Right-wingers have lost the culture war, and it is going to get worse for them as our society and electorate continue to become less rural, less religious, less bigoted, less backward, and less white. Readers of this blog may not recognize that the Conspirators and other movement conservatives are disrespected misfits at the fringe among faculty members of America's strong law schools.

[Frank Drackman]

Thou doth protest-eth too much-eth Jerry-eth,
and C'mon (Man) sure Ohio State exposed your former team as an overrated pretender, just makes your work there even more incredible. It's only Thursday, already use up your alloted "Klinger" quota for the week?? Again, get your commutation package into Stuttering John ASAP, only a matter of time before his A-fib throws another embo, and it's lights out.
Get it? "lights out"?? which must be getting close to at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
Frank "Only bitters I know are Angostura"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When a right-winger — at an ostensibly academic and legal blog — has reached the point at which he figures referring to a liberal as Jerry Sandusky (registered Republican from the conservative backwaters) improves his argument, it is time to stand aside and let other clingers try to advance the Republicans’ bigoted, backward political positions.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh shit guys, we’ve lost Jimmy!

[Ben_]

After the Cold War ended they lost their Soviet thought leaders. That’s why so much of their message is about 40+ years ago.

Almost everything they offer after that is storytelling and middle-school mean-girls-style cliquish social positioning.

[Noorondoor]

The "standing" doctrine is a disaster. Stats should never have to prove a harm that the federal government is violating the Constitution. The mere fact that it is doing so should be standing, given that the federal government is a pact between the states.

[David Nieporent]

The federal government is not a pact between the states. You missed the whole rejection of the Articles of Confederation, huh?

[Noorondoor]

It most certainly is. The federal government was created by the Constitution, which starts with "We the people," but the states were the ones that had to ratify it. In any case, states should have the ability to bring suit for any violation by the federal government. Period.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird the Constitution doesn't require ratification to be unanimous, then!

[M L]

Not weird. If some of the states had not elected to ratify and had declined to join the new pact, that just means they would have remained party to the previous pact for the time being. The ratifying states were in fact seceding from the previous pact.

[Sarcastr0]

That'd be tricky since the Articles of Confederation were dissolved the moment the threshold was reached.

[M L]

How so? Explain. Under Article VII, upon ratification by 9 states, the Constitution was to become effective only between the ratifying states.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Actually, it's not clear when the Articles of Confederation were dissolved, because as far as I know they never formally were. My recollection is that once nine states ratified the Constitution, it was clear that the votes were no longer there for the Confederate Congress to take any substantive action. But the congressional delegates did agree that spending money on food was a good thing, so the Continental Congress continued to meet occasionally, until they had spent all of the small amount of money that had been sitting in the Confederate Treasury at the time the Constitution was ratified. Without the lure of free food, the Confederate Congress stopped meeting.

I don't think nine of the thirteen states had the authority to dissolve the articles of confederation. The thirteen states, acting unanimously, certainly could, but I don't think they ever did formally dissolve them. Probably the state legislatures figured they had more important things to do than to formally dissolve a confederation that everybody understood was already effectively dead.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've sometimes compared it to a ball game. Suppose you've got a bunch of people playing touch football. They decide it's not working out, and they'll play soccer instead.

The rules of football probably have no provision for this, but does it really matter what the rules of football are once you're not playing football anymore?

The Articles stopped mattering once people decided to play a game of "Constitution", instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Constitution didn't require ratification to be unanimous, because the people drafting it knew Rhode Island was opposed. That state hadn't even sent a delegation to the convention.

In the end Rhode Island was forced to ratify by threat of a naval blockade.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Brett, I know Rhode Island was the issue. Which makes the idea that the Constitution is some kind of pact rather clearly incorrect.

It has rather more oomph to it than that.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reasoning there, if there was any, somehow got by me.

[Sarcastr0]

Pacts require consent from every member.

[TwelveInchPianist]

CA5 doesn't understand the meaning of "and"

Paraphrasing Judge Oldham:

"Logic? We don't need no steenking logic!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How did Kyrie Irving -- who contends Earth is flat, is a vivid antisemite, and argues like a five- or six-year-old -- get admitted to Duke and become an officer of the NBA players' union?

I know how he failed to graduate. He seems too stupid to live.

[Jerry B.]

Criticizing Blacks?

Racist!!!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What do you expect from a Republican rural white person like him?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Virus-flouting, nonsense-drenched, science-disdaining, belligerently ignorant, bigoted losers are not all rural, poorly educated, white, male, evangelical Republicans. People can surprise you. Just watch Doug from Black Jeopardy.

[Frank Drackman]

Your just po'd you didn't get a chance to molest him at Penn State

[Frank Drackman]

Ah C'mon (Man!) I mean "Jerry", you like-a da- Affirmative Action, you take-a da results!
and in Kyrie's D-fence, he was born in Australia (funny how many supposedly ed-jew-ma-cated peoples don't realize the Moon phases are backwards "down under", but will swear that the toilets flush the opposite direction (they don't), the reason Southern Hemispheric Hurricanes rotate the opposite way is due to Coriolis forces (I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you) but moved to Amurica when he was 2.

Frank "Foster's overrated"

[Nige]

'ed-jew-ma-cated'

I hear Twitter is going to be a safe space for you now Elon's taken over.

[Frank Drackman]

It's a friggin joke, nothing to do with Jews (I'm 1/2 Jew by the way (Mom), (just the good half, HT H. Hill) it's a play on how the HS PE Teachers/Football Coaches used to pronounce it, same reason I call it "Marriage-a-Juan-a" and what it leads to, "Hair-in" as in "If yew only member' one thang frum yur Ed-jew-ma-cation, it's the Marriage-a-Juan-A leads to Hair-in"

Frank "Nige" is 2/3 of N-word"

[Nige]

Probably sounded better in your head.

[Suudy]

I read about the first 150 or so comments, and it sounds like the death throes of the republic. Even in a place that would seemingly be a forum for the educated and politically conscious has descended into whataboutism and cheap shots. Even here there is no reasonable discussion.

Will the Republicans be the better men/women/zems/zers than the Democrats? Almost certainly not. And the cycle will continue. The constraints on bad behavior have seemed to completed disappeared.

It is only the apathy of the average American that keeps things from spiraling out of control. How long will they keep their heads in the sand?

[MoreCurious]

Average Americans do not follow this blog. It’s now infested by right-wing, gun-hugging bigots whose ability to read, write, and analyze barely reaches the middle-school level. The rest of us are here to gawk and to laugh at their never-ending eagerness to reveal their stupidity. As Rev. Arthur would say, “Carry on clingers.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog can be useful. When I wonder whether I should devote the time required to teach another class on combatting voter suppression, or spend another Thanksgiving Day helping better Americans respond to a Trump Election Litigation: Elite Strike Force complaint, or travel to lobby for better election laws, or recruit a candidate to represent the liberal-libertarian mainstream, or speak at a Young Democrats event, I think of the bigots, clingers, and partisan hacks of the Volokh Conspiracy and am reinvigorated.

[Frank Drackman]

try spending Thanksgiving giving Thanks, like the Pilgrims did with the Injuns, your Ulcer will thank you.

[Mr. Bumble]

...the self-important pompous twit has spoken.

[Noorondoor]

Don't you have a little boy to be grooming?

[M L]

Nobody is answering your question but I would say, until hard times arrive, or until a critical mass of infractions upon their security and comfort and liberty have accrued (e.g. general crime or governmental aggressions).

I want to have a reasonable discussion. I think the problems you observe are rooted entirely in the inversion of the founding structure of decentralization into one of centralization, and that things will only get worse until that is reversed. Real federalism or decentralization is the cornerstone of the US system and it will not work on any other basis.

[shawn_dude]

The problems are due to the loss of perceived status by a diminishing percentage of White Americans desperate to prevent the rising majority from changing things they value through the democratic process.

[M L]

That is quite the alternate universe you live in.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In the reality-based world, America is becoming less rural (economic inadequacy and social dysfunction have consequences), less religious (fewer people gullible enough to swallow fairy tales), less backward (most people prefer progress), less bigoted (terrible news for conservatives), and less white (worse news for Republicans).

What's happening in the clinger-perceived world?

[shawn_dude]

As someone who's been reading the VC since before they merged with Reason.com... the tone here was far, far better when it was associated with the Washington Post. Now that it's here in Reason and there's nothing to keep the 3.5Chan crowd from performing here like they do in the rest of Reason, the tone of the conversation has suffered.

Just keep in mind that Reason.com is a right-wing echo chamber that feeds the authoritarian impulses of its target audience. They do not represent the majority of Americans--left, center, or right--as they tend towards the "burn it all down and start over" mindset.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's not entirely attributable to the commenters. The Conspirators' contributions have deteriorated into a repetitive stream of partisan hackery, cherry-picked ankle-nipping, and lather-the-bigoted-rubes red meat.

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, I think the tone was best before they went to WaPo. Things deteriorated substantially there, and only got worse here. The real plus here is just the lack of ideological censorship and a pay wall. WaPo was bad on both fronts towards the end.

But I wouldn't attribute that to the site. Things are getting worse across the internet. The last time I looked at a WaPo comment section, it was a sewer. Just a very heavily moderated sewer, so all the viciousness was left wing.

We're on the run-up to a civil war, in my opinion. That's what you're seeing. The only thing special about Reason is that they're very good about not censoring the comments on EITHER side of the fight.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" We’re on the run-up to a civil war, in my opinion. "

If you want the disaffected, autistic, delusional, fringe views of bigoted, all-talk culture war losers, the Volokh Conspiracy is the place to be!

Or maybe those chemicals addled Birther Brett Bellmore even more than he has acknowledged?

[Nige]

'We’re on the run-up to a civil war, in my opinion.'

From ending slavery and protecting the Union to a bunch of white people sad that they're a slowly declining demographic. Farcical.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has filed another frivolous lawsuit. He has now sued the New York Attorney General, both individually and in her official capacity, in state court in Florida based upon her pursuit of civil litigation against Trump in state court in New York. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/donald-trump-lawsuit-against-a-g/73596cd3daf0928b/full.pdf

Trump purports to seek injunctive relief relative to a trust created by him in Florida. The complaint It fails to show personal jurisdiction in Florida of the New York Attorney General. does not aver that Trump has suffered or will suffer immediate and irreparable injury. Trump conspicuously fails to plead that he is without a remedy in the courts of New York based on the Attorney General's alleged actions and omissions.

[Noorondoor]

Letitia James is harassing him with her office. Period.

[David Nieporent]

Even if that were true, it would not make the suit non-frivolous. You can't sue the government of state X in the courts of state Y to get the former to stop investigating you. I mean, the Supreme Court just explicitly ruled that a couple of years ago!

[Noorondoor]

Given the precedent that "animus" is enough to put a stop to otherwise legitimate government actions, there shouldn't be an exception here.

[not guilty]

Do you have any authority suggesting that Donald Trump (or any civil litigant) is entitled to friendly adversary counsel?

[Martinned]

Even in the US you'd think that he'd eventually run out of lawyers...

[not guilty]

Those who are frivolously sued by Trump should vigorously seek sanctions against both Trump and his lawyers under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1927. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23246956/hillary-clinton-motion-for-sanctions.pdf Professional discipline of the attorneys would also be appropriate.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Lawyers willing to work for free, anyway.

On the other hand, those who have managed to obtain sufficient retainers are almost certainly being paid indirectly by the very denizens of this forum.

There's no "bottom" of that pit.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would someone buy EV a calendar; it's Friday.

[badbunnyofficialstore]

[Mr. Bumble]

Interesting comment.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A Wisconsin elections worker blew the whistle on how easy was to commit fraud.

She got fired and now she's being prosecuted.

Election stealers gonna steal.

[Nige]

So she committed fraud to show how easy it was and promptly got caught, fired and prosecuted, because she committed fraud. Seems like she proved the opposite of what she set out to prove.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Right, didn't they just prove that people who try to commit fraud are going to be caught? Even if they actually have knowledge of elections systems, which means non-insiders trying something similar would be even more likely to be caught?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know; The accounts I've read are kind of vague about exactly how she got caught. They talk about 'safeguards', but don't actually say that the safeguards exposed her, which I find a bit suspicious.

Maybe she just proved that people who try to commit fraud and then make a big deal about having done it are going to be caught...

[shawn_dude]

One would assume that would come out in trial, though most organizations tend to keep their methodologies confidential so as not to help the next criminal succeed.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I understand it, she obtained ballots for fictional voters, and the safeguards revolve around contacting the voters to notify them a ballot has been obtained in their names, so I'm dubious the safeguards are applicable here.

[Nige]

She committed fraud and got caught, so the safeguards seem fine. What I can't get over is she's another fanatic who has destroyed her life for Donald Trump. There are commitments and sacrifices to higher causes one can respect and even admire. This is not one of them.

[Frank Drackman]

You'll be singing a different Tune November 9

[Noorondoor]

I hope Hochul gets cancer and that Letitia James dies of sickle cell.

[shawn_dude]

Come to the Volokh Conspiracy; experience racism.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Without the multifaceted bigotry (racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia) and the sophomoric 'own the libs' sniping, what is left of the Volokh Conspiracy?

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

No, we need to know how they really think.

The risk, of course, is that this is not how they really think, and is simply disinformation being spread to discredit them. But, over time I think the picture has become fairly clear.

[Martinned]

Because by then the American right will have stolen lots of elections through fraud? Otherwise I don't understand your response.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's so weird to see you people cheer when whistleblowers get oppressed by the authorities.

It's like from the 1960s to now you people went from rebels to hardcore bootlickers.

[Sarcastr0]

So there are multiple ways to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. I know some lawyers that help folks to do it!

Doing a fraud to show it's easy to get away with fraud and then getting caught is not one of them.

[David Nieporent]

BCD's comment is just the typical MAGA song: IKYABWAI?

MAGA got all bent out of shape when a whistleblower revealed Trump's shenanigans in Ukraine that got him impeached the first time, so they now just apply the word "whistleblower" whenever some random makes a claim that liberals are bad.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

She was whistleblowing. The State dropped the boot on her because she went public with how easy it was to commit fraud.

Just like they did with the undercover baby body parts journalists.

Just like they're doing with the True the Vote people.

That's what Democrats always do. Become tyrants as soon as they amass enough power.

[Sarcastr0]

You can always tell BCD has got nothing when he just repeats his (now defunct) old talking point, and then gallops for more.

No one makes me more tempted to reach for the NPC meme than this guy and his extremely predictable patterns.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can always tell when Sarcastro is going to blow off any evidence contrary to his narrative: It only happens on days ending in "y".

[Sarcastr0]

Stay in subject, Brett.

Relitigating old stuff doesn’t give rise to ‘a narrative.’ It is a Gish Gallop and a distraction from how the original incident is not what he or you say it is.

[Randal]

If I built a bot, it would be Chuck.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

That's not what "whistleblowing" is, or should be. Nor is it the wholesale dumping of stolen information into the hands of one's enemies (à la Manning).

[Nige]

We're entitled to judge her, and all other would-be whistleblowers, by her motives and her methods and the outcome. You skipped all that to make her a martyr because that's the only effective role she can play.

[Martinned]

Apologies, yesterday I was busy with my actual job. But this gem is too good not to share:

The last words the jury heard before the prosecutors rested their case - Defendant Elmer Rhodes saying: “We should have brought rifles. We could have fixed it right then & there. I’d hang f**king Pelosi from the lamppost.” In the courtroom, you could have heard a firing pin drop.

https://twitter.com/glennkirschner2/status/1588201292920389632

[Mr. Bumble]

Why do you assume you were missed?

[Martinned]

Don't be coy...

[Brett Bellmore]

He expects to spend the rest of his life in prison, so why not vent?

[Kenneth Almquist]

One reason twitter content is so bad is that even when someone has something interesting to say, they probably can't say it in the character limit allowed. Elmer Rhodes me with Jason Alpers on January 10, four days after the insurrection. Alpers recorded the conversation, and prosecutors played the recording (or portions of it) for the jury. The passage Kirschner quotes comes from this recording.

At the time of the conversation, Rhodes was not a suspect in the January 6 attack. Rhodes probably chose to vent because he was talking to a fellow Trump supporter, and didn't anticipate that Alpers would cooperate with prosecutors.

Kirschner could probably have explained this better than I did, if he weren't using Twitter.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" He expects to spend the rest of his life in prison, so why not vent? "

Mr. Bellmore seems confused with respect to when the relevant statements were made. That likely explains the stupidity of that comment.

[Nige]

So he yells this out for the jury to increase his chances of spending a long time in prison? And he did this in the name of and on behalf of Donald J Trump? Even if he's holding out hope for a Trump win and a pardon, how are these people NOT a pack of weird and dangerous fanatics?

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

They will probably bring them next time.

[Martinned]

Also on Twitter:

$335,575,842
That's the amount spent on the Senate race in Pennsylvania. That is slightly less than the entire annual GDP of the pacific nation of Tuvalu. On one Senate race.

https://twitter.com/KattyKay_/status/1587531263308877824

Makes you wonder what all those donors think they will get in return for their investment. Because there's no way that the candidates raised this much money nickle & diming it, AOC-style.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm curious as to her source.

[Martinned]

How far behind are regular disclosures normally?

[Don Nico]

If it is true, It is not surprising.

[M L]

It is argued that the classic, proper definition of "inflation" is an increase in the money supply out of "thin air." As opposed to the modern (and convenient for statists) definition of an increase in the prices of a (manipulable) basket of goods and services denominated in money.

https://mises.org/wire/inflation-money-supply-growth-not-prices-denominated-money

According to Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, inflation is defined as the increase of the money supply out of “thin air.” Following this definition, one can ascertain that increases in money supply set economic impoverishment in motion by creating an exchange of nothing for something, the so-called counterfeit effect.

General increases in prices are likely to be symptoms of inflation—but not always, however. Note that prices are determined by both real and monetary factors. Consequently, it can occur that if the real factors are “pulling things” in an opposite direction to monetary factors, no visible change in prices is going to take place. If the growth rate of money is 5 percent and the growth rate of goods supply is 1 percent then prices are likely to increase by 4 percent. If, however, the growth rate in goods supply is also 5 percent then no general increase in prices is likely to take place.

If one were to hold that inflation is about increases in prices, then one would conclude that, despite the increase in money supply by 5 percent, inflation is 0 percent. However, if we were to follow the definition that inflation is about increases in the money supply, then we would conclude that inflation is 5 percent, regardless of any movement in prices.

[M L]

Also:

How the Soviets "Fixed" Inflation, but Ruined the Economy
https://mises.org/wire/inflation-money-supply-growth-not-prices-denominated-money

"The Soviet regime relentlessly expanded the money supply. To prevent inflation, the regime then created shortages through price controls and economic stagnation."

[M L]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/14/joe-biden-silent-after-tim-ryan-call-to-kill-and-confront-movement-to-make-america-great-again/

President Joe Biden remains silent after Democrat senate candidate in Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan called for Americans to “kill and confront” supporters of former president Donald Trump and his MAGA political movement.

“We’ve got to kill and confront that movement,” Ryan said during a Tuesday appearance on MSNBC when asked about the “extremist” political movement in the Republican Party to “Make America Great Again.”

Biden, a frequent critic of political figures using “dangerous” rhetoric used to “incite violence,” has not addressed Ryan’s comments.

https://www.breitbart.com/midterm-election/2022/11/04/media-ignore-physical-attack-republican-gen-don-bolduc/

The establishment media have ignored the physical attack against Republican New Hampshire candidate Gen. Don Bolduc.

The three top establishment newspapers, the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, all failed to report the physical attack on Gen. Bolduc that occurred moments before Wednesday’s debate with Democrat Maggie Hassan (D-NH).

The media’s decision to not report on the act of political violence against a Republican is notable. Attacks against Republicans run counter to the media’s narrative of violence singly perpetrated by Republicans.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, famously “Democracy dies in Darkness”, and the establishment media are in charge of deploying the blackout curtains and cutting the lights.

It's not really any different from obsessing about attacks on abortion clinics, when attacks on pro-life centers are 22 times more common.

[David Nieporent]

“kill and confront” supporters

Clever where Breitbart stopped the quotation so it could just fabricate something.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Speculation is out on appointment of a special counsel to prosecute Trump. Which would make sense if he announces as a candidate. To do that would otherwise put Garland in the tough position of being the day-to-day investigator of Biden's putative opponent. Trump would have a field day with that.

My wild guess about the identity of the special counsel, if there is one: Barry Berke.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can think of at least one alternative to appointing a special prosecutor that doesn't put Garland in that tough position. Pretty sure you can, too.

[David Nieporent]

Exiling Trump to St. Helena?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You screeched about Hillary's emails, yet Trump's deliberate theft of far more sensitive material doesn't even phase you. He then obstructs the government's efforts to recover the documents he stole, and you again do not care.

BUT HILLARY! Burn the bitch!

It should not come as any surprise to you why nobody respects your opinions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brett likely is thinking of sending Attorney General Garland to track down former Pres. Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

[Frank Drackman]

that may be the only intelligent comment you've ever made

[Voize]

Although to be fair it appears he has been in California over 20 years and his nutjob transition happened there and not in Powell River B.C.

[Bored Lawyer]

"When Canada sends its people, it doesn’t send their best…"

The concept of statistics and sampling eludes you, I see.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've repeatedly demonstrated, with many links, that Democrats started discussing impeaching Trump before he'd even gotten the nomination. A majority of Democrats polled favored impeaching him in February 2017, long before even so much as a feeble excuse for impeachment had been identified. 72% of Clinton and Stein voters favored impeaching him, less than two weeks after he took office.

He was impeached for not being a Democrat. All that happened was that it took Democrats some time to come up with an excuse, or rather, to lower their standards for what constituted an acceptable excuse to match the scanty basis they could come up with.

[Brett Bellmore]

And do the roads stop needing expenditures if you power the engines with coal a thousand miles away from the tires?

[Brett Bellmore]

The first impeachment had nothing to do with that. And the second came after he was no longer President, oddly enough, and no longer subject to being impeached.

But if you ignore that, the number of Democrats who'd need to be removed from office over the riots of the prior several years reaches into the hundreds, if we're impeaching on such scanty connections to violence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your basic distinction is irrelevant. If people can be excluded from large domains of the economy on the basis of legal acts, you're voiding the basis for our having a shared civil society.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's an example of the problems with this determination to ban "super-toxic" people an groups.

XCLUSIVE: Midwife Conference Bans Pro-Life OB-GYNs Amid Threats to Decertify Those Who Spread Abortion ‘Misinformation’

They're literally setting out to exclude from the profession anyone opposed to abortion, a procedure something like half the population finds offensive.

You'll get these key institutions or industries taken over by one side of a contentious political battle, and then their dominance over some vital service gets leveraged to political ends, to punish quite common views.

I suppose you don't find this terribly scary so long as it's your political allies doing it. But imagine that some industry that trends right-wing got in on the act. Truckers are pretty conservative, for instance: Suppose they up and decided that henceforth cities whose politics they didn't like would cease getting deliveries? There's not a city in the country more than a few days away from food riots.

I put it to you that civil society is impossible once politics dictate who can get basic services.

[ThePublius]

It makes sense that a 100% MAGA character would have LGBT and BLM flags at their house?

[ThePublius]

Conspiracies happen all the time! In law enforcement, business, crime, politics, and so on.

For example, the FBI and Trump's supposed Russian collusion.

[Brett Bellmore]

They weren't home, so they went through her underwear, instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that once something is taxed for one reason, the tax gets jacked up as high as is politically viable, and then used for whatever. At least here in SC, the gas tax pays for something like 200% of expenditures on the roads. I expect things aren't much different in California, maybe worse.

[Frank Drackman]

Regression to the mean in action....

[not guilty]

Contrary to what Brett said, the second impeachment of Donald Trump occurred on January 13, 2021, while he was still president. After he left office, he remained potentially subject to disqualification from holding future federal office in the event of conviction, such that the impeachment trial remained a live controversy.

[Brett Bellmore]

And presented evidence of Democrats discussing impeaching Trump when the only thing they had on him was that he wasn't a Democrat.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do? Personally, I wouldn't know the Dixie Chicks from Lady Antebellum, and have a hate-hate relationship with professional sports. But I'm assuming you've got links.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Dixie Chicks"

20 years ago. Brett, you didn't defend the fat chick 20 years ago. Bad Brett.

[Nige]

It wasn't that difficult to predict that the chap behind Trump University, to give just one example, would engage in impeachable behaviour.

[bernard11]

I’ve repeatedly demonstrated, with many links, that Democrats started discussing impeaching Trump before he’d even gotten the nomination. A majority of Democrats polled favored impeaching him in February 2017, long before even so much as a feeble excuse for impeachment had been identified. 72% of Clinton and Stein voters favored impeaching him, less than two weeks after he took office.

Which has nada to do with whether the actual impeachments were justified. Suppose Trump had been caught embezzling from the Treasury some way. Would you consider that grounds for impeachment? If some Democrats had been discussing impeachment earlier, would that render the embezzlement invalid grounds?

Yeah. There was eagerness. There were also bases. You don't think they were sufficient? OK. But consider the possibility, if you can, that others legitimately disagree.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, Internet tough guy, if Matthew Shephard had stayed on Grinder he'd be alive today.

[Nige]

If you're claiming that there's no non-legal behaviour that can justify exclusion, you're not supporting free speech in the slightest.

[David Nieporent]

Your basic distinction is irrelevant. If people can be excluded from large domains of the economy on the basis of legal acts, you’re voiding the basis for our having a shared civil society.

You are so full of shit, Brett. In another thread yesterday, you (ludicrously) called this exact same argument a violation of the 13th amendment!

[Nige]

'I put it to you that civil society is impossible once politics dictate who can get basic services.'

Abortion is a basic service, politicians are trying to dictate who gets access to it. Health care is a basic service, and politicians work hard to make access as difficult and expensive as possible. Social security is a basic service, politicians are working hard to deny or reduce access to it. Right wing politicians. Not that hard to imagine after all.

[Brett Bellmore]

No harder than predicting that "the big guy" getting a share of Hunter's loot would, I suppose. Remarkable, though, how long it took them to come up with a charge that would even persuade people who hated Trump, if no one else.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are we talking about exclusion from a private club, or exclusion from basic services? Like, oh, wedding cakes and photography?

[Nige]

Perfectly illustrating the difference between 'stuff that happened' and 'stuff that got made up and became mythologised as factual and then used to justify bad behaviour while blaming others for said behaviour.'

[Commenter_XY]

Nicely done....I chuckled with that one. 🙂

[bernard11]

So FBI agents executing a warrant is, in Brett's mind, the same as an assailant breaking in and attacking someone with a hammer.

Sheer jackassery.

[Nige]

Democrats bothered to do the work of building their case based on evidence, not the latest Qanon missives. What are you predicting based on a phrase which has no provable link to the president?

[bernard11]

A perfect example of the RW bubble, and the "sorting" you describe above.

In fact, most of your comments demonstrate that you are very deeply entrenched there yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hit men, and having people you dislike kneecapped, is a basic service, too. We don't permit all basic services to be offered, even if there is a demand for them.

[Krayt]

In all cases, they are responding to their voters. Your very rhetoric attempts to obfuscate this.

We love democracy, until we don't.

[MatthewSlyfield]

I would suggest that there is a difference between firing athletes for their political stances and firing athletes because they insist, against their employer's wishes, on making political statements during a game.

[Nige]

Sure, if you bother to argue the cases on the merits, or lack thereof, and the substance, not pretend that they're all the same and any differences are irrelevant. If it's the social contract you're worried about, you have to deal with what is and isn't socially acceptable and why, you can't go complaining about that and then retreat to 'well who cares so long as it isn't illegal?' (Well you can, but it's a cowardly cop-out.) The people who got doxxed and harassed cared. It's like the worst people in the world are free to do whatever they like, but their targets and victims are not allowed to fight back. Yet another weird stance for someone who claims to believe in the principles of self defence and violent insurrection.

[Ed Grinberg]

"Liberals" and "progressives" are totally against discrimination . . . unless it's against people they don't like.

[Randal]

Oh my god. Us libs are the ones who've been saying that ISPs need to be classified as common carriers since like, the beginning of the Internet. It's called Net Neutrality. Welcome to the left!

[jb]

I'm always confused when the cake example comes up in situations like this since (a) the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the cake guy, and (b) if you're trying to use this as an example of the hypocrisy of the left and yet you believe the exact opposite things, you're mostly pointing out that you too are a hypocrite.

[Nige]

If you want to support legalising hit-men, nobody would really be surprised.

[OtisAH]

I’m sure you’re chuckling over your clever retort but hit-men and other violent thugs do not provide “basic services.”

[bernard11]

a hate-hate relationship with professional sports.

Weren't you complaining, sometime ago, about laws preventing you from carrying a gun into a bar to watch football games?

[Frank Drackman]

Celtic Woman(women?) better than either

[Krayt]

I just woke up out of a time machine bubble from 2010.

"Kiwi Farms" sounds like a sweet place. God damned Republican-controlled corporations shutting them down.

"Pssst. It's exactly the opposite, now."

What? (Emily Litella voice) Nevermind.

[Nige]

Liberals are in favour of things they like and opposed to things they dislike, the monsters.

[Mr. Bumble]

Where are the videos?

[Brett Bellmore]

They did it on the job. A different part of the job than the tiny portion spent playing, sure, but on the job.

Didn't effect me one way or another, because I don't watch football.

[Brett Bellmore]

They don't provide legal basic services, anyway. Which was the point: Hit men and abortionists are about equally "basic services".

[Frank Drackman]

Depends on your business and what's considered "Service". And from what I've heard, like any Professional, they don't come cheap.

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, no? Maybe into a bar, (Sometimes it's the only convenient bathroom on a trip.) but certainly not to watch football games.

[ThePublius]

Nice attempt at spin. It wasn't a verbal gaffe, it was a clear misunderstanding.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Not everything is partisan football.

I called this out a few days ago, and I am really not a big fan of Donald Trump (or Walker, for that matter).

[Frank Drackman]

Standing up for your Girlfriend I see.

[Kazinski]

Well there is a big difference between politicians, most of whom from both parties are clowns (including both our current and former presidents), and supreme court justices who are selected for their knowledge and learning about the law.

[Nige]

Murdering doctors at health care clinics is not a basic service, even if Republicans think it should be.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do they not have a basic human right to healthcare access?

Or is it qualified by having to behave the way the State dictates?

[John F. Carr]

I feel like I've seen this presented as a morality lesson in some preachy 1970s or 1980s TV show. Abused professional acts stoic while customer/patient rants.

[Randal]

Whoa howdy, this one cracks me up every time, when one of y'all reveals that you don't know the difference between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory." How do you get through the day?

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Where in the world is it a "basic human right" to intimidate and harass medical staff? Not even in the "socialist medicine" environment of the UK's National Health Service:

https://www.hopefarmmedicalcentre.nhs.uk/practice/zero-tolerance#:~:text=Verbal%20abuse%20towards%20the%20staff,staff%20will%20not%20be%20accepted.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you're admitting that it's a failure to understand a concept?

Not sure what you're referring to wrt Walker, but Trump was roundly criticized, rightly in many cases, for failing to understand things.

There's no reason Sotomayor shouldn't be subject to similar criticism for her failure to understand things. I mean, talk about whataboutism!

[Frank Drackman]

As the late/great Tommy J. once said (didn't say 1/2 the things he's supposed to have said) when he wasn't producing future Mulattos for Monticello,
"I have nothing but contempt for anyone who can spell a word only one way"
pretty sure he'd have the same Opo about capitalization....

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Isn't it a neat trick how being conservative and expressing conservative beliefs falls into the categories of "“Words or actions that are disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, hostile, or harassing”"

Which of course also disqualifies you from accessing a basic human right like healthcare.

Neat!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Conveniently, wearing a Blue Lives Matter shirt "intimidates and harrasses" while wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt does not.

Neat trick!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do businesses also create secret private access portals for the government so they can highlight specific politically inconvenient concerns which business then acts upon?

[Nige]

When Trump misunderstood things it meant he thought stealth jets were literally invisible or that he could extend the track of a hurricane with a marker and nobody would notice. You guys have never, ever, ever been reluctant to jump on a gaffe and ride it to death, but let's not confuse gaffes with stupidity.

[Nige]

'Isn’t it a neat trick how being conservative and expressing conservative beliefs falls into the categories of ““Words or actions that are disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, hostile, or harassing””'

Self owns are the best owns.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Christians don't attend Indonesian madrassas, Queenie.

[Frank Drackman]

Barry America wasn't really a "Secret" Moose-lum, in fact it was Hillary Rodman's Cam-pain that released the photos of him in "Moose-lum Garb", and His Nappiness himself thanked John McCain for not making an issue out of his "Muslim Faith" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

Frank

[Randal]

Yes

[BravoCharlieDelta]

“Even if true”? It was straight out of the musselman’s mouth. So what if he was a kid? There are no kid moslems?

Why would you argue about something you know nothing about? How does your article refute anything?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Does your firm have a secret portal for the police to tell you who to censor in your work?

Otherwise, I'm failing to see the similarities.

[TwelveInchPianist]

CNN doesn't appear to think it was a gaffe. What's your evidence that it was a gaffe, as opposed to a genuine misunderstanding?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you have any examples outside of this one?

Coordination between the Federals and the press to censor news and other journalistic activiies is an obvious one, but other than those two?

[Nige]

If she does it again, it's a misunderstanding.

[Nige]

That's because cops kill way more people than BLM do.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Since you're obviously changing the subject, I will just note that you have identified a potential flaw in giving the state a monopoly on violence.

Who watches the watchmen?

[Sarcastr0]

If you have examples of that going on, I'd imagine you would offer them.

Instead you want to insist everything become a common carrier, because you worry that things that generally happen to assholes are going to happen to you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I don't accept your judgement of conservative beliefs.

Here are two facts I want you to reconcile.
Democrats believe:
Conservatives are racist, sexist, disrespectful, hostile, etc.
Racism, sexism, disrespect and hostility excludes you from accessing a basic human right.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do cops kill more people than black men do?

[John F. Carr]

As of 2016 (last figures I checked and I haven’t looked at newer data) nationwide spending on road construction and maintenance was about the same as revenue from motor vehicles. About 5% more based on raw figures and 5% less if you include overhead costs. Some of the money goes to Washington which takes a cut and sends it back to the states. Revenue includes taxes, tolls, fees, and income from real estate owned by highway agencies. I did not consider whether taxes were designated as “general fund” or “transportation fund” because I was asking whether motor vehicle users paid their way.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm not changing the subject.
"Words or actions that are disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, hostile, or harassing" are synonyms with Republican/MAGA beliefs for Democrats.

Democrats want to restrict access to basic human rights if you are those things. Guess who they believe are those things?

[Randal]

I mean, the question is almost silly, because you're starting in the wrong place.

Look at the big picture. It's a spectrum. You have government itself of course, but then you have a range of government contractors, from the military industrial complex all the way down to like paperclip suppliers. Then you have the tightly-regulated industries, like energy, private education, legal gambling, health care, and so on. Then you have heavily-regulated industries, like media and communications, attorneys, architecture and construction, finance, food production and farming, transportation, etc. Then lightly-regulated industries! Manufacturing, most of the service industry except beauticians, who are heavily regulated for some reason... anyway, that kind of thing. Then the unregulated industries, which are like... are there any of these left? Art, I guess. Finally the illicit industries like smuggling, prostitution, illegal gambling.

So I guess I would be surprised if there was coordination between the feds and the art community regarding federal priorities for art production. But not even that surprised.

[Nige]

More than black and white combined and, crucially, they tend to get away with it.

[Nige]

Cue that 'my conservative beliefs are being censored' meme.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Umm, I was discussing your "healthcare is a basic human right" assertion, and you chose to ignore that and move on to "words or actions that are disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, hostile, or harassing". I think that's changing the subject.

Anyway, the words are obviously subjective, not exclusively MAGA (but if you think so...), so the relevant question therefore becomes: who wields the power to decide what they mean?

[Nige]

If that were the case all you’d have to do to prove me wrong is go into a waiting room and see a doctor and not be any of those things. That would really show me.

[Frank Drackman]

Such bullshit, which is why you don't provide any supporting evidence, so I'll do the Job Nige won't
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/02/09/fatal-police-shootings-record-2021/
"Police shot and killed at least 1,055 people nationwide last year, the highest total since The Washington Post began tracking fatal shootings by officers in 2015 "
https://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-murders-happen-us-fbi-releases-latest-crime-data-shows-surge-killings-3305095
"The total number of people killed last year stands at 21,500 and the majority of them were in the nation's largest cities. "

Seriously (man!) if I didn't know Sleepy Joe was Computer Illiterate I'd swear you were him,

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And you think any of those is similar to the Feds coordinating censorship of talk of things like the Afghanistan withdrawal?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You don't want to censor conservative beliefs, you want to deny them access to basic human rights.

[bernard11]

Yes, Brett. Some Democrats mentioned this.

But so what?

Both impeachments were clearly justified, whether you think so or not.

Get out of your bubble.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett thinks that judges should be hung from the nearest lampposts.

Republicans therefore think judges should be hung from the nearest lampposts.

See how fun this is, Brett?

[darkknight9]

"real estate owned by highway agencies"

Like, selling property that they have? Are there other ways such property could generate funds?
I tried looking it up and got trapped in a "What you can do on Wisconsin dot lands" web search. 🙂

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right. I worry that some Federal is going to deny me basic rights because I'm a Republican.

You are right. I really do worry about that. Because that's the world we live in today where political oppression by the Federals and political violence by their proxies is becoming accepted and normalized.

And the more the Federals control, the greater the threat. And that's a bigger threat than the make believe one that President Sponge Brain Shits-his-Pants bleats out once a week during some speech.

[Ben_]

You’d say it doesn’t matter because it’s just an isolated example.

[Nige]

You're the one claiming they're indistinguishable from that outlined in the code of behaviour.

[Nige]

Jesus, gun crime is rampant. Maybe we should have some form of gun control?

[Nige]

Apparently it's democratic to want to remove these services, it's anti-democratic to oppose their removal?

[John F. Carr]

Air rights in urban areas are valuable. In rural areas, rest areas and telecom cables bring in revenue.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Toll roads receive rental income from businesses that operate at rest stops. Mostly these businesses sell gasoline and food. I've also seen cell phone towers build on highway median strips, which again produces rental income.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dude got 100 million from Nike. Cancelled!

[darkknight9]

Thank you! 🙂

[Bob from Ohio]

" I know Jews, Protestants and Muslims that attended Catholic schools"

In the US. Its not the same.

In any event Obama grew up and became a [not very good] Christian.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They should atleast rhyme.

[Frank Drackman]

If anyone knows Anal-ogies, its Queenie

[Randal]

Well, yeah. There’s a lot of “working with the government to accomplish things that the government wants to accomplish” that happens. The government’s tentacles are many and varied. There’s laws, regulations, rules, decrees, warrants, subpoenas, standards, guidelines, best-practices, investigations, requests, suggestions, gentlemen’s agreements, mutual back-scratching, and casual comments. There are government people in business and business people in government.

You make it seem like there’s some sort of constitutional “separation of business and state.” Well… there isn’t. The government wants industry to do all kinds of things. Sometimes it’s required, and sometimes it’s optional, but industry generally goes along, as long as it doesn’t cost much.

[TwelveInchPianist]

OK, but as someone who criticized Trump/Walker, et al when they displayed such gaffes/ignorance, you certainly have no problem with Sotomayor being criticized for the same, no?

I mean, you surely must be tempted to engage in such criticism yourself.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Someone famously said a very similar statement regarding Mexico.

Maybe you can recall whom...

[Jimmy the Dane]

Jail and prison rape is only for voter rights protesters and DC tourists....

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't believe I've defended any of Trump's gaffes/misunderstandings, nor have I reveled in Sotomayer's misunderstanding.

But such a person may or may not be a partisan hypocrite. Not every inconsistency makes someone a partisan hypocrite.

Now, I suspect that your inconsistency on this matter is due to partisan hypocrisy, but I'm certainly prepared to listen to any counterargument.

[bernard11]

Ah. A MAGAt criticizing Obama's dedication to Christianity. Droll.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That comment from Bob From Ohio precipitates the observation that his bigotry makes his Jesus Christ a low-grade piece of shit in addition to a ridiculous fucking fairy tale for gullible children of all ages.

I will celebrate Bob’s replacement. In the reality-based world, on the victorious and righteous side of the culture war and history.

[David Nieporent]

Contrary to what Brett said,

Words that can start almost any response to a Brett comment.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, this is all based on an anecdote. he doesn’t seem able to offer one though.

[David Nieporent]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the cake guy, but on procedural, not substantive, grounds. It did not rule that he had a right to refuse service. It ruled only that Colorado's process for adjudicating his liability was infected by religious animus.

[Josh R]

Right, but I wouldn't characterize the ruling as procedural. Substantively, an application of a law that is carried out with animus towards religion triggers strict scrutiny.

[not guilty]

I think the comment about spelling was Andrew Jackson's, not Jefferson's.

[Brett Bellmore]

As a general principle, should we open the door to the party in power censoring political discourse on the theory that some tiny fraction of it might have been bought by foreign enemies?

No.

[Frank Drackman]

You may have something "Reverend" a Surpreme Being who let Jerry Sandusky go unpunished for so many years is hard to believe in.

[Nige]

Trump boasted he'd never work again thanks to him. If Obama had said that about some white dude, holy shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

"MAGAt "

Ah, a "liberal" comparing a political opponent to insects. Droll.

[Nige]

It's much easier, and more useful, to believe in the existence of a system that doesn't listen to victims.

[Bob from Ohio]

"supreme court justices who are selected for their knowledge and learning "

Since when?

[Nige]

Okay, but back in the real world where foreign governments are up to their armpits in influencing the online political discourse for their own ends, what should they do? Especially considering all the contacts and interactions agents of at least one state had with a presidential administration before during and after that president took office?