Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[AmosArch]

If Trump was exactly the same in every way except he happened to be an extreme open border advocate to the point where he was to the left of even Joe Biden do you think Somin would be in love with him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8gmARGvPlI

[Kazinski]

He'd be a lot more Trump Curious that's for sure.

But there is still the eminent domain, and the mean tweets.

[Sarcastr0]

Prof. Somin’s criticism of the substance of Trump’s immigration policy would be different if said immigration policy were different, yes.

Somin is, if nothing else, quite consistent in his ideals.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That wasn't the question asked.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No. Somin's TDS would be still overwhelm.

[Sarcastr0]

This is pretty amusing.

Amos asks if Prof. Somin would have a double standard due to his immigration policy preferences.

You respond he would not, but that's bad.

You really don't care much about consistency!

[Michael P]

You're still misreading the question.

The question was whether Somin's love for open borders would outweigh the other things he doesn't like about Trump such that Somin would "be in love with" Open-Borders Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's my reading.

And to that AL says no, he would not be swayed.

And then thinks that's bad.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Where do you see me calling anything "bad"?

Again, you keep reading things that aren't there.

If Trump was an "extreme open border advocate to the point where he was to the left of even Joe Biden" (which isn't that far left), Somin's other criticisms of Trump would far outweight any benefit he saw from Trump's new immigration position.

[Sarcastr0]

You call consistency TDS. That is not calling it good!

[Armchair Lawyer]

No, I don't call "consistency" Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). I said Somin has TDS.

TDS is an issue where almost anything Trump does is criticized intensely. Often if someone else did what Trump did, it wouldn't be mentioned, but Trump doing it is intensely criticized.

Somin has TDS, from his many previous posts. He has criticized Trump not just on immigration, but on many, many, many other issues. Because he has criticized Trump heavily on so many other issues, a modest change in immigration position (to the left of Biden) would not make Somin fall in love with Trump. What would occur would Somin would grudgingly say "this immigration position of Trump's is good, but it could be better, but because of all these other things, he's still a bad president".

[Sarcastr0]

TDS is an issue where almost anything Trump does is criticized intensely.

I'm not sure you realize what you're admitting here.

[David Nieporent]

TDS is an issue where almost anything Trump does is criticized intensely.

I can think of a much simpler and more straightforward explanation for why almost anything Trump does is criticized intensely.

[grb]

It helps to clarify our terms. Therefore, this definition of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) :

"An term created by the Right to excuse Donald Trump's conduct and the resulting attention that merited"

Look, just a few hours into Trump's president he was telling grotesque lies about his inauguration crowd size. During his first full day as president, he was supposed to give a speech at Langley honoring CIA agents who died. He spent half the speech whining about his crowd size. Day Four, he lied about his "popular vote victory". A few days later, he used a National Prayer Breakfast, to carry on a feud with Arnold Schwarzenegger and brag about his old TV ratings. By one tally, he told at least one lie in all but ten of his first 100 days. And six of those were spent playing golf.

Before even taking the oath, Trump insisted normal ethic rules didn't apply to him: “The law’s totally on my side, the president can’t have a conflict of interest,” he said in an NYT interview. It will be interesting to watch the GOP go after little Hunter Biden, given Trump's potential conflicts ran into the thousands. A Saudi-funded lobbyist pays for 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel? Just another Tuesday. Mar-a-Lago doubled their membership fees after the inauguration and anyone who ponied-up regularly got Trump's ear. Pay-to-Play was never so direct and clear. These instances were seldom given anything more than a cursory mention by the media. Their were just too many of them.

And so on - year by year. Trump seldom went a week without some outrageous act because that's what his fans wanted. They hooted & hollered every time he wiped his lard ass on some political or civic institution. The more childish, petulant and obnoxious his acting-out, the more they cheered. Deep into the 2020 campaign, he promoted a story Biden had Seal Team 6 killed. With any normal politician that level of bullshit would have brought days of withering stories. With Trump, it was a single day's brief paragraph. A new lie or childish act would always immediately follow.

So how can Trump Derangement Syndrome exist when DJT received less attention and approbation per lie, or per outrageous act, or per ethical transgression than any other known politician?!?

[Dan Schiavetta]

A good summary. Thanks!

[Armchair Lawyer]

That's not actually what Amos asked. Read what was asked more carefully.

[Sarcastr0]

Looks to me like you're the one positing the lack of a double standard, and calling that bad.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Again, you need to read more carefully and stop strawmanning so much

[Sarcastr0]

I've read it three times now, and your replies.

Amos is trying for a hypothetical hypocricy play, because he's lame like that. You reject that, but somehow think that makes Somin come off badly nevertheless, in his hypothetical consistency.

I'm becoming quite sure you don't understand what you've said.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Again, stop strawmanning. You keep "reading into things" and putting motives and feeling there that aren't actually written.

You say "Amos is trying for a hypothetical hypocricy play," That's not actually written. You say "but that’s bad" in regard to my statements, which wasn't actually written

You continuously assert motives and feelings that aren't in the actual statements.

What was ASKED was if Trump's immigration position was to the left of Biden's, would Somin be in love with Trump.

And the answer has to be no. Given all of Somin's other criticism of Trump, over the years, there's no way such a modest change in immigration position (which still wouldn't be far enough left for Somin) would overwhelm all of the other criticism Somin has laid at Trump's feet for everything else.

[Sarcastr0]

Amos's OP Is literally a hypothetical about whether Prof. Somin would be a hypocrite.

TDS is bad, dude. That's what you called it.
Now you're calling it criticism of Trump.

Well, that's a telling equivalence, isn't it?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Again, you keep strawmanning by asserting motives that aren't there.

Read Kazinski's response.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I didn't reply to Kaz because he had a pretty normal take.

You did not, because you think consistent criticism of Trump is the real evil here.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No, I think Somin consistently criticizes Trump on everything. TDS.

Again, you keep strawmanning.

[Nige]

'What was ASKED was if Trump’s immigration position was to the left of Biden’s, would Somin be in love with Trump.'

Yeah, the QUESTION is would Somin and Trump be sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G

[OtisAH]

“Open border” refers to an imaginary national border over which anyone can cross without restriction. What’s an “extreme open border”?

[Nige]

I think it means a border that overshares about personal things to an uncomfortable degree.

[Ben_]

Social ties to the "in" crowd are too important to people like Somin. You'd hear a lot of Orange Man Bad ... but this specific policy is ok ... but Orange Man Bad, Orange Man Bad, Orange Man Bad.

[Sarcastr0]

...You think *Prof Somin* is motivated by a need to belong to the establishment?

The foot voting open borders guy?

[Ed Grinberg]

…You think *Prof Somin* is motivated by a need to belong to the establishment?

No, I think he's an earnest leftist ("progressive"). Much better!

[Ben_]

“social ties” is not “belong to”

[Sarcastr0]

…You think *Prof Somin* is motivated by a social ties with the establishment?

The foot voting open borders guy?

[Ben_]

what's "the establishment"?

[Sarcastr0]

It’s what you called the “in” crowd.

Is your idea of an "in" crowd full of dogmatic libertarians?

I want to be clear to you what you've done. You have accused Prof. Somin, as pie-in-the-sky an idealist as has ever appeared on this website, of changing his ideals for social reasons.

[Ben_]

"It’s what you called the 'in' crowd."

Is it?

"You have accused Prof. Somin, as pie-in-the-sky an idealist as has ever appeared on this website, of changing his ideals for social reasons."

Your statement is dumb for lots of reasons. The first one is that it's not reality, it's a "what if" scenario. So no one has "accused" anyone of doing anything. Second is the characterization of Somin. Third is the idea that people who habitually seek out attention and approval are very happy to forgo attention and approval. Fourth is that proclaiming Orange Man Bad has anything to do with "ideals". Fifth is pretending that Somin is somehow uniquely immune to social factors beyond even the seeking of attention and approval.

Has Somin ever professed unqualified support and approval of any popular politician? I don't think so.

[Sarcastr0]

Social ties to the “in” crowd are too important to people like Somin. You’d hear a lot of Orange Man Bad … but this specific policy is ok … but Orange Man Bad, Orange Man Bad, Orange Man Bad.
1. This is absolutely accusation of bad faith to maintain "in" crowd social ties.

2. You think Prof. Somin isn't super idealistic?

3. You think Prof. Somin habitually seeks out attention and approval, with his points of view??

4. You don't think one can dislike Trump for idealistic reasons?

5. So now you're arguing *everyone* is willing to throw integrity aside for social reasons? Methinks your thesis became both more broad, and a lot less pointed at Prof. Somin.

Has Somin ever professed unqualified support and approval of any popular politician? I don’t think so.
Not that I recall. Real in-crowd social-tie seeking behavior right there. Seems like your focus on your thesis has waivered.

[Ben_]

Avoiding political ties to any candidate who can win is absolutely social-tie-preservation behavior. Self-styled libertarians are careful to never get blamed for anything that happens in real life and to play both sides to preserve social ties.

"Preserve" social ties is not "maximize" social ties.

1. No, people can act many ways. Imperfections are not "bad faith". Be less dumb.

2. In practice? Who knows. He only talks. Has he ever put his ideals into practice to be tested in reality?

3. Yes. Point of view is not a factor.

4. Maybe. Usually it’s people being shallow or parroting others.

5. How many people loudly go against wives, family, neighbors, colleagues, etc? Not many.

[OtisAH]

“I want to be clear to you what you’ve done.”

Is this a sign of boundless optimism or hubris? Only the historians will know. Either way, it’s wasted effort.

[Ben_]

"pie-in-the-sky" is definitely on brand for many who label themselves "libertarian" though. The real world is messy and there are imperfect trade-offs. Most "libertarians" are careful to always reside safely in the land of the theoretical, so they don’t have to even consider getting their hands dirty. They should try to actually accomplish something sometimes.

[Sarcastr0]

Not these days.

These days those who label themselves libertarian are generally Trump-loving conservatives with branding concerns.

[Ben_]

Trump was the most effectively libertarian president since at least Reagan. So good for them if they were able to put principles first and try to make some progress.

But mostly I’ve seen both sides BS or retreat into insistence on perfection.

[Sarcastr0]

Great example of what I was saying about libertarians not actually being into liberty or small government!

[Ben_]

It was an era of smaller and less intrusive government, now ended.

[Sarcastr0]

You're not just wrong, you don't seem care what's right, so long as you keep cheering for your man Trump.

[bernard11]

No.

I think he would like the immigration policy. That wouldn't make him a Trump cultist.

Not a difficult question.

[loki13]

More importantly, Trump wouldn't be Trump if he didn't campaign on his immigration policy. The whole thing is sort of bizarre (but gives you a special insight to the aggrieved mindset).

It would be like asking, "If Margaret Thatcher was in favor of the miners' strike, would hardcore union organizers have liked her more?"

It's a question whose profound stupidity says more about the person asking it than anything else.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Somewhere out there Jeff Skilling is watching SBF participate in a conference that includes the current Treasury Secretary and seeing the puff pieces being written on SBF by WaPo and the NYT and thinking “what the actual fuck?”

Skilling didn’t have the connections to commit massive fraud and walk away a hero.

[AmosArch]

I'd always considered myself pretty jaded when it comes to the media but it never really dawned on me just how transparently cynical they are. They're not information distributors they don't even try to be anymore. they're just giant machines whose sole purpose is to canonize a particular favored narrative

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArch — Consider a comparison. Fox News and MSNBC.

I do not dispute that both are annoyingly persistent purveyors of point-of-view, "news," coverage. But as news reporters, they are not alike.

On one hand, had you been watching nothing but Fox since 1/1/21, the result of the Oath Keepers' trial would have taken you by surprise. It might also have angered you at the injustice being done.

On the other hand, had you been watching nothing but MSNBC, you would have awaited the trial result with bated breath, unsure how it would come out. But when the verdicts were announced, you would have been anything but surprised.

If one news source consistently beats another at informing your expectations of future events, that tells you something you need to know about their relative quality as news reporters.

If you cannot accept that, and adjust your news consumption accordingly, consider whether you have become a conspiracy theorist.

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, as an early “cable cutter”, (And thus not a consumer of either Fox OR MSNBC.) but obviously a consumer of right-wing news sources, I viewed him as hilariously doomed going into that trial. I thought the outcome was a foregone conclusion, didn’t you?

Guy didn’t strike me as very smart to begin with, and the way conspiracy law works in the US you have to be very smart to avoid it if the government is targeting your group, which they obviously were doing, the informant to genuine member ratio for Oath Keepers was absurd.

Honestly, I think he was probably guilty as hell, but a conviction was rather over-determined regardless.

[JasonT20]

...the informant to genuine member ratio for Oath Keepers was absurd.

What do you mean by "informant" vs. "genuine member" of the Oath Keepers? Some leaked documents that a group called Distributed Denial of Secrets got a hold of showed some 38,000 people on the Oath Keepers membership lists. How many were in or around D.C. on Jan 6? How many of them were "informants"? Is an informant someone that was always disingenuous about joining the Oath Keepers and was looking to gather information on them to give to the feds? Or is an informant someone that was charged with something connected to Jan 6 that then 'flipped' for the prosecution? Were there any people sincere about being in the Oath Keepers that thought that the leadership was going too far and that they should testify against them?

Besides, from what little I read about the trial, the guy was convicted mostly on his own words, rather than what any informant (however you define it) had to say.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Surprised by the verdict of a DC Jury?
It's like an all-White Alabama jury 60 years ago.

[Martinned]

QED

[bernard11]

Oh fuck off, Ed.

Even Brett concedes that he was "probably guilty as hell."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only one who remembers the Kavanaugh hearings and how those were disrupted? Or how the 2017 Inauguration was disrupted?

And what we will never know -- can never know -- is how many actual terrorist plots to genuinely shut down our government have been thwarted.

This whole thing stinks.

[not guilty]

Are you the only one who has forgotten that hundreds of Kavanaugh protesters were arrested and prosecuted?

[Frank Drackman]

name one, and you can use AlGores Google machine if you need to

[not guilty]

I don't know many individual names, but CNN identified Amy Schumer and Emily Ratajowski. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/kavanaugh-protests-us-capitol

[Frank Drackman]

not really "hundreds" (Idiot) and who is this "CNN"??

[not guilty]

"Surprised by the verdict of a DC Jury?
It’s like an all-White Alabama jury 60 years ago."

How do you account for three days of deliberation and several not guilty verdicts in addition to the guilty verdicts? That to me suggests careful consideration of the evidence.

The suggestion that jurors in the District of Columbia are ipso facto less conscientious than jurors elsewhere is unwarranted.

[bernard11]

unwarranted.

An overly polite choice of adjective.

[arch1]

+1

[Nige]

I dunno, I expect his lawyer is sitting somewhere with his head in his hands and thinking that maybe working for Trump would be an improvement, client-wise.

[EscherEnigma]

Nah.

He got paid for this. Something many Trump lawyers/contractors can't say.

[Nige]

As long as he wasn't paid in crypto.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Not only that, but look at the sickening puff pieces being written by him. That's how you know he's in bed with the Federals.

They have different rules and laws than the rest of us.

[bernard11]

SBF is hardly walking away a hero.

He was interviewed by an NYT reporter as part of a conference on business news. Should the paper not interview one of the most newsworthy business figures around?

I doubt he's getting off very lightly, and suspect his publicity-seeking isn't doing him any legal good.

Maybe wait and see what the investigations into FTX reveal before jumping to a lot of conclusions.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Once the scam was unearthed Skilling didn’t get any puff pieces calling him a dreamer or a visionary in the papers. He was universally excoriated.

[Nige]

Skilling didn't keep talking about his criming, on and on and on. I can't think of a single reason why you wouldn't let someone determined to hang themselves in public just go right ahead and do it.

[Nelson]

"He was universally excoriated."

And rightly so.

[bernard11]

It was about two years from the time DOJ started an investigation until Skilling was indicted.

Maybe give them some time to investigate the whole thing.

[Nelson]

"Skilling didn’t have the connections to commit massive fraud and walk away a hero."

Skilling had deep connections to George W Bush, who was President of the United States when Enron imploded. Connections don't get any more powerful than that.

[Kazinski]

How do you think Elon is doing with Twitter?

I know I'm spending a little more time on it. Before I wouldn't give it the time of day because I won't waste my time on a platform that is going to viewpoint discriminate, although I'm fine with deleting posts with blatant racism. In fact I mute people here based on racism whether it's categorical racism or it's calling conservative blacks Uncle Toms.

I haven't noticed any technical deterioration and my most frequent interaction is watching imbedded sports highlights, and it doesn't seem like the sports world is using Twitter any less.

[darkknight9]

I have yet to notice anything that has changed for me, the only thing different about pre/post musk is that the folks who hate the man complain about him more... neglecting the other causes they used to bandy about.
I honestly don't know what some would do without him. It'd be like post trump CNN... no one would watch it except “Alcoholics, the unemployable, angry loners..."
(Thank you Homer)

[Brett Bellmore]

It's hard to say. On the "If you're taking flack, you're over the target." principle, he's obviously doing some things right. But I've never used Twitter, so I have no personal experience here.

It certainly is something to see how the left goes into utter meltdown mode at the very prospect of any social media platform escaping their control. They must think their grip on the narrative is more tenuous than I ever thought.

If Musk does add the financial services he's proposing, and doesn't humor the left by discriminating against legal transactions they don't like, it will be worth my while to join and pay for that blue check.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Musk has neither offered a settlement in Martillo v. Twitter nor has he restored pro-Palestine content and user.

In fact, Musk tried to persuade white racial supremacist Zionist Yoel Roth to continue to work at Twitter. Vijaya Gadde seems to have ties to the murderously anti-Muslim Hindutva movement. Hence Twitter's vicious discrimination against Muslima, Arabs, and Palestinians.

To learn more, see the 9th Amendment Challenge to Social Medium Abuse.

https://gofund.me/fefaa956

[Jonathan Affleck]

Musk has not terminated Twitter’s Netchoice membership.

Netchoice tries to guarantee social medium platform impunity with respect to:

1. public accommodation discrimination,
2. civil rights discrimination,
3. common carriage discrimination, and
4. public forum and state action doctrine violations, which result in unconstitutional abridgment of the public’s freedom of speech.

Check out the Netchoice membership.

https://netchoice.org/about/

[Nelson]

What, no rambling screed? Are you feeling OK?

[Jonathan Affleck]

Feel free to read my petition to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
https://tinyurl.com/PBOOKLET

It's received thumbs up from Constitutional scholars.

[Nelson]

Is Constitutional Scholars your dog's name?

Oops. You said thumbs. So your baby's name?

[AmosArch]

Elon is the same way he's been for years and not only has he never hidden it but flaunted it but suddenly he's satan incarnate who's abusing his employees whereas before he was just a demanding dynamic boss.

In terms of Twitter...I doubt it would be all that remarkable in terms of company restructurings once you get past all the media losing their minds over it.

[David Nieporent]

Fanatic: "One Who Can’t Change His Mind and Won’t Change the Subject"

[DaveM]

I’ve had a Twitter account for years and prior to the Musk era I used it maybe 2-3 times a year. Twitter 2.0 is far more interesting, I find myself checking in about once a day. One thing I noticed immediately is a lot more variety in the recommended people, topics, and trends. The “thumb on the scale” they were applying in the past clearly had become something like a whole elbow pressing on the scale.

From a performance perspective, I’ve seen no changes at all. None. Whatever those 90% of RIF’d employees were doing, they weren’t involved in the technical aspects, apparently.

I am developing some negative feelings about advertisers who are pulling out because they are “concerned”, especially Apple. If Apple pulls Twitter from its walled garden that will cause me to very fundamentally change my relationship with them. Musk is making the place simply more open. If that's a problem, then it does make me wonder why I'm a customer of yours.

[Don Nico]

Never used it in the past ans no intention to waste time with it now.

[bernard11]

I am developing some negative feelings about advertisers who are pulling out because they are “concerned”, especially Apple.

Why? If you were an advertising manager for a consumer products company would you want your ads appearing next to raging racist tweets?

I wouldn't. Doesn't seem like it would help sales.

[Nelson]

"One thing I noticed immediately is a lot more variety in the recommended people, topics, and trends."

I doubt that the algorithm has been changed much in the short time Musk has been there. Certainly not radically enough to noticeably change the content you receive. The "thumb on the scale" is the same as it was before Elon took over.

Right now he's focused on making Twitter profitable, not adjusting its product. That may come later, but it's not the product that is preventing profitability.

"I am developing some negative feelings about advertisers who are pulling out because they are “concerned”, especially Apple."

Apple's history in China, their acceptance of slave labor in their supply chain, and their partnership with/dependence on Foxconn didn't concern you, but them pulling advertisements from Twitter does? That's a weird place to plant your flag.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Overturning tables in the synagogue of Satan.

That's what I think he's doing.

[Frank Drackman]

would be a great Outlaw Biker Gang, "Synagogue's of Satan"

[Martinned]

1. I've been informed that tweeting a picture of a noose to a politician is not a violation of the TOS, even though those TOS still forbid threatening harm to people. I mean, I'm perfectly OK with letting people say whatever they like, but don't show me shit and tell me it's flowers.

2. How do you think it's going? Maybe shutting down their Brussels office was a bad idea?

On Wednesday, Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton held a video call with the Twitter CEO to tell him his company was not ready for the bloc's upcoming content moderation revamp, known as the Digital Services Act. (...) "There is still huge work ahead, as Twitter will have to implement transparent user policies, significantly reinforce content moderation and protect freedom of speech, tackle disinformation with resolve, and limit targeted advertising," according to a Commission readout of Breton's call with Musk. The French commissioner also said Twitter needed sufficient personal and technical capacity to comply with Europe's upcoming rules, adding he would be monitoring its progress.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-twitter-elon-musk-covid-disinformation-thierry-breton-brussels-europe-pandemic/

[Martinned]

3. Twitter has already started losing court cases, where foreign courts remind Musk that their countries have employment laws.

Sinéad McSweeney, Twitter's global vice president for public policy, was granted the interim injunction on Friday by Ireland's High Court, local media reported. The court order temporarily prevents Twitter from terminating McSweeney's employment contract.

https://www.politico.eu/article/twitter-ireland-sinead-mcsweeney-gets-temporary-court-injunction-against-firing/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Question: Could Musk use Chapter 11 Bankruptcy as a means to get out of unwanted labor contracts? What would it do internationally?

Anyone remember how Government Motors used bankruptcy to shed unwanted (read "Republican" dealers)?

[Martinned]

Possibly, but typically only at a cost that is greater than the benefit.

Here is the relevant part of the UK Employment Rights Act 1996, which I'll take as a stand-in for the equivalent Irish law or law from whatever other EU country you're interested in: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/part/XII

[Voize]

You could though take the question at face value and consider the effect of a Chapter 11 proceeding in a US court. It is available to foreign companies as long as they have property in the US, and in at least one case the debtors’ retainers on deposit with their US bankruptcy counsel was considered sufficient.

Chapter 11 is attractive for foreign companies because it provides an automatic stay that, at least in the view of the US legal system, is global in scope, it allows for continued debtor-in-possession operation and refinancing where local jurisdictions only offer wrapping-up under the supervision of a trustee or administrator, and permits the debtor to selectively terminate executory contracts and treat resulting liabilities as pre-petition debts.

[Martinned]

Sure, but I don't see how you could rely on US law to get out of obligations under foreign employment law unless you a) don't really have any assets in that jurisdiction, or b) have a hook to that effect in that foreign jurisdiction's employment law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

IANAA

What assets would Twitter inherently have in the EU? And what assets would it have if it were to abandon them?

Yes, it is easier to have servers in Europe, but when you get right down to it, exactly what prevents Twitter from abandoning everything outside the US and requiring all traffic to come to the US. Yes, it might slow things down, but it would still work....

[Martinned]

Bank accounts belonging to EU-based subsidiaries, that those subsidiaries use to receive advertising revenue, pay salaries and other operating costs, etc. But yes, they could definitely walk away from all of that. Of course, if they did that they probably wouldn't be able to legally operate in the EU anymore, but maybe there's a middle ground where they strip all assets out of their EU subsidiaries except the bare minimum.

[Voize]

I don’t see how you could rely on US law to get out of obligations under foreign employment law

I can say the same about foreign contract law, but somehow US bankruptcy for foreign companies does seem to be popular. Maybe it is the availability of debtor-in-possession financing, which allows the debtor to incur more debt by granting the new creditors superpriority.

There is an international framework for cross-border recognition and cooperation of insolvency proceedings called UNCITRAL that is embedded in the UK Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations of 2006, but Ireland has not adopted it and recognition is available only at common law.

That might be a problem for Ed's scheme. US law (chapter 11 in particular) sometimes favors investors over creditors, and that being inconsistent with Irish law is a barrier to common-law recognition.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Ed will never understand that in the EU, employment is effectively a property right.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ed doesn't disagree with employment being a property right -- but Ed asked a very specific question -- what happens to that property right in the event of employer bankruptcy.

[VinniUSMC]

employment is effectively a property right.

Would you elaborate on that a little bit? Serious question. I'm curious about what this even means. A property right of who?

[Martinned]

"effectively" is doing a lot of work there. What he means is that people's jobs, like their homes, have extensive protections that people can invoke in court. So an employer can't just summarily fire someone just like a landlord can't summarily evict someone, with exceptions in both cases. You can analogise those to property rights, but I'm not sure why that would be helpful.

[Nelson]

"Anyone remember how Government Motors used bankruptcy to shed unwanted (read “Republican” dealers)?"

No, but I remember how the Bush administration greenlighted GM screwing its pension recipients out of $.75 on the dollar. My neighbor's dad had to go back to work at 73 because of it.

Targeted elimination of dealers based on political views? Not so much.

[John F. Carr]

"reinforce content moderation and protect freedom of speech"

Which one? Moderation or freedom of speech?

[Martinned]

Congratulations, you've spotted why I include block quotes of what other people said. I don't know what that means either, but Twitter will probably have to figure it out asap.

[Michael P]

It means "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Congratulations on discovering Europe's knack for imposing impossible standards and then deciding how to punish violations based on extrinsic factors.

[Martinned]

If that's what it means, it still implies that a well-run company would spend real resources lobbying for the best possible outcome. Which is the opposite of what Musk seems to be doing.

[shawn_dude]

Freedom of speech isn't an absolute freedom. The oft-used examples of yelling "fire" in a theater, making threats, or inciting a riot demonstrate this well enough. If a private company only limits speech to what the law requires, that's still moderated speech. Truth Social also limits speech critical of Trump. Twitter bans parody accounts and people mocking Musk. So neither has free speech in the sense conservatives seem to use the term.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Twitter bans parody accounts and people mocking Musk."

Twitter presently bans parody accounts that don't disclose that they're parody accounts by including "parody" in their names, on the grounds that makes them impersonation accounts which you can't identify as such without reading their bios.

That's maybe a bit too much like requiring people to preface jokes with "Warning: This is a joke!" but an awful lot of impersonation accounts were claiming after the fact to be parody.

[Nige]

It was pointed out by many that the blue tick marks were primarily there to minimise impersonation, but everybody had their noses put out at the idea that it was some kind of 'royalty,' but did he listen? Listen he did not. Guess he should have said 'Humour is back so long as someone runs in front of it waving a flag.'

[EscherEnigma]

It's almost like Twitter had a system that allowed casual users to know that certain accounts could be trusted as genuine.

[VinniUSMC]

Why do you have to be a celebrity to have a "genuine" account that can be "trusted"? Blue checks were never anything more than a circle-jerk.

[Sarcastr0]

It wasn't really about the celebrities. I guess you don't use twitter much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The concept of common carrier needs to be established.

[shawn_dude]

It has been and this is not it. This is a publisher.

[Nelson]

IANAL, but I believe that the fact that there are viable competitors to Twitter and multiple other methods of communication (both between individuals and beyween groups) makes that a tough sell. It's like saying Android is a common carrier because 3/4 of the world's phones run on it.

Just because it is the most popular version of social media right now doesn't make it a common carrier. And if TikTok keeps growing, Twitter won't even be the dominant social media platform, never mind a common carrier.

[Nige]

Do bots and spam have freedom of speech? Basic moderation would be to keep both to a minimum. Are threats of violence and rape freedom of speech? Or do they discourage freedom of speech in their targets? Moderation would mean the facility for threats to be reported and reviewed. Is pornography freedom of speech? Many would say yes, but a lot of people find it off-putting and its presence would set a certain tone on a site, and so basic moderation would be as to whether that was the sort of tone that a site wanted. Moderation is not the anthithesis of freedom of speech, it makes sites like twitter workable, thereby promoting free speech which, apparently, conservatives object to.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Moderation is not the anthithesis of freedom of speech,"

It is not always the antithesis of freedom of speech, but it certainly can be that antithesis.

To the extent moderation removes content almost all users find objectionable, where it is being thrust in their faces, it isn't censorship. But Twitter went way beyond that, to removing content that was not widely viewed as offensive, because Twitter disapproved of what was being communicated, or at least disapproved of people having access to it.

And that WAS censorship, the antithesis of freedom of speech.

Musk is going to have some trouble going forward, because European governments have become quite hostile to freedom of speech, and are prepared to punish any multi-national company that doesn't comply with their demands for censorship. And they have a great deal of backing from the left in the US, which is growing increasingly dependent on silencing the other side of debates it can't win. Which is exactly why they're freaking out over just one platform of many ending up under the control of somebody who doesn't want to impose their censorship.

I think multi-national companies are probably too legally exposed to be bastions of freedom. If we're to have free communications, (And we need them!) it's going to have to be something more decentralized than Twitter, something peer to peer without choke points.

But I'd love to see Musk prove me wrong.

[Nige]

Twitter’s moderation was inconsistent and often arbitrary – that it was censoring conservative views is just another of your grievance narratives. After all, actual Nazis and Qanon were tolerated, trans people talking about their experiences often were not.

European governments are pretty cool about freedom of speech, it’s just that they’re protective of people’s other rights as well, and Germany is pretty intolerant of Nazis.

But surely Gab and Truth Social and that other place already provide you with the freedom of speech you claim to crave?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Seventy five years later, Germany needs to get over its Nazi paranoia -- yes, I understand that in the 1950s there was a very real chance of the Nazis coming back. I understand that Eisenhower marched his troops through the (liberated) death camps so that "no one could say that it didn't happen."

But that was a long time ago, with those involved being now long dead. Nazism is a visceral sore in the German soul -- I can't see any future political movement getting far with Nazi imagery (even if it shared Nazi values) -- it would have to create its own new imagery.

[Martinned]

On the contrary, they’re not nearly paranoid enough. Just about every human rights case in Karlsruhe (where the constitutional court sits) involves some human rights victory for some neo-nazi. They’re currently looking at subsidies for foundations linked to political parties, and you can see the outcome coming a mile away.

The whole point of the German Basic Law is that it is not the US constitution, based on 18th century lofty philosophy, but a constitution that learned the hard lessons of the 20th century and puts its thumb on the scale against totalitarianism. But that's never really materialised, initially because German politics (including the constitutional court) was full of ex-Nazi's, and more recently because the CDU and FDP judges on the court (each Party gets their share) bend over backwards not to offend the AfD.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An interesting viewpoint I had not considered.
That does not mean that I agree with it....

[David Nieporent]

Twitter’s moderation was inconsistent and often arbitrary

All moderation at scale is inconsistent and often arbitrary. There are only two ways to moderate: human or AI. AI can be consistent, but it's not good enough to understand context properly, so it's often going to be arbitrary, not being able to (e.g.) tell the difference between mocking a threat and making a threat. Humans can be better at understanding context, but they can't consistently make similar decisions in similar cases — especially since it isn't one human, but thousands.

[David Nieporent]

It is not always the antithesis of freedom of speech, but it certainly can be that antithesis.

To the extent moderation removes content almost all users find objectionable, where it is being thrust in their faces, it isn’t censorship. But Twitter went way beyond that, to removing content that was not widely viewed as offensive, because Twitter disapproved of what was being communicated, or at least disapproved of people having access to it.

And that WAS censorship, the antithesis of freedom of speech.

Shorter Brett: "It's only censorship if they remove ideas I like. If they remove things I think are unpopular, that's perfectly fine."

[shawn_dude]

Bots are just automated publishing tools used by people who have freedom of speech. Spam is a menace published by people who have freedom of speech. Insofar as both of these are expressions of a person's speech, yes.

As it relates to Twitter, it is irrelevant.

[loki13]

With regard to Twitter, Elon is learning the same lesson everyone already knew.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/

He just has people that assume he's not doing what he's doing.

[John F. Carr]

He is offending the right people, but that alone is not proof he is doing a good job.

[Martinned]

Given everyone's interest for s. 230, at least pre-Musk, this might be of interest too:

Germany, December 1st 2022: Genekam biotechnology AG has filed a antitrust complaint against Twitter with European Community authorities a few days ago.
Last year Twitter has closed the account of Genekam Biotechnology AG without any prior warning. Genekam is specialized on innovative solutions for pandemic viruses. During last 15 years, it has developed many solutions as one of first in the world.

https://www.newsanyway.com/2022/12/01/eu-antitrust-complaint-against-twitter-through-german-company-genekam-biotechnology-ag/

Antitrust enforcement is important people. If nothing else, it's the more libertarian option compared to common carrier regulation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Hard to tell. In his capacity as a publisher, Musk has made dreadful mistakes. But metrics to evaluate those will not become part of a Twitter opinion-consumer’s experience until much later, if at all.

Prior to Musk’s intervention, Twitter had built formidable institutional momentum. If Musk proves a quick study on the publishing side, that may be enough to carry the company through to success under his leadership.

Alternatively, that momentum may prove enough to keep the company going despite publishing malpractice, at least until Musk can unload it to someone better qualified to run it. Large, well-established businesses, even marginally profitable ones, usually do not die suddenly.

Musk’s initial mistake matched mistakes common among Twitter opinion-consumers, and would-be Twitter opinion contributors—they all overlooked entirely the publishing activity necessary to keep the business going. Everything about the pre-acquisition commentary was limited to what someone could see while peering at his phone, or across a keyboard. Your comment above continues to reflect that off-target focus.

If that keeps up, while Musk holds onto the company, then Twitter is doomed.

[bernard11]

How do you think Elon is doing with Twitter?

I need to wait for a few quarterly reports before answering.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, you know that it's private now, right?

[bernard11]

Actually, I overlooked that.

Still, given that he paid $44B for it I'd say that how it performs financially, which I guess will be hard to know, should be a part of how he's doing.

[Kazinski]

I read one analysis that said that Twitter might be in the black now after shedding 80% of their employees, based on pre-buyout financial reports.

But that probably doesn’t take into account advertising losses and severance costs.

[bernard11]

Who knows?

But "in the black" is not the same as earning a reasonable return on a $44B investment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What *is* a reasonable return on a $44B investment -- and at what point are there non-cash returns which become more valuable?

In other words, is there a point at which you have so much money that you really aren't worried about making more and instead seek personal glory, fame, and popular adoration?

Is Musk seeking immortality and not merely wealth at this point?

[Voize]

Twitter might be in the black on a strict operating basis but still deep in the red once interest charges are included, as Musk's buyout was partially financed by new corporate debt. It will still be operating after a fashion as long as the servers are running, and the minimum staff required to achieve that is pretty small compared to the numbers needed to do active management of the site and enforcement of content and behavior rules.

If the stories about advertiser erosion are true the likely result is a spiral of decreasing ad revenue which drives more cutbacks which leads to more "anything goes" content which drives away more advertisers. Eventually the cutbacks reach the engineering staff too, and Twitter either contracts to become Gab II or shuts down entirely. Because it is privately held, we won't get much warning of these developments.

[Sarcastr0]

I read one analysis that said that Twitter might be in the black now after shedding 80% of their employees, based on pre-buyout financial reports.

While it does seem like twitter was overstaffed, I don't think it's at all clear how much of twitter's costs are labor.

Plus, of course the huge debt servicing load, and I would very much doubt it's in the black.

[Martinned]

Twitter just banned the account of @ndrew_lawrence, who works at the leftwing blog Media Matters, for "spam." Unclear what post Twitter classified as "spam" or how Twitter is defining "spam" now.

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1598349520340934662

[EscherEnigma]

After Musk's "amnesty", a bunch of right-wingers that were reinstated have taken to pinging him with specific "left wing" accounts (mostly journalists and the like) to be banned, and he's been obliging.

So this isn't surprising.

[Nelson]

I'm not on any social media platforms because I've never seen the point, but I doubt there will be any deterioration, at least this quickly. Such heavy cuts in employees, all at once, runs the danger of eliminating too many positions, losing valuable people, or weakening departments by misjudging what they need to operate efficiently but it's not a house if cards. A few weeks or months of upheaval aren't going to make the whole thing come tumbling down.

Twitter will, in all likelihood, be fine. Maybe Musk can make it profitable. Maybe he'll have to reassess and reallocate personel or even rehire some of them. He's a brilliant guy and he can afford to make mistakes.

One of the reasons he's so successful is he is bold, he keeps his eye on the end goal, and he isn't afraid to change course when he decides a plan isn't working. I would never bet against him.

My personal opinion is that he's also a bit nuts, but the line between genius and madness is thin. For now he seems to be shading more towards the genius side.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, who’s still eating Thanksgiving leftovers?

I’m currently enjoying a bit of scrapple for breakfast, which certainly qualifies after spit roasting a pig in the backyard, over a wood fire, Thanksgiving.

For those of you not in the know, scrapple is essentially a pork flavored polenta loaf, fried crispy and served with maple syrup. It’s made by boiling the head and other scraps down to make a very gelatinous stock, adding in finely chopped bits of less attractive meat, and then cooking it with corn meal until you can pour it in a loaf pan to set up.

It is YUMMY.

Disclaimer: The 'scrapple' you might find in a Southern grocery store? Not so yummy.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks Dahmer

[Armchair Lawyer]

Nah, it's been long gone.

[Brett Bellmore]

We've still got a bit of stovetop stuffing in the fridge, 'cause I'm the only one who eats it. But I'll have to finish that off in the next day or two, before it spoils.

Spaghetti tonight, and it isn't even Wednesday. But it is Prince, at least.

[Frank Drackman]

You're eating Prince?? watch the second hand Fentanyl (and when did peoples start calling it "Fent-a-nol"?? it's "Fent-a-nill" or if you really want to go old school, "Innovar" back before it broke up with it's partner Droperidol (which is pronounced "Dro-peri-doll")

Frank "who's up for some Chit'lins?!?!?"

[Don Nico]

Prince? Prince?
At least buy a good Italian brand:
Rustichella D'Abruzzo
Rummo
Sogno Toscano
DeCecco

[Dr. Ed 2]

Watch your blood uric acid level if you eat a lot of that sort of stuff — organs are very high in purines which break down into uric acid — which (if you are susceptible to gout) proceeds to crystalize in your joints where it is both exceptionally painful and does damage to the joint.

As I understand it, it is like salt crystalizing out of a super-saturated salt solution, except that the uric acid crystals are microscopic in size.

[Frank Drackman]

and the crystalization occurs more rapidly in colder body parts i.e. feet, so don't put ice on it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Compare and contrast how the Democrat banks and Democrat media treat SBF and Balenciaga to how they treated Mike Lindell & Gab, or Andrew Torba and Gab,

Look at how privileged Jews and homos are and what they can get away with.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Mike Lindell & My Pillow I meant to say.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm 1/2 Jewish, where do I go to get my "Privileges"
No Homo, thank you very little, not that there's anything
wrong with that (other than just everything)

Frank

[Nige]

Good news, now you can post stuff like that last sentence on Twitter!

[Ed Grinberg]

The idea that SBF is getting special treatment because he's Jewish is, indeed, moronic. But I want him to be able to say it on Twitter! (And I'm Jewish.)
As someone said about this (censorship of so-called "hate speech"): the cure is worse than the disease.

[Brett Bellmore]

If he's getting special treatment, it's not because he's Jewish, it's because a large fraction of his ill gotten gains ended up donated to Democratic causes, especially the cause of getting Democrats elected.

[Nige]

Amazing how you'll spew out allegations and accusations like that and then drag out endless nonsense about whether somone's homophobia qualifies as 'virulent' or not.

Anyway, turns out he was donating equal amounts to Republicans, but it was lovely secret Dark Money.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, do we have proof of that? I know he said it but...

[Nige]

Did he SAY IT say it or or did he ALLEGE that he said it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah right. 0.4% to conservatives, 99.6% to liberals, according to Open Secrets.

[Nige]

That's Twitter's choice, let's see how it effects peoples' experience of using the site. Still, it's a bit telling on themselves when the silenced right wing voices are the ones spewing anti-semitism and homophobia.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“Look at how privileged Jews and homos are and what they can get away with.”

That line was neither needed nor is actually accurate. You honestly don’t think that (a) his massive donations to Democrats and (b) support of the DIE agenda aren’t the reasons why everything else was overlooked???

[Nige]

He's an anti-semitic homophobe, therefore it was necessary for him to say it, and accuracy is irrelevant in that context.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Below is the latest proof of my petition to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The petition almost certainly will go to the printer later today.
https://tinyurl.com/PBOOKLET

This petition was fun to write.

I have never had the opportunity to accuse a judge of issuing an opinion, which is based on a violation of causality.

Unfortunately, an Internet-related decision, which indicates that a court believes the Internet operates by magic, is more common while decisions, which apply a logical fallacy like denial of the antecedent, are weeds in the legal lawn.

I can't guess how SCOTUS will react to this petition for writ of certiorari in a litigation that did not even reach the stage of serving the Defendants.

I am confident both of my message common carriage analysis and also of my argument that a 2022 is not an ICS of 47 U.S. Code § 230. I studied transformational syntax with Chomsky.

I tried to sort out the issues of public accommodation, public forum, and state action from p. 32 through p. 43 (PDF pp. 45-56). I am less confident of this analysis. AT&T sent me to take courses at various law schools but not in this area.

"Establishments ... supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation" is a simile and and only requires the establishment to be functionally like a place. Then 42 U.S. Code § 2000a (b)(4) and (d) seem to apply to a social medium platform.

Public forum doctrine seems to apply when a private entity hosts a discriminatory open forum in a public forum. 47 U.S. Code § 230 (a) & (b) seem to designate the Internet to be a public forum.

State action doctrine seems to apply to government networks and facilities that are constituent elements of the Internet. My case goes back to district court even if SCOTUS does not grant cert. Maybe I should add a defendant class, which consists of the USA and states.

If I understand the caselaw correctly, the USA and the states become inextricably intertwined with a major social medium platform in a state network, which is a constituent network of the Internet, and are in violation of State Action Doctrine.

[OtisAH]

“I can’t guess how SCOTUS will react to this petition for writ of certiorari in a litigation that did not even reach the stage of serving the Defendants.”

You’re asking the USSC to review litigation you never even litigated?

“I am confident both of my message common carriage analysis and also of my argument that a 2022 is not an ICS of 47 U.S. Code § 230. I studied transformational syntax with Chomsky.”

Or is this all satire?

[Jonathan Affleck]

I may slightly misrepresented the situation.

I spent a year in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in argument with Twitter and a Medium Corp.

One card in the Chance Deck of the Rules of the US federal judiciary says on it, "Go directly to the appellate level. Don't service any defendants! Skip the trial court!"

I drew this card.

You can read the petition. I explain everything. The petition booklet for SCOTUS is being printed as I type.
https://tinyurl.com/PBOOKLET

To tell the truth, it's better this way. At least four Justices are sharpening their axes to hack Section 230 caselaw to pieces, and it's much better for the plaintiff classes in Martillo v. Twitter for this caselaw to have been obliterated before the fun and games in trial court really starts.

[OtisAH]

Got it. You and your client realize that if you’re successful and 230 is shot down social media and comment sections everywhere will be shuttered or their moderation policies will become far more severe than they are now, yes? If that’s the goal here, you have my support.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Please read the petition proof.
https://tinyurl.com/PBOOKLET

A social medium platform is a message common carrier and has no right to moderate at all. Moderation is a huge violation, and the penalties are rightfully draconian.

There are rational ways to deal with disruptive users within the common carriage framework, but a social medium platform seems to prefer to discriminate. This preference must be slapped down hard.

As far as I can tell, a lot of journals are already shutting down comment sections. There are number of ways to get around common carriage obligations. The most obvious is adoption of the "Letters to the Editor" model of print journalism.

In a nutshell, I am making a simple assertion. If an entity makes money from common carriage, it must obey common carrier law.

Any other legal position is legally untenable.

[OtisAH]

“No right to moderate at all”? Fascinating. Then I guess moderation policies won’t be impacted at all. There simply will be no social media or comment sections period. Which is probably the best path forward for the health of society anyway…

[Jonathan Affleck]

We have considered the possibility for a social medium platform to be unable to function in a no-discrimination environment. It seems unlikely. In the past, several industries have been forced to function without discrimination. Anti-discrimination law has never killed an industry and seems sometimes to increase revenue.

[OtisAH]

I think once you start conflating moderation and discrimination you’re rolling down the wrong path. But good luck.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Many an owner of a whites-only restaurant claimed he was following community standards.

I don't know legally how to differentiate moderation from discrimination.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Do you know of a means to distinguish legally editing prior to publication from moderation?

[Jonathan Affleck]

Suppose arguendo one believes that a 2022 social medium platform meets the definition of an ICS in Section 230, Section 230 explicitly states that an ICS is not a publisher of 3rd party content.

I explain in my petition that a 2022 social medium platform is a message common carrier. A message common carrier like USPS, like FedEx, like a telegraph service, or like a telex service is not a publisher.

A white racist supporter of social medium platform discrimination does not have a legal leg on which he cabn stand. Please read the petition so that we can have a rational discussion of the issues. I am tired of white racist ranting on the subject of message common carriage by a 2022 social medium platform.
https://tinyurl.com/PBOOKLET

[David Nieporent]

Suppose arguendo one believes that a 2022 social medium platform meets the definition of an ICS in Section 230, Section 230 explicitly states that an ICS is not a publisher of 3rd party content.

Supposing arguendo one can read, Section 230 does not explicitly state any such thing. What it says is that providers and users of ICSs shall not be treated as publishers or speakers of third party content. "Shall not be treated as" is not at all the same thing as "is not."

I explain in my petition that a 2022 social medium platform is a message common carrier.

Setting aside once again that "message common carrier" is a phrase you made up, you don't in fact "explain" that at all. In fact, you barely even assert it (other than in the Questions (LOL) Presented). It would be more accurate to say that you assume it.

[Jonathan Affleck]

I was a newspaper editor during the 70s. A entity like a publisher is treated like a publisher because -- one presumes -- it publishes or does something like publishing.

Pray tell how a 2022 social medium platform publishes or does anything like publishing.

Bear in mind:
1. that I know what a traditional paper publisher does,
2. that I know what a social medium platform does,
3. that I have helped develop a lot of modern publication technology, and
4. that at a later date I invented some of the key components of modern cloud computing.

[David Nieporent]

3. that I have helped develop a lot of modern publication technology, and
4. that at a later date I invented some of the key components of modern cloud computing.

You should hook up with Shiva Ayyadurai; he invented email. (Just ask him; he'll tell you.)

[Jonathan Affleck]

Please read the continuation patent application.
https://tinyurl.com/CPTAPPL

The filing date of the parent patent application (07/773,161) was Oct. 8 1991. IBM circulated my architecture documents. The basis of modern cloud computing is traceable to the '161 application and only to the '161 application.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jonathan Affleck — May I offer an entirely friendly suggestion? Spend some thought to define to your own satisfaction what kinds of activities define the category, "publisher." When you have that analyzed, then do a comparison among the categories, publisher and common carrier, with an eye to whether major internet platforms more closely resemble the former or the latter.

Be particularly careful your enquiry includes typical business models on both sides, and not just public-facing considerations of interest only to would-be opinion consumers, and would-be opinion contributors. The reason for that care is to prepare yourself to notice on what basis the 1A—with its press freedom clause which protects publishing activities, not just published opinions—might prove an obstacle to your common carrier advocacy.

If after your analysis your conclusion still suggests the answer is that business models used by internet platforms are closer to common carriers than to publishers, then try again with your publishing analysis. Any such conclusion will mean you have done the analysis wrong. Internet platforms rely on publishing business models, not on common carrier business models. The crucial points of comparison relate to what methods each kind of business uses to support itself financially. Concentrate closely and in detail on those.

The reason for my suggestion is that your notion to use government to impose common carrier status on internet platforms seems to me to burden notably genuine publishing activities practiced by the platforms. That risks an open door to government interference with press freedom generally, which would be catastrophic for the public life of the nation.

I say these things as a long-time advocate for the unconditional repeal of Section 230, by the way. I believe that in the long term internet publishing without prior editing will prove to be neither a viable business model, nor politically sustainable. I hope such unwelcome results would concern you as much as they concern me.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Like most supporters of discrimination by a social medium platform, Stephen Lathrop confuses a statutory framework for regulating telecommunications interstate commerce with a definition of common carriage.

Common law defines common carriage not statute. A common carrier holds out carriage to the public under standard terms for a reasonable fee. Business model is irrelevant, and it only shows ignorance to babble about business model.

The public has a Ninth Amendment right to non-discriminatory common carriage. A message common carrier has neither First Amendment right to deny common carriage to a customer nor First Amendment right to discard customer digital personal literary property temporarily stored in a backend database server by bailment (hosting).

If a social medium platform dislikes either the Florida or the Texas laws, wait until the social medium platform sees what I can do with the 1869 Massachusetts statute,
1. which is legally unchallengeable and
2. which is useful in convincing SCOTUS of the legal soundness of my argument.

You can read all about message common carriage in my petition to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
https://tinyurl.com/PBOOKLET

It is being published as I type and will be filed on Dec 7 to SCOTUS.

[David Nieporent]

A common carrier holds out carriage to the public under standard terms for a reasonable fee. Business model is irrelevant,

Um, that is a business model. (Not one relevant to social media, to be sure.)

The public has a Ninth Amendment right to non-discriminatory common carriage.

This is gibberish. It's like someone playing Mad Libs wrote it. The public has a [number between 1-27] Amendment right to [adjective] [legal-sounding noun].

The public has a Twelfth Amendment right to spontaneous replevin.

A message common carrier

Still not a thing.

customer digital personal literary property

Also still not a thing.

temporarily stored in a backend database server by bailment (hosting).

Still not what a bailment is.

wait until the social medium platform sees what I can do with the 1869 Massachusetts statute,

I'm pretty sure they've already seen what you can do with it, as have you: make such frivolous arguments that they get dismissed sua sponte.

[Jonathan Affleck]

I have to wonder.

Does David Nieporent take stupid pills when he gets up every morning?

Common carriage doctrine is not a business model except to a clueless nitwit.

Common carriage doctrine is a framework with which a judge identifies a class of carriers so that he apply certain rules to help adjudicate a legal controversy, which pertains to carriers.

Does David Nieporent really believe that a taxi service and a limo service have the same business model because the two services are common carriers?

Ninth Amendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment confirms the public's rights that were long established but were not explicitly specified in the US Constitution.

One must speculate that David Nieporent slept through Constitutional law, but don't worry. Thomas or Alito inserts a discussion of long established rights or law into a SCOTUS decision whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Please put the following in your browser URL form entry.

https://tinyurl.com/QMessage

Even a clown like David Nieporent can see that there are thousands of entries.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Why do I care about the 17th century? Jamestown was the first permanent English colony (1607) in N. America. We have to investigate 17th century English law to understand long established rights of Americans.

Literary property, which is a still existent concept in US law, originates in the 17th century, and provides the starting point for ideas that developed into copyright law.

If David Nieporent had read the case documents (something that he has not done because he is an incompetent lawyer), he would know that the case was dismissed because the Trial Court asserted despite copious caselaw to the contrary and despite causality that I had no monetary claim against the defendants.

Please put the following URL into the browser URL form entry.
https://tinyurl.com/LPROP

«Bailment is a legal relationship in common law, where the owner transfers physical possession of personal property ("chattel") for a time, but retains ownership. The owner who surrenders custody to a property is called the "bailor" and the individual who accepts the property is called a "bailee". The bailee is the person who possesses the personal property in trust for the owner for a set time and for a precise reason and who delivers the property back to the owner when they have accomplished the purpose that was initially intended.»

When I decide to tweet (transmit a tweet which is a message) from my laptop, I explicitly make an HTTP GET Request to deliver the Twitter single page app to my laptop via message common carriage. The Twitter single page app then delivers my tweet to the Twitter backend server, which then stores the tweet in a backend server. The backend database message storage, which is imprecisely called hosting is bailment.

This message storage in a database server hardly differs from bailment of a letter in a mail satchel at a USPS sorting center.

It's moronic to assert message bailment (hosting) is speech.

[David Nieporent]

Common carriage doctrine is not a business model except to a clueless nitwit.

It is absolutely a business model. A company can hold itself out as offering carriage services indiscriminately to the general public, generally on a fixed fee schedule. Or it can instead decide to choose what jobs to take and how to charge on an ad hoc basis. Different business models. One is a common carrier; one is not.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

"That a right isn't listed here doesn't mean it doesn't exist" != "That a right isn't listed here means it does exist." You are bad at English and logic, as well as law.

there are thousands of entries.

Yes, and you can get thousands millions of entries if you google eggplant radio sandwich, too, but that doesn't mean that "eggplant radio sandwich" is a thing.

None of your "thousands of entries" actually use the phrase "message common carrier." They just have those three words somewhere in them.

[David Nieporent]

«Bailment is a legal relationship in common law, where the owner transfers physical possession of personal property (“chattel”) for a time,

Does someone who posts something on a website "transfer physical possession" of anything? No.

but retains ownership. The owner who surrenders custody to a property is called the “bailor” and the individual who accepts the property is called a “bailee”.

Does someone who posts something on a website "surrender custody" of that thing? No.

Is there any property involved? Also no. (Even if copyright were actually property, which it isn't, you're not transferring the copyright!)

[Jonathan Affleck]

David Nieporent is a persistent idiot.

I used the example of a limo service and a taxi service to give him a graceful way to give up to drop the moronic claim that common carriage is a business model.

Let's try again.

Here are some typical common carriers:

1. bicycle courier,
2. a cross country trucker,
3. a passenger railroad,
4. FedEx,
5. AT&T,
6, a Ferris Wheel,
7. an ocean cruise company,
7, an airline, and
8 a container shipper.

Do these entities all have the same business model?

David Nieporent has neither studied formal mathematical logic nor propositional calculus.

The Ninth Amendment refers to a set of rights of the public. This set can be partitioned into two non-null sets, which are:
1. Constitutionally enumerated rights and
2. non-Constitutionally enumerated rights.

I found an online discussion that describes the issue precisely.

The formalization of a sentence in ordinary discourse claiming that "? implies ?" or "? does not imply ?" is outside the languages of propositional or first-order or higher-order logic. It is in the language of logical consequences, which roughly consists of pairs of (sets of)−propositional of first-order or higher-order−formulas.

When we use the expression "? does not imply ?" in ordinary discourse, we can mean two distinct things:

⊨¬(?→?), which means that ¬(?→?) is a valid (or provable) formula. This amounts to say ⊨?∧¬?, i.e. every structure satisfies ? but not ?.

?⊭?, which means that ? is not a logical consequence of (or is not provable from) ?, so there exists a structure where ? is true and ? is false. This amounts to say ⊭?→?.

The difference is essentially whether we mean "not" as part of the language of propositional logic, or as a negation of the relation of logical consequence. Usually, the intended meaning is 2.

Note that meaning 1 is stronger than meaning 2, in the sense that, given the formulas ? and ?, if Point 1 holds then in particular Point 2 holds.

In my petition to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari before judgment of the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit, I was careful to explain by means of Well-Formulated Formulae why Zeran-based law is logical garbage and a disease on the legal system.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-6916.html

[David Nieporent]

Do these entities all have the same business model?

Setting aside whether those entities actually are all common carriers, they for the most part have similar business models, yes: holding themselves out as offering to transport people or goods indiscriminately from point a to point b according to fixed fee schedules.

The Ninth Amendment refers to a set of rights of the public. This set can be partitioned into two non-null sets, which are:
1. Constitutionally enumerated rights and
2. non-Constitutionally enumerated rights.

You seem to have forgotten, however, that there exist things which are members of neither subset. But of course even for things that are members of either subset, the Ninth Amendment does not create any judicially enforceable remedies.

In my petition to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari before judgment of the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit, I was careful to explain by means of Well-Formulated Formulae why Zeran-based law is logical garbage and a disease on the legal system.

And yet, you were not careful to understand the decision or explain it correctly. Zeran doesn't say what you think it does. (Nor does § 230.) You just used a wordier version of the dumb argument that all the other loons use: that ICSs "can't have it both ways," that they can't have both immunity and the rights of publishers. But they can; again: § 230 does not say that they aren't publishers.

And like the other loons, you misunderstand the source of the ICS's right to moderate: it's the 1st amendment, not § 230.

[Jonathan Affleck]

David Nieporent is an idiot and almost certainly an incompetent lawyer. I feel sorry for his clients.

Here's a typical example of message common carrier in the 1920 Codes of California.

https://tinyurl.com/MesComCar

The code refers to Common Carriers of Messages.

I used to be a newspaper editor and abominate dangling modifiers. The phrase "Common Carriers of Messages" is prone to be used in a dangling modifier syntactic construction. Message common carriers is safer syntactically.

The concepts of:
1. common carriage of messages,
2. common carrier of messages,
3. message common carriage, and
4. message common carrier
have been around since long before telegraphy, but David Nieporent's knowledge of law is too meager to encompass these concepts.

I wonder whether David Nieporent has read Edward Coke's Institutes or whether David Nieporent is even aware of Edward Coke's works. I read the Institutes in high school.

Knowledge of 17th century English law is necessary to understand long established rights of Americans, but David Nieporent to dumb to acknowledge the obvious.

[Jonathan Affleck]

What is a website to a technological nitwit like David Nieporent?

I discuss the nitwit's understanding of a website in my draft petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
https://tinyurl.com/PBOOKLET

Hosting is Bailment Not Speech

The following question and answer clarify why hosting is bailment and not speech.

Question: Does a notice board accessible to passing members of the public – by being in the entrance of a supermarket for example – offer a common carriage service? If not, how does Twitter differ from that in function, other than by being a service attached to a network that offers public access?

Answer: The described public notice board is a material board to
which a member affixes a material message. The material board provides neither message switching nor message common carriage. Twitter provides store-and-forward message switching as well as message common carriage among users. Twitter temporarily stores a message in a backend database system (hosting or bailment) while the message is on the way to an end-user by means of message common carriage.

Discussion: The question confuses the frontend model (a pure concept or abstract idea[1]) with a material notice board. The frontend model makes it easier for an end user to interact with Twitter’s system.

In other words, Twitter’s system has no similarity whatsoever to the material notice board and the question shows a lack of comprehension of Internet technology.[2]

Hosting is not speech of a social medium platform. Hosting is bailment, and from the standpoint of common carriage law, storing digital personal literary property in a backend server of the social medium platform hardly differs from temporary storage of a paper letter in a satchel at a USPS sorting location or at a FedEx office until the paper letter can be sent on its way to its destination by common carriage.

NOTES

[1] Abstract idea in this context has some similarity to the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility. A discussion of confusion of virtual reality with physical reality can be found in Joachim’s Reply to Twitter’s Appellee’s Brief , which can be found in PACER or via its QR code in Appendix E – QR Codes (p. lvi).

[2] The terminology of full-stack software engineering is somewhat confusing. A software engineer generally uses the Model-View-Controller design pattern to design a web or cloud service. The end user invokes a browser on his end host (a laptop or mobile computing device) to access the service. A single page application is frontend social medium platform software that runs in a web browser to access the service of the social medium platform – an older design might use Jakarta (or Java) Server Pages, but such a design does not affect the argument. A mobile device typically runs a mobile app (provided by the social medium platform) to complete the common carriage service, which the social medium platform's backend provides.

[Jonathan Affleck]

In the AT&T legal department, we did not usually talk about bailment in the voice telephone network until AT&T started to provide a common carriage service like voice mail or Mass Announcement Network Service (MANS).

See pp. 22-23.
https://tinyurl.com/PBOOKLET

A supporter of social medium platform discrimination is typically so stupid and so ignorant that it is almost vicariously embarrassing metaphorically to eviscerate the supporter.

Yet, it's fun to put such a dumdum in his place.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Do these entities all have the same business model?

Setting aside whether those entities actually are all common carriers, they for the most part have similar business models, yes: holding themselves out as offering to transport people or goods indiscriminately from point a to point b according to fixed fee schedules.

Common carriage is a service not a business model. A business model normally includes features for profitability and for dealing with competitors. David Nieporent seems never to have run a business.

The Ninth Amendment refers to a set of rights of the public. This set can be partitioned into two non-null sets, which are:
1. Constitutionally enumerated rights and
2. non-Constitutionally enumerated rights.

You seem to have forgotten, however, that there exist things which are members of neither subset. But of course even for things that are members of either subset, the Ninth Amendment does not create any judicially enforceable remedies.

I defined a set (the rights set, R) that consists of rights of the American public.

I defined a subset (the constitutionally enumerated subset, E) that consists of constitutionally enumerated rights contained in the rights set.

I defined another subset (constitutionally unenumerated subset, U) that consists of rights contained in R but not in E.

What other rights are there in R in addition to the rights in the union of E with U.

I understand that the Ninth Amendment provides no remedies. I expect the other states to enact common carriage statutes on the model of M.G.L. c. 159 s. 1 & s. 2. The penalties of the Massachusetts statutes are brutal and will prevent social medium platform discrimination. These are 1869 statutes. Other states should increase the penalties to more appropriate 2022 levels.

In my petition to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari before judgment of the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit, I was careful to explain by means of Well-Formulated Formulae why Zeran-based law is logical garbage and a disease on the legal system.

And yet, you were not careful to understand the decision or explain it correctly. Zeran doesn’t say what you think it does. (Nor does § 230.) You just used a wordier version of the dumb argument that all the other loons use: that ICSs “can’t have it both ways,” that they can’t have both immunity and the rights of publishers. But they can; again: § 230 does not say that they aren’t publishers.

Have you read 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c)(1&2)?

Just to refresh your mind.

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or ...

If you were not a cluelessly incompetent lawyer, who in the most generous interpretation misunderstands common carriage doctrine, you would realize that § 230(c)(1 & 2) describes the immunities of a common carrier but extends these immunities to a website of a genuinely private club or to a website that does not monetize.

And like the other loons, you misunderstand the source of the ICS’s right to moderate: it’s the 1st amendment, not § 230.

A message common carrier has right neither to moderate, to deny message common carriage, nor to delete a message from bailment.

The Justices are smart guys. They will come to this conclusion.

[David Nieporent]

David Nieporent seems never to have run a business.

Of the two of us, one is homeless and unemployed and begging for money on the internet, and it’s not me.

[Jonathan Affleck]

When a white racist supporter of social medium platform discrimination has no response, however irrational or legally ignorant, he resorts to an attack ad hominem. I am neither homeless nor unemployed, but David Nieporent has interest neither in the facts nor in the law.

I had some financial problems during the Covid lockdown when I was suspended from social medium platforms because of gang-reporting by a white racial supremacist Zionist posse, which was outraged when I mentioned that a Palestinian woman and I were in love.

Now I am trying to mass-mobilize against social medium platform abuse and discrimination.

See 9th Amendment Challenge to Social Medium Abuse.

I am seeking lots of small donations, but I have not yet put much effort into the fundraiser.

[David Nieporent]

The comedy stylings of "You must never have run a business and you're a white supremacist racist and why are you engaging in ad hominem attacks?"

https://www.gofundme.com/f/5dr9e-emergency-housing-for-family

https://www.gofundme.com/f/9th-amendment-challenge-to-social-medium-abuse

[David Nieporent]

If you were not a cluelessly incompetent lawyer, who in the most generous interpretation misunderstands common carriage doctrine, you would realize that § 230(c)(1 & 2) describes the immunities of a common carrier but extends these immunities to a website of a genuinely private club or to a website that does not monetize.

Those are all words that are not in the statute.

[David Nieporent]

Or is this all satire?

It's a joke, but it's not satire.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Section 230 and its misinterpreters are putting on a farce, which has become damaging to political discourse in the USA.

We are seeing a dangerous rerun of a period of legal stupidity during the middle 19th century when some judges and legal professionals were so astounded by telegraphy that they could not believe it was just another form of message common carriage (just as the service a social medium platform provides today is just another form of message common carriage).

Telegraphy exceptionalism then like Internet exceptionalism today is moronic.

Here is footnote 10 from my petition to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The Wow! Factor influenced early telegraph decisions. “In two early cases, Parks v. Alta Cal. Tel. Co., 13 Cal. 422 (1859), and Mac Andrew v. The Electric Co., 17 C. B. (Eng.) 3 (1855), they were held to be common carriers; but in other early cases the courts, when they considered the nature and power of electricity, thought it so strange, wonderful and incomprehensible, that no ordinary human care or skill could possibly suffice to control it perfectly, and, deeming it therefore unjust to hold telegraph companies bound by the strict rules which govern common carriers, sought out reasons for making a distinction between these new carriers of thought and the old carriers of merchandise.” Benjamin F. Rex, “Liability of Telegraph Companies for Fraud, Accident, Delay and Mistakes in the Transmission and Delivery of Messages,” The American Law Register, May, 1884, Vol. 32, No. 5, New Series Volume 23 (May, 1884), p. 282, URI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3304891 . By 1869 the Wow! Factor had dissipated.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, that's not actually a legal argument.

[Jonathan Affleck]

I wonder why I put the observation in a footnote and not in the text of the section "Reasons to Grant the Petition".

[David Nieporent]

I wonder why you put the observation in at all.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Once again David Nieporent shows not only that he is a cluelessly ignorant lawyer, but also that he lies when he claims to have read the case documents.

If the clown had read the case documents, he would realize that the primary issue before SCOTUS is abuse of discretion.

If the dismissal were based on the WOW! factor instead of sound legal conclusions, the District Court abused discretion by dismissing the original complaint.

At this point, we have established that David Nieporent is a cluelessly ignorant as well as an impressively incompetent lawyer.

Maybe we should try to determined whether he has reading competence by investigating whether he has any knowledge of the content of the draft petition, which he claims to have read.

[David Nieporent]

Dude, you lost. You lost at the district court. You lost at the court of appeals. SCOTUS already rejected your cert petition once. How many judges and lawyers need to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about before you begin to accept that PEBKAC?

And here's a free clue from someone who isn't a dilettante like you: you're not even making the best arguments in your own favor. "Abuse of discretion" is indeed an appellate standard of review, but not the one applicable here. If the court got the law wrong — spoiler alert: it didn't — that's an error of law, not an abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is a harder standard to prevail upon on appeal.

And yes, I read both your original petition and your successive one, each of which were comedy gold. (Fun fact: the Supreme Court has never accepted a petition that has Questions Presented that can't be counted on one hand, and never will.) Also, the Supreme Court does not make a habit of reviewing questions of the interpretation of state law.

[David Nieporent]

I can’t guess how SCOTUS will react to this petition for writ of certiorari in a litigation that did not even reach the stage of serving the Defendants.

Oh, I can. Hint: it rhymes with Bert Refried.

I am confident both of my message common carriage analysis and also of my argument that a 2022 is not an ICS of 47 U.S. Code § 230.

Yes; dumb people are often the ones most confident. Neither of these are even colorable arguments, of course.

If I understand the caselaw correctly,

Teehee. If you understood the caselaw correctly, you wouldn't have brought the suit in the first place. (To be fair, you also don't understand the facts.)

[Jonathan Affleck]

I have various degrees of acquaintance with all the Justices that studied at Harvard or Yale.

Probably the entire SCOTUS will be mortified that so many judges in the lower courts are making decisions based on logical fallacy, on butchering the English language, and on ideology, which has no connection to law.

David Nieporent is so confident that he pontificates without reading the case documents. I am not nearly so confident.

As far as I can tell, four Justices at least have already sharpened their axes to hack Section 230 to bits. It is possible my petition will only confirm decisions they have already made, but I have probably added some new info.

The district court conceded that a social medium platform is a common carrier and dismissed the case by holding in violation of causality that I had no monetary claim despite black letter Massachusetts law.

In the legal department of pre-Breakup AT&T, a fundamental truism asserted that common carriage denial was a self-evidencing violation.

[David Nieporent]

David Nieporent is so confident that he pontificates without reading the case documents. I am not nearly so confident.

Most of your stuff is just ignorance and bad logic; this is just a lie. I have read (procrastination motivates people to do all sorts of crazy things!) all the case documents. Which is why I know how bad they are.

For example, the District Court did not remotely say what you think it said. It did not "concede that a social medium platform is a common carrier" — it did the exact opposite — and It did not "violate causality." It did not say that the Massachusetts legislature excluded voice from the statute. It said that the Massachusetts legislature didn't include voice in the statute.

[Jonathan Affleck]

As if I care about your opinion of the trial documents. I was doing case documents for the FCC, Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and SCOTUS probably before you were born.

You make the District Court order seem even more random than it was. Where was voice in the case?

If you really believe it was a case about voice, you could not possibly have read the case documents.

Do you really think Judge Stearns is so stupid or ignorant that he believes a tweet, a post, a comment, or a reply is voice?

[David Nieporent]

Do you really think Judge Stearns is so stupid or ignorant that he believes a tweet, a post, a comment, or a reply is voice?

No; I'm pretty sure you're the only one I've accused of being stupid in this discussion. I'm also pretty sure that you're the only one accusing Judge Stearns of having made a mistake.

[Jonathan Affleck]

BTW, did you take Phil 140 with Quine? He told me that I could be a great logician. I was not so interested although I have programmed a lot of PLAs and PLDs in my career. I suppose it's a sort of applied logic.

[Nelson]

Ah, there's the rambling creed I expected earlier.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Here's another brief that argues a social medium platform is a common carrier.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/243664/20221021154348481_42989%20pdf%20Panebianco.pdf

[Nelson]

At least this time you posted a link so I don't have to waste time scrolling past your manifesto to get to a coherent post.

[Jonathan Affleck]

David Nieporent needs to scroll past any long comment because focusing on a comment of more than 10 lines is probably beyond his level of mental development.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Is there voter suppression going on in Arizona?

There were a LOT of issues in Arizona. Specifically about the ballots, and how the machines weren't reading them. That alone discouraged a lot of voters. Then there was this "box 3" the ballots were sometimes put in, and sometimes mixed in with other ballots. For more, read the following report.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-11/AZ%20General%20Election%20Roving%20Attorney%20Report%20%28redacted%29.pdf

Now apparently the county supervisors only certified the election under threat of felony charges...

[Brett Bellmore]

I find it rather hilarious, personally.

Normally even the slightest inconvenience, if it's thought to work against Democratic interests, is called "vote suppression". But we're confidently told here that it was perfectly possible for anybody in those voting places to vote. And never mind that a fraction of the inconvenience would have been considered an outrage if it had happened in a place where it would hurt Democratic vote totals.

But then, I'm a fan of dark humor, so I would find our elections hilarious.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know the difference between policy and implementation?

Crap happens on the ground during elections all the time. It doesn't invalidate elections.

Conversely, the GOP is consistently in favor of *policies* that demonstrably suppress voting, while making marginal gains to address an election security issue that has never actually manifested, despite some right-wing yahoos attempting to themselves do as much in person voter fraud as they can.

This lack of parallel is probably why Armchair Lawyer is trying to impute a conspiracy. I'm sure you're there for it too. But in real life, the lack of actual evidence means this story plays more like the right thinking every election that doesn't go their way is illegitimate.

That'll be a headwind come 2024.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Actually "Crap that happens on the ground" can and has invalidated elections before.

[Sarcastr0]

It's almost as though 'it doesn't' was a general statement, not an absolute one.

Pedantry fail.

[Bob from Ohio]

"demonstrably suppress voting"

Stop lying.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.scribd.com/document/145875926/Report-on-2012-Voter-Supression-in-Ohio

Yes, demonstrated.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nina Turner!

[Sarcastr0]

Where is the lie, or is all you got ad hominem?

[Bob from Ohio]

The Trump Report on the 2020 election demonstrably shows he was cheated.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd read that report to rebut it's contents.

Because I don't lean into fallacies.

[Moderation4ever]

The Arizona situation is an example of shit-happens. In person elections are infrequent events and so there is a big potential for disruptions in the process. Election officials make plans but cannot account for every variable. There has been a lot of criticism of early voting and mail-in voting, but these spread out the process and reduce the type of disruptions that occurred at the polls. There seems to be little in the way of evidence that the actual election results were affected. If you were a voter and experienced these disruptions the lesson might be to vote earlier in future elections.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It does sound like some of the county boards thought there was enough of an issue that they wouldn't certified the election, if they weren't explicitly threatened with felony charges.

[Moderation4ever]

Civil disobedience is an important tool in our political system. Obviously, the members of the county did not feel strongly enough to say I believe there was fraud, and I will risk being charged. There is also the case that because of the threat of violence the county board member used the felony charges as cover. The old "I did not want to do it but the government forced me to" as CYA..

[Moderation4ever]

Removed a duplicate comment.

[Martinned]

So I'm not the only one who's getting lots of Bad Gateway and related errors on this site yesterday and today?

[Mr. Bumble]

Here too. What's going on?

[Brett Bellmore]

Really, it could be a lot of things. I've wondered if maybe Reason is under intermittent DDOS attack, just not enough to take the site down. But it could just be sub-par server maintenance.

[Life of Brian]

The Arizona situation is an example of shit-happens.

No, "shit happens" is when you have isolated problems at individual polling places where stuff unexpectedly stops working. This debacle, where about a third of the locations experienced exactly the same failure from the moment the equipment was turned on, is a stunning example of shit that was allowed to happen because drop-dead elementary procedures to make sure the equipment worked before the voters showed up were not in place.

In person elections are infrequent events and so there is a big potential for disruptions in the process.

Most certainly. Which to most rational human beings would make it even more important to make sure the equipment works before the voters show up.

Election officials make plans but cannot account for every variable.

True of course, but irrelevant here. Had these election officials made the most basic plan to make sure the equipment works before the voters show up, they would have discovered this "variable" and the techs could have addressed it.

If you were a voter and experienced these disruptions the lesson might be to vote earlier in future elections.

Right. Because the lesson Could. Not. Possibly. Be. for the people running the elections to make sure the equipment works before the voters show up.

[Sarcastr0]

This debacle, where about a third of the locations experienced exactly the same failure from the moment the equipment was turned on, is a stunning example of shit that was allowed to happen because drop-dead elementary procedures to make sure the equipment worked before the voters showed up were not in place.

Never chalk up to stupidity what you can spin a wild election conspiracy about!

Did you know there has just about never been an election where every jurisdiction worked smoothly? THIS GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP!

[Life of Brian]

Leave it to Sarc to squeeze his eyes shut to the actual sordid facts of this clown show and try to blossom a completely incidental turn of phrase into a "conspiracy."

There may be some other contexts down the road in which the malice/incompetence answer comes into play. But it has zero bearing on anything I said here.

Countering Murphy on this level is best practices 101 -- probably more like 100. Anyone who thinks it's just fine to not even think about validating that voting equipment is ready to serve its intended purpose -- or it doesn't even occur to them that it would be a good idea, take your pick -- needs to be relieved of their duties immediately.

[Sarcastr0]

I insist people back up their narratives and appeals to incredulity.

This really seems to make some people super mad.

I see you've now backpedaled from intent to best practices were not used. Sure, that seems dumb. But I now see that there is not really much of a scandal left.

[Life of Brian]

I see you’ve now backpedaled from intent to best practices were not used.

My messaging on this has been consistent from the first day I mentioned it. Try all you want to wrest it into something you can attack -- you're not distracting anyone from the sad and simple fact that you're defending the indefensible.

Sure, that seems dumb.

This little shrug-off is just a variant of the singsong "oh, shit happens ya know" that I originally responded to. These people have conclusively demonstrated they have zero business overseeing any sort of mission-critical process in any context whatsoever.

[Sarcastr0]

As usual, your messaging has been quite vague, so any claims to consistency leave a lot to be desired.

You're dissatisfied. You seem to intimate some intent, but then you back off and just say the states were using bad practice and should do better.
You don't like people calling it dumb, but then your reasoning is that calling it dumb doesn't get anyone fired.

Yeah, you're not painting a complete picture here - you have suggestions in all sorts of directions as to what you want and mean. Which is usual for you - pedant for others, vague as crap for yourself.

Each cycle a different area has issues. Remember Ohio? Dems were really mad about that. But seems like they're doing better now!
Yeah, your insisting this time we gotta get Big Mad unlike the other times when the problem worked itself out holds no water.

Unless you want to delegitimize the election over there. Which it looks like you're trying to do!

[bernard11]

More from the right-wing lie-generating machine.

We can count on A.L. to keep spreading the "news."

[Voize]

Now apparently the county supervisors only certified the election under threat of felony charges…

If they had been permitted to withhold certification none of the votes in that 60% Republican-voting county would have been counted. That would be a "win" only in a nose-to-spite-face sense.

I agree that the tabulation failure rates in that report on Maricopa County you link to are alarming, if accurate. Meanwhile the Cochise County Board of Supervisors attempted to hold off certification on the grounds that the equipment wasn't properly certified in spite of documentary evidence from the Secretary of State that it was.

Maybe there is a way all these stories can be valid. If I read the Arizona Elections Procedures Manual correctly, the equipment subject to certification includes hardware and software used to "define ballots, cast and count votes, report or display election results, and maintain and produce any audit trail information" following the Federal definition in 52 U.S.C. §21081(b)(1), and is certification tested using test ballots obtained from the manufacturer.

The system implemented, though, uses locally printed ballots instead of pre-printed ones. Since the problems described in Maricopa were overwhelmingly due to printing quality rather than tabulator issues, the best path forward might be to expand the scope of certification testing to include all the equipment relied on according to how the system is deployed rather than as it is defined in that federal statute.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If election maladministration has been so bad it attracted felony charges, there can hardly be a wiser reason to reverse course.

[Martinned]

As an insight in my online life:

I shocked a bunch of Americans elsewhere on the internet yesterday by pointing out that it isn't exactly shocking to discover that there are a lot of racist old white ladies at Buckingham Palace, and that there's no reason to make a big fuss about that as long as the Palace swiftly shows them the door and apologises when something bad happens.

Elsewhere on the internet, I am often on the right (let's call it that) side of discussions...

[John F. Carr]

I don't care if the royal family and environment is racist. I don't care if they go black and never go back. They are not my royals and I am not obsessed with celebrities' personal lives.

If I lived in the UK... still, who cares? They have been powerless for a long time.

[Martinned]

My point exactly. I'd rather there be no racists. But alternatively, if they pop up somewhere powerless and the person in question suffers some consequences, I'm not sure why we'd want to keep talking about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they pop up somewhere powerless, I'm not even sure why it would be important that they "suffer some consequences".

[Martinned]

Because racism is (morally) bad, and I like it when people who do bad things suffer consequences.

[Frank Drackman]

I feel the same way about Drunk Drivers/Mr. Nancy Pelosis

[Dr. Ed 2]

The issue with Mr. Nancy Pelosi is the reporter who wrote an interesting -- possibly inaccurate -- story that conflicted with the official one and who has now disappeared...

Reporters screwing up facts is a given -- but reporters then disappearing is not, and I do wonder about the latter.

[David Nieporent]

Spoiler alert; he hasn't "disappeared." You can find him by googling.

[Frank Drackman]

and Vince Foster too

[Ed Grinberg]

Because racism is (morally) bad, and I like it when people who do bad things suffer consequences.

Hold on there. You're trying to pull a fast one. You go from "racism" (having "bad" thoughts / attitudes) to "people who do bad things."
I too "like it when people who do bad things suffer consequences." But I'd leave "wrongthinkers" alone.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Your notion is mistaken that racism is equivalent to, “having “bad” thoughts / attitudes.” You overlook that the, “ism,” on the end of the word typically denotes systems of organization and practice. For instances: imperialism; communism; capitalism; modernism; cubism; industrialism; fascism; liberalism, Republicanism; pastoralism, etc. None of those is principally about inward states of belief. All are systems of practice. Even such belief-related categories as religious denominations—Catholicism; Unitarianism; Mormonism; Puritanism; Methodism; Lutheranism—are at least as much about methods of practice as they are about belief. Indeed, belief-related exceptions to religious doctrines are commonly practiced by practice-preferring religious adherents, hence, "Cafeteria Catholics."

On that basis, it is perfectly possible—and commonplace in political practice—for someone without any inward corruption of the heart, and with no hint of personal animus toward black people—to practice anti-black racism. Advocacy of systematic policy which will foreseeably disadvantage blacks will do it.

A majority of the Supreme Court of the United States will do that shortly, if it decides to outlaw use of affirmative action in college admissions. Any notion that some high purpose might be served in doing that is irrelevant to the question whether such a decision is in fact racist in its effect.

Systems of practice show systematic effects, and it is by those effects that we identify them. Those that strike us as particularly important and pervasive get the, "ism," suffix attached.

[Bob from Ohio]

"when people who do bad things"

Supposedly asking a question? A question is not a "thing" one "does", its not an action.

[Nige]

Of course it is. Speaking to someone is doing a thing. As is being racist to someone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, trivially, even thinking a thought in the privacy of your own head can be considered an 'action".

But what you're spouting is just the typical "speech is violence" rationale used by left-wing censors to deny that freedom of speech applies to speech they dislike.

[Martinned]

Really? That's your defence? Moving your mouth is not "doing something"?

[Don Nico]

C'mon Martin. You know that there is a difference.

[Nige]

It's a fairly common method for racism to be directed at its targets.

[Nige]

I didn’t say speech is violence. I said speech is ‘doing something’ as in ‘saying racist things to a person about their race,’ and it is not a particularly trivial thing for the person being subjected to the racism. Don't worry. These people are wealthy, upper class and royally connected, consequences will be minimal, support will be overwhelming and the person subjected to the racism will be singled out for abuse and dismissed as over-reacting.

[Voize]

Royalty (and the peerage to a lesser degree) matter today not because they have power but because they have influence. They are a species of institutional celebrity.
If Kanye held some official position of honor, you might expect officialdom to criticize or even disown him when he misbehaves.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I shocked a bunch of Americans"

Hero

[Martinned]

Interestingly, given our discussion about felony murder this week, it seems like the New York Times has made an utter hash of a series of pieces about the English law of Joint Criminal Enterprise, conspiracy, and Modern Slavery.

The right story is here: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/11/29/when-is-human-trafficking-not-human-trafficking-when-it-makes-a-good-story/

[Michael P]

Of course. It's Los Tiempos de Nueva York. https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2021/01/18/gell-mann-amnesia/

[John F. Carr]

A while back I complained about CVS mixing homeopathic products with real medicine. The response was of a libertarianish blog was predictable: greed is good, read and study all the fine print on every five dollar product you buy. The DC Court of Appeals is not libertarianish. The court ruled that CVS and Walmart can be sued for misleading consumers by acting as if water is medicine. https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Center%20for%20Inquiry%20v.%20Walmart%2020-CV-392.pdf

In the DC courts, a public interest organization does not need Article III standing to sue. It only needs to find a wrong to be righted and claim offense on behalf of consumers. The plaintiff's mission to "foster a society free of ... pseudoscience" is enough to get it into court.

The case is now past the motion to dismiss. It remains to be seen if the case will survive summary judgment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, I'd nail them to the wall. Homeopathy is straight up fraud.

[Martinned]

Well, let's go with clear labelling requirements: "This is a homeopathic product. It has no actual effect on anything." (Or, if applicable, "This product only contains water.")

[John F. Carr]

There is a requirement that the word "homeopathic" appear, but you're asking people to carefully read around the box looking for the magic word and then expecting them to understand that this thing that looks almost exactly like FDA-approved medicine is not medicine at all. Not even at the "traditional Chinese medicine" level of medicine. Some pre-scientific medicines work. A few years ago scientists found that an old European formula made an effective antibiotic.

The FDA also expects a disclaimer somewhere. Big print "cold and mucus!" Fine print "not intended to treat or cure any disease."

[Longtobefree]

Funny thing, a lot of FDA approved medicine is not medicine at all.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned — Please. Specially educated water.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whatever happened to the FDA?

That's what happened to Turpenhydrate -- an old fashioned but quite effective cough syrup that -- because it was generic -- no drug company was willing to pay to do the study showing it was effective.

Hence it got pulled off the market by the FDA.

[John F. Carr]

The FDA allows homeopathic products as long as they technically disclose their nature.

Personally, I would greatly weaken the FDA and in the process make homeopathic products governed exclusively by state law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"make homeopathic products governed exclusively by state law."

That'd be a freaking nightmare as most distributors and most retailers are now multi-state operations.

[John F. Carr]

You sell homeopathic products in Massachusetts, you have to comply with Massachusetts' consumer protection laws.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And no one would because of the extreme expense of segregating them from (and preventing them appearing in) stores in other states. Supply networks are *complicated*, often involving outside parties (e.g. C&S Wholesale Grocers) and Federal regulation (or at least interstate compact regulation) is a de-facto necessity.

[EscherEnigma]

I'm reminded of a certain case regarding chickens sold in California.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/egg-shortage-massachusetts-law-change-baker/

[Frank Drackman]

it was "Terpin Hydrate" worked great, especially the version with 30mg Codeine per tablespoon. You'd still cough but wouldn't care, actually the same mechanism by which opiates (and don't get me started on the opiates/opioids abuse(of the language, not the medicines) ease pain.

Frank "you'll feel a little prick"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Terpin Hydrate survived after the Codeine was removed (30 mg!?!) -- it was available well into the 1970s.

[Frank Drackman]

I was using it (for my cough! my cough!) into the 90's

[John F. Carr]

AP writes about trying to stop lava in Hawaii. Prayers? Bombs? Hawaii history shows stopping lava not easy

Prayer is the only thing that ever worked. More specifically, pagan prayer.

[Martinned]

It worked for rain in Texas, albeit with a 168 day delay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Prayer_for_Rain_in_the_State_of_Texas

[apedad]

Bombing might be a good idea.

I mean, Pres. Trump suggested nuking hurricanes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Back in the 1950s, before we were cognizant of fallout, I'm surprised that no one thought of trying that. Of course you'd never get the airplane out in time.

[Longtobefree]

I assume your doctorate is not in physics?

[Don Nico]

No, he claims he is a Doctor of Education just like Dr. Jill.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, air bursts using bombs designed to have low fallout aren't bad, the real problem is that the amount of energy a typical nuclear bomb delivers is tiny compared to what you find in a hurricane.

Sure, if you dropped one in just the right place at just the right time, you might be able to measurably alter the path of the storm, but it's computationally impossible to model the hurricane that precisely; A butterfly flapping its wings might have huge effects 6 months later, that doesn't mean you can predict how it needs to flap them to get the outcome you want.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: As I understand it, exploding a nuke underwater produces a lot of quite radioactive water which became a real problem when it fell on assorted Japanese/German ships during one of the tests. Memory is that it forced said ships to be scuttled.

There is low fallout from a nuke exploded in dry air -- but this isn't dry air and the water (much of it liquid, i.e. raindrops) in the clouds would be exposed to intense radiation. Become irradiated?

2: Water is a bent molecule and hence affected by electromagnetic charges (that's how a microwave oven works -- friction from the spinning water molecules).

Storms suck radio waves out of the air -- even humid weather does it -- and it's a real problem in the FM band. I presume that the problem is at least equally bad with shorter wavelengths.

So (in theory) the clouds would suck the EMP out of the air as well -- and unlike my 5 watt handheld, that's enough energy to have an effect on the clouds absorbing it. What are the consequences of the water vapor in the clouds being heated -- remember this would happen before the blast ever got there.

Hot air can hold more moisture so you would have hotter and drier air starting to rise when the rest of the blast arrived -- could the whole thing be funneled up and over? Once the wet but hot air got into the stratosphere, it would cool and fall off the far sides (like the mushroom cloud itself), and???

Of course, the real time to nuke hurricanes is when they are still thunderstorms coming off the coast of Africa.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Author John McPhee wrote a fascinating book called, The Control of Nature. It contains a series of essays describing various, and variously successful efforts to do remarkable feats of natural control. One of them described a major effort in Iceland to divert a massive lava flow, which did not succeed entirely, but did accomplish a great deal of what was intended. The key turned out to be availability of massive amounts of cold water, and a plan to freeze some of the lava to create a barrier to divert the rest.

[John F. Carr]

I'm sure I heard of the idea before Trump. It's not obvious how one might effectively nuke a hurricane so the idea would have been handed over to professionals.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There were a lot of crazy plans for nukes in the 1950s.

One such plan involved using nukes to dig a new (wider) Panama Canal. I believe that one went so far as to a test in the Nevada desert where the incredible amount of fallout produced indicated why this wasn't feasible.

There also was a proposal for an atomic rocket -- not space probes powered by radioactive sources producing electricity (which we do have) but propelled by repeated atomic explosions. This would allow very large space capsules -- the proposal was to have a barber's chair in it just because they could -- and I believe it was the test ban which killed this project.

And it was once proposed to make regular gasoline radioactive so that the oil company could catch dealers diluting premium with regular. And let's not forget the shoe-fitting fluoroscopes.

So nuking a hurricane would not surprise me.

[Nige]

They were thinking of using hydrogen bombs to launch rockets into orbit, but luckily they couldn't because of the treaties banning them.

[Frank Drackman]

They had Superman to reverse the rotation of the Earth.

[bernard11]

As I recall, we, or at least some of us, including children, were quite cognizant of fallout.

[Nige]

Luckily he setttled for using a sharpie instead.

[Don Nico]

What else would you expect from a person with a mental incapacity?

[Michael P]

If Democrats were actually serious about rejecting unfounded claims of election fraud and misconduct, they would have elected someone else as their next House Minority Leader.

[Martinned]

Please, go ahead, educate us. What is wrong with Mr. Jeffries? (Other than that it must be shocking to have a politician in a position of power who is younger than the retirement age.)

[Michael P]

According to Democrat Definitions(tm), he is a threat to democracy. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/patriotism-unity/hypocrisy-alert-democrats-just-chose-an-election-denier-as-pelosis-successor

[Sarcastr0]

2018 Twitter.

Good oppo dump.

Dude should disavow, IMO. Though I could also see the right move being to just let it die in the right-wing fever swamps.

And no, it's not hypocritical unless he starts talking some 2016 plays now. Or relitigating some 2022 losses. Because that is what would be equivalent to the GOP's shameful behavior at the moment.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's stupid. According to Democrat definitions, he can't be a threat to democracy, because he IS a Democrat. And "democracy" just means electing Democrats.

[Martinned]

Well, what it doesn't mean is bringing guns to a parliament building to "encourage" politicians to change the results of an election, in case you were confused about the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[Mr. Bumble]

When did that happen?

[Frank Drackman]

The Capitol Po-Po had lots of guns. Murdered an unarmed (Female) Veteran with one.

[Nelson]

Yup. That guy was the biggest hero of the day.

If Ashli Babbitt didn't want to get ventilated, she probably shouldn't have smashed her way into a secure building with armed defenders.

I am a proponent of restraint in the use of deadly force, but January 6th is a strong counterargument to that position.

America would be a slightly better place if more of the defenders had been less restrained.

[Frank Drackman]

so you're for shooting unarmed demonstrators as long as they're white Veterans! Good for you.

[Nelson]

If you smash your way into a building defended by armed law enforcement, it shouldn't be a surprise when you get killed.

I support restraint in the use of deadly force, but January 6th is a powerful counterargument. America would be a slightly better place if more of the rioters were given the mad dog treatment.

People who are "just demonstrators" don't break windows or smash doors to enter secure buildings. They don't try to force their way through barricaded doors into defended rooms and hallways. They don't assault law enforcement. They don't threaten to hang the Vice President. That is what Ashli Babbitt was doing when she got herself killed. It was entirely her own fault.

She wasn't "murdered" by any reasonable definition of the word. She got exactly what she asked for and exactly what she deserved.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, as usual you can't see your own side's issues at all.
The ones saying elections are illegitimate if their guys aren't elected are Republicans.

Nationwide. Federal and local. Happening *right now*.

[Michael P]

Yeah! It’s totally unfair to focus on what Democrats said last week or so, and for years before that — what’s important is that Republicans finally followed that bad example!

[Sarcastr0]

It's a fair oppo dump. Not a good look. It was also 4 years ago.

It is also not in any way equivalent to what the GOP is doing right now, today. And what Trump is already gesturing towards doing in 2024.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It’s a fair oppo dump."

Yeah, guys, don't you get it? When the Dems do it, pointing it out is an oppo dump. And when the Republicans do it, it's a threat to Democracy.

[Sarcastr0]

As I explained twice above, the statement here is not equivalent to what the Republicans are doing now.

1) It is well in the past. Republicans are doing that now. 2) There is no indications any actions will be taken or have been taken by the Democrats of the House pursuant to said statement. 3) There is no indication of any future plans to disrupt federal or state elections by Dems. Republicans, up to and including Trump, are doing that as well.

Not saying the statement was cool and good, but any attempt to pretend it’s equivalent to what the GOP is doing right now requires deemphasizing what the GOP is doing and massively exaggerating what this guy’s tweets do.

[Michael P]

"During the last presidency" is not "well in the past". You know that.

What is more relevant: Democrats just elected this guy to lead them in the House.

What is more relevant: Unlike 2016, multiple states -- more than enough to have changed the results of the presidential election -- used illegal voting procedures. Wisconsin: https://www.westernjournal.com/judge-deems-wi-election-commissions-2020-election-behavior-unlawful-drop-boxes-illegal/
Pennsylvania: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/pennsylvania-court-tosses-state-s-mail-voting-law-n1288170

[Michael P]

Pennsylvania again: https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/08/setting-election-laws-belongs-to-pennsylvanias-legislature-not-its-courts/

New York: https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-judge-rules-voting-mail-covid-fears-unconstitutional

Georgia and Arizona were in on the "fun" as well.

[Nelson]

Wait, was the problem that there were millions of fraudulent votes cast by dead people?

Or was it that legal voters expressed their preference by the rules that were in place at the time but, due to a ruling on a technicality delivered after the election was over, those legal voters should have voted a different way?

The first version is not true. The second version isn't claiming that there were more votes for Democrats, it's claiming that because they followed the rules in place when they voted, their votes shouldn't count.

So the question you need to ask yourself is this: Are you an advocate for disproven conspiracy theories or are you just hostile to the will of the people?

Either way, it's not good.

[Frank Drackman]

and the new House Minority Minority Leader Mullah Hakeem "The Bad Dream" Jefferson, who denied the erection of "45" in 0-16

[Martinned]

Ahem. I know you saw what I said earlier about racism.

[Frank Drackman]

it's not all about you, in fact, none of it's about you

[bevis the lumberjack]

The guys saying elections are valid unless their side wins appears to be everyone.

It doesn’t have to be equivalent to 1/6 to be an attempt to reduce confidence in elections or to delegitimize a legally elected person.

[bernard11]

The guys saying elections are valid unless their side wins appears to be everyone.

Bullshit, Bevis.

You are taking one example and some grumbling and claiming it's equivalent to GOP-wide nonsense, lies, lawsuits, etc. about 2020.

Stop being so damn balance-obsessed, and learn to make distinctions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

One example? The Dems have been saying elections they lose are invalid for years. Lots of folks, including Hillary, said it about the 2016 election, Stacy Abrams said it about her election, pretty much every Dem said it about Bush v Gore, etc.

[bernard11]

There were no claims of election fraud in 2000. Ther were complaints about the SCOTUS ruling, but it was accepted graciously by Gore, who conceded immediately.

Clinton also conceded immediately, though yeah, she grumbled a bit, as did Abrams, later.

There is no equivalence between that and Trump's campaign of lies, which the GOP supports.

And three examples, pathetically weak as they are, are not "the Dems."
STFU with your nonsense.

[Michael P]

Hurrrrrrr durrrrr Gorrrr litigated until he was shut down -- but he still "graciously" "conceded immediately".

Abrams did not "grumble a bit". She repeatedly insisted she was Georgia's true governor.

Your double standards are amazing.

[bernard11]

When did she try to get vote counts changed? How many lawsuits did she file?

[Sarcastr0]

You equate sour grapes alongside concessions, following procedures, and respect for the democratic process with GOP's active attempts to call every election they don't like illegitimate.

No equivalence. And you should be ashamed for pretending that there is, if you care about our democracy.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You keep using the word equate when nobody is equating anything.

Murder is worse than rape, but that doesn’t make rape a positive act. Or even a neutral one.

[bernard11]

You keep using the word equate when nobody is equating anything.

Equating is exactly what you are doing.

The guys saying elections are valid unless their side wins appears to be everyone.

Sounds like equating to me.

You're basically saying Hillary's mutterings on a TV show are just the same as Trump's fierce campaign of lies, which most of the GOP signs on to.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard you’re playing bullshit games.

Sarcastro said that someone (not me) was equating 1/6 and election denial from the left. I said they aren’t equal, but both are bad. You’re smart enough to comprehend that but would rather put different words in my mouth and then argue with what you said I said.

Saying “they aren’t equal” is the opposite of equating. I even used the murder/rape example to demonstrate both bad one worse.

You’re not even trying honest discussion. I just made the point a paragraph up more explicitly. Wanna address what I said or are you claiming that election denial from the left isn’t bad.

[Don Nico]

My idea of an invalid election was this year's mayoral election in Oakland.
Voting totals were announce every day for nearly three weeks of counting AND 9 rounds of ranked-choice voting. Would could not imagine a more convoluted, non-transparent process. The excuses: nearly 100% mail-in ballots and 10 level ranked-choice voting

[David Nieporent]

Hillary. Conceded. In. 2016. Immediately.

Don't know how many more times that needs to be explained to you people. Whining is not a good look, but it is not the same thing as refusing to accept the outcome.

None of the people you name covered themselves with glory, but not one of them did anything other than whine. None of them filed frivolous lawsuits, tried to pressure election officials into manufacturing fake votes, tried to pressure legislators into throwing out the election results and declaring themselves or their preferred candidate the winner, actually forged ballots, tried to pressure the vote counter to count forged ballots instead of the official ones, or told a mob of people to fight to prevent the election from being "stolen."

[bevis the lumberjack]

David, she conceded immediately and spent the intervening time saying that Trump was an illegitimate president. If that’s not election denial, what is it?

[Sarcastr0]

Intervening time until when? You're not even telling a coherent story here.

[Nelson]

"The Dems have been saying elections they lose are invalid for years."

And? When they lose their challenge, does the party spend the next two-plus years continuing to claim that the election was stolen? Two years later did a sizable percentage of Democrats believe that the election was stolen? I believe it is, finally, below 50% for GOP denialism. Democrats didn't even have over 50% of their party believing the 2016 election was stolen two weeks after the election, never mknd two years.

When all you have are false equivalence and hyperbole, you left credibility behind long ago.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard, it’s a lot more than one. HRC herself. Abrams? The Dems have filed things in congress after every election they lost claiming problems. It was an article of faith across the entire party that Trump was “illegitimate”. Take your partisan blinders off.

[Sarcastr0]

The Dems have filed things in congress

See right there is a pretty big way to distinguish Dems from Republicans.

[bevis the lumberjack]

So the Dems were encouraging acceptance of the results of elections and agreeing that the declared winner actually won? Is that what they were doing.

Again, the difference between you and me. I criticize whichever side is misbehaving and you criticize one and defend the other. That pisses off you and (I guess) bernard and that idiot nige.

By blessing poor behavior by one side, y’all (and your conservative doppelgängers) are the problem with our political system. You’re enabling the bullshit. Yell at me all you want but it won’t change that fact b

[bernard11]

So the Dems were encouraging acceptance of the results of elections and agreeing that the declared winner actually won? Is that what they were doing.

Most of them accepted the results and, most importantly, the candidates themselves did. For the umpteenth time, both Gore and Clinton conceded immediately. No baseless lawsuits. No fake electors, no calling for storming the Capitol, no tries to change the count in a key state.

You're the one who's blind, Bevis. You like to think of yourself as nonpartisan, but whether you admit ot or not you have your own very strong biases.

Again, the difference between you and me. I criticize whichever side is misbehaving and you criticize one and defend the other. That pisses off you and (I guess) bernard and that idiot nige.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I didn’t bring up Gore, so that’s not on me. Gore had a legitimate issue to litigate.

It would help if you could quit arguing with things that I didn’t say.

Bias to what, bernard. Trump, about whom I’ve said he’s not fit to be president? The Republicans, who I’ve called a personality cult and said they don’t have a platform beyond “Trump wuz robbed”? Is my bias toward them?

Quit projecting your way of thinking on to me. You rip one team’s bad behavior and defend the other’s. I criticize bad behavior wherever it is. And then you call me biased. Look in the goddamn mirror.

[bernard11]

Bevis,

I think your bias is to be nonpartisan to the point that you sometimes fail to make distinctions.

Nothing, and I repeat, nothing, Gore, Clinton, or Abrams said or did remotely approaches Trump's Big Lie campaign, either in its scope or in its consequences. It's a comparison between overtime parking and murder.

Yet, somehow, criticizing Trump is illegitimate partisanship unless I also list every complaint a losing Democrat made about an election.

That's the impression I have of your comments. Maybe I misinterpreted.

[Frank Drackman]

his lamestream liberal views, Black Supremercism, and Moose-lum sympathies to start, and did I tell you he's a (Black) Erection denier??

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P — Uncertain how serious the Biden administration is about election fraud and misconduct? Keep your eye on Jack Smith.

[Frank Drackman]

the Hunter Biden double?? Something tells me he won't be indicting any "D"s (what Deeze???)

Frank "Deeze D's"

[Nige]

Why would anyone take unfounded claims of election fraud seriously?

[Ben_]

"If Democrats were actually serious about rejecting unfounded claims of election fraud and misconduct, they would have elected someone else as their next House Minority Leader."

But, as always, they only pretend to believe in principles in order to launch attacks against others for not living up to pretend principles.

[dwb68]

From this nov 29th WSJ:

Kremlin Adds Kalashnikovs to school curriculum.
"The country’s Education and Defense Ministries have also signed off on a new basic military and naval training program to begin during the next school year for children from the age of 11. Students in the 10th and 11th grades, aged 16 and older, will receive more advanced instruction, including how to handle a Kalashnikov assault rifle and use hand grenades"

If Russia invades, can they start in Commiefornia?

[Martinned]

Horeshoe theory: guns version

[Dr. Ed 2]

Putin is looking at some very serious problems and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[John F. Carr]

If Republicans win big in 2024, they could require gun classes in any secondary school system receiving federal funds.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That would not be a bad idea -- a mandatory gun safety class.
We used to teach this in public schools...

[Nige]

They have them now too, lots of gun safety drills in schools these days.

[John F. Carr]

I got to ask a high school student, "I heard you had a school shooting. How was it?"

The teachers wanted students to wait quietly to be shot. The students were talking about what to throw at a shooter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I like to remind people that everyone who followed the rules at Virginia Tech died -- and those who broke them either lived or enabled others to live.

[Nige]

In fairness it takes a few school shootings to work out how best not to die during one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I honestly wonder how many school shooters are being created by these drills.

There always are (and always have been) unbalanced children, but BC (Before Columbine), we didn't have this problem. And now we do.

[Nige]

Going to go out on a limb and say none. We have school shootings because guns.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I suppose they could do a lot of things. It seems pretty unlikely that that would be one of them, though.

[EscherEnigma]

Texas or Florida could do it next legislative session if they wanted.

[Nelson]

"If Russia invades, can they start in Commiefornia?"

They can't even win a war with Ukraine. They wouldn't even be able to win a war with Wyoming, which is mostly empty land and strip mines. A couple of ranchers with bolt-action rifles could probably whip the entire Red Army ... uh, I mean Russian Special Military Force and Cross-Country Running (Away) Team.

[Sarcastr0]

Elite Conservatives Have Taken an Awfully Weird Turn
https://newrepublic.com/article/169050/masters-vance-weird-right-republicans

a party fixated on genital sunning, seed oils, Catholic integralism, European aristocracy, and occultism can alienate voters not because of its positions but because of how it presents them—and itself. Among the right’s intellectual avant garde and media elites, there is a growing adoption of habits, aesthetics, and views that are not only out of step with America’s but are deliberately cultivated in opposition to a national majority that the new right holds in contempt.
...

John Gibbs, a Republican nominee for a Michigan swing seat, founded a think tank that argued for overturning the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. The country, he said, had “suffered” from women’s suffrage. He narrowly lost his bid.
...
The claims are varied and, to differing degrees, absurd: Real men don’t eat soybeans; seed oils are dangerous; meat substitutes will turn men into women and also are made from bugs (they aren’t); the best diet is all-meat. This is no mere online phenomenon: Representative Robbie Jackson of Texas has stated that if one eats artificially cultured meat, “you’ll turn into a SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT.”

[Michael P]

The party whose elected members have publicly worried about whether Guam will flip over, whether stores carry too many choices of deodorant, called the President "the Grand Wizard of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue", and asserted the immorality of any economic "system that allows billionaires to exist", is Very Concerned about the views of various, largely fringe, GOP candidates.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure you understand the article.

It isn't about saying dumb stuff about politics.

[Michael P]

I understand it better than you, apparently. It's a lazy hit piece that cherry-picks dumb things said by fringe members and tries to paint them as representative.

The difference is that -- except for the timeless Hank Johnson -- the crazy claims I cited are by people who are either literally leaders, or treated as thought leaders, among Democrats.

[Sarcastr0]

I see you've changed goalposts away from pointing left. Good for you!

As to your cherry picking accusation, you can't be statistical here, but their examples come from like Tucker Carlson, and a number of 2022 GOP chosen federal candidates.

Hardly fringe.

[Michael P]

Compared to someone who was almost nominated as a presidential candidate, or the incoming House Minority Leader? They're fringe.

Now open: Sarcastr0's Drive In! The biggest projection to be found anywhere around!

[Sarcastr0]

Again pointing left about political stuff.

You're backsliding.

Lets refocus on the thesis: "habits, aesthetics, and views that are...deliberately cultivated in opposition to a national majority that the new right holds in contempt."

In that realm, the left's got like pussy hats, protests, and cringy kneeling. The right has got weirdness.

[Michael P]

The left also has institutional racism, child grooming, baby killing, rioting and looting (by proxy), and totalitarianism. But sure, we should be Very Concerned about what some fringe politician thinks about anal tanning!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you've got nothing but partisan wanking left. Not that you had much of an argument to begin with.

Sad.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0's Drive-In, now with an even bigger screen for more projection.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Grooming”. Yeesh.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a case for repealing the 19th Amendment -- back then, women met and decided whom their husbands would vote for. (Remember that there was no secret ballot at the time.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Predictably, neither of your historical claims is true, but even if they were, why would that be a basis to repeal the 19th amendment?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you are serious and not just being an a-hole, you might want to look at some of the 17th and 18th Century Massachusetts town meetings and the votes to retain or fire the municipal minister. (Prior to 1855, each Massachusetts town had to hire and house a municipal minister.)

The women would meet after church and decide the minister's fate -- and then tell their husbands how to vote. And even if they weren't sitting next to him when he did, one of their friends would tell them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Again, granting your dubious premise, what does that have to do with either the enactment of the 19th amendment (which was ratified in 1920), and how does it support a "case" for repealing it today/

[John F. Carr]

Women are too liberal but I think it's too late to repeal the 19th Amendment. You'd have to let women vote on repeal.

[Bob from Ohio]

"John Gibbs"

An elite conservative?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The concept of "rule of law" is breaking down in America. Increasingly the actual text of the law is irrelevant -- authorities do whatever they want and judges ignore the law as well.

[Ed Grinberg]

We're living in anarcho-tyranny.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A question inspired by the annual health insurance review which seniors use to try to keep track of Medicare changes to their private insurance policies. To answer this one needs deep inside knowledge at the intersection of actuarial practice and pricing policy. If you want to speculate, go ahead, but please note whether or not you qualify as an insurance company pricing analyst.

The question is about practical effects created by health care insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. I don't need explanation of how they work at the level of day-to-day user experience. I understand the rules and the differences. What I want is a general explanation of how providers structure those various kinds of payments to work together to maximize returns for the insurance company.

This year, both my wife and I had opportunity to switch to a new-to-the-market insurance provider, invented by the hospital group which provides the bulk of our typically excellent care. The new plan made available the possibility of dental insurance and vision care, using a policy which featured a lower premium cost than we have been paying. After study, it turned out we both had to forego the new plan. It was a disappointment.

Problem was, each of us has a particular medical need—unrelated to dental or vision—which our existing coverage pays for without excessive deductibles, and no co-pays. The new plan, because of deductibles and co-pays, made it uneconomic, even with lower premiums, to get those indispensable customary treatments. So no dental and routine vision care insurance for us.

While considering how that turned out, it dawned on me that the premium pricing (with Medicare's contribution figured in) looks predicated on coverage for notably more medical care than most clients will need. (I get why that ought to be obvious.) For those, who do not much suffer co-pay and deductible exactions—because they access less care which occasions them—a policy which enables dental and version services is a big plus, and apparently affordable for the insurer from premium payments. But for others (like us), who cost the insurance provider more for specific recurrent medical needs, added co-pays and deductibles seem to create a price structure that rules out access to the dental and vision benefits, or potentially to other benefits.

Considered generally, it looks like a clever pricing strategy. It puts a practical ceiling on benefits to particular insured clients, especially those with more complicated medical needs. Those confront a pricing structure to make it impossible to take advantage of advertised services which would otherwise increase insurance company costs to treat them still more. Others who are more medically fortunate get to use more kinds of services, and those can be advertised to recruit more customers of the sort the insurance company does better with.

In short, it looks like unacknowledged rationed care, administered by private insurers on a case-by-case basis, but by clever pricing policy instead of forthright express limits. With all that reviewed and approved by government, of course, to develop and apply rules which create remarkable uniformity among the offerings among different insurance providers.

I do not know enough to guess whether I am right or wrong about those speculations. Expert insight to fill me in would be a help.

I should note that this is only secondarily a complaint. Medicare has been a godsend for our family. Previously, before we were Medicare eligible, we struggled in the hell created by small-group employer plans.

[Michael P]

An understanding of what rationing is and is not may help dispel part of your confusion: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rationing.asp

Choosing not to buy something that is offered on the market is not "rationed care".

[M L]

My Lamborghini ration is a bit meager this year.

[apedad]

Looks like Sen. Raphael Warnock will win the runoff election in GA.

You know who the biggest loser will be: Sen. Joe Manchin (WV).

With a 51 Dem majority, even if he votes against the party, the Dems will still be able to pass bills (at least in the Senate).

[Moderation4ever]

You need 60 votes in the Senate for most, not all legislation so 51 is not as big an advantage as it might seem.

With Republican control of the House, the Senate situation changes in a number of ways. There is no need to change the filibuster because any bills that can pass the House will likely also have Republican Senate support.

I think Warnock will win and his win will have a minimal effect on Senate operations. It should however convince Republicans they need to better vet candidates.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a pretty big advantage for nominations, though, since Reid nuked the filibuster for those. How else are you going to get cross dressing criminals confirmed to important posts?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can't believe that Warnock is a viable candidate with his background.

[bernard11]

But you have no problem with Herschel Walker?

You're a joke.

[Frank Drackman]

Like your penis,
Let me know when they find where #34 (we don't call him by that other name in Jaw Jaw) worked for an Anti-semitic Black Moose-lum. At least #34 can blame his shortcomings on TBI (4000+ carries in College/Pro career), what's Warlocks excuse?

[Mr. Bumble]

In the alternative, if Walker pulls out a win what are the chances of Manchin switching parties or going Independent an caucusing with the Republicans?

[Frank Drackman]

100% I'd tell him to go jump in the effin Potomac from his effin Boat.
I like Semen-a though, especially if she'd make out, I mean up with AOC and MTG.

[Michael D]

I cannot believe he has not already gone independent. I am not sure about join the GOP.

[OtisAH]

Kirsten Sinema.

[Mr. Bumble]

Haven't heard much about her lately.

[OtisAH]

She still exists, is still listed as a democrat, and is still in the senate.

[Frank Drackman]

and he can work with President Hillary Rodman and Speaker Pelosi,
I wouldn't count "#34" (we don't call him by that "Other" name in Jaw-Kaw) out until the whistle blows ((real, i.e. American Football) metaphor)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Warnock winning was already determined by the vote counters.

This is just theater to dupe the people.

[OtisAH]

This has got to be the funniest goddamn thing I’ve ever read here. And I’ve read years of Brett Bellmore.

[Longtobefree]

Not to mention revenue generation for advertising companies - - - - - -

I had the misfortune to be in GA during Thanksgiving; damn near shot the TV because of the ads.

[wolfefan]

Hi Brett! I remember scrapple very well. My mom was Pa. Dutch, and when we visited my grandparents near Lebanon scrapple was a breakfast staple.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mom learned to make it during the Great Depression. Didn't make it often, but I always enjoyed it when she did.

I make mine rather sage heavy, the way I like it, since nobody else is going to be eating it anyway.

[Mr. Bumble]

When will you be posting your Christmas menu?

[Brett Bellmore]

In a couple weeks. Probably be roasting a spatchcocked duck after some sou vide time. Seems to be the way to go for crisp skin and everything well cooked but not dry.

[Brett Bellmore]

My son is lobbying for Beef Wellington, though. But the ducks we already have.

[Jmaie]

Are you sous-viding the entire duck before roasting? You must like the breast meat well done.

If you want the skin crispy, try deep frying…

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, here's the thing: With sou vide, you can cook the entire duck to medium rare, while cooking it long enough to get the legs tender. Then just throw it in a high oven long enough to make the skin crisp.

Here's the recipe.

I mean, I like duck breast rare better than well done, but a rare duck leg that hasn't been cooking for hours is more of a chew toy than a meal, even if it does have crispy skin. With sou vide you can get the leg tender without turning the breast into cardboard.

[bernard11]

Looks great, Brett.

[Jmaie]

How long at what temp? I've never tried it with duck, with chicken I couldn't get the texture right. I like chicken breast at 150F so that means a long cook at 140-145F plus oven time. At that temp, if cooked long enough to get the leg meat tender the breast meat went mushy. With duck the spread between desirable breast and leg temp is even larger, which would seemingly exacerbate the problem.

[Commenter_XY]

Scrapple.....Ugh! Nasty-assed stuff to eat. Yuck! 🙂

[John F. Carr]

Democrats finally have Trump's tax returns, two years after the New York Times. What will they do in the month they have to exploit the most important documents in the history of the United States?

[Mr. Bumble]

Leak them to the press.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably already did, they were just waiting on a plausible path for having gotten them that didn't criminally implicate somebody at the IRS.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, probably…

[Sarcastr0]

And if they don't, well, that's just more proof Trump is innocent!

Love those closed loops.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't particularly love the way you relentlessly insist we learn nothing from the past. The IRS targeting scandal, for instance.

[Sarcastr0]

I like how your take is independent of what actually happens.

Citing previous right-wing persecution narratives that have become conventional wisdom irrespective of the actual facts in order to create a new right-wing persecution narrative irrespective of the facts.

This is not a healthy cycle.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Wait…..didn’t Lerner publicly apologize for targeting conservative groups? And ultimately resign?

This - to you - is a “right wing conspiracy narrative”? She admitted it was true. I don’t think that Brett is the one ignoring facts. Not in this case anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

Rather than political statements taken as factual ones, I recommend you check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy#Controversial_intensive_scrutiny_of_political_groups

Evidence is...decidedly equivocal on conservative targeting.

[Bob from Ohio]

Wikipedia is useless on anything politically controversial, as you well know.

[Sarcastr0]

Wikipedia links to sources.

[Life of Brian]

Sources curated by the editors and thus subject to their biases.

[Sarcastr0]

Reality is objective, LoB. Your reality is not different than mine because of your biases. These sources are citing facts.

Second, I take it you didn’t read the entry, LoB. Because it has plenty of conservative opinions in it.

[Life of Brian]

Reality is objective, LoB. Your reality is not different than mine because of your biases. These sources are citing facts.

My point, of course, was that you can tell diametrically different stories by the facts you choose to include or omit. Your post is actually a perfect example of that.

[Sarcastr0]

My point is you need to meet your burden rather than blindly ad homineming.

[Life of Brian]

You have a weird worldview on burdens. I wasn't the one that took the facially ridiculous position that Wikipedia is an authoritative fount of truth because it... wait for it... links to sources.

[Sarcastr0]

You, without reading the wikipedia article, are discarding it by deciding it is selectively including sources to cause a false narrative.

That is some sophomoric analysis. That same logic discards ever source ever.

I see it in shallow zealots of both left and right - all media is biased; we can't tell who is biased, so I'm above trusting it all! (And then they always trust some heterodox source).

Next time you want to argue something is disingenuously incomplete, bring in actual stuff you think is left out.

Hand-waiving won't get you anywhere except, apparently, make you feel righteous as you preemptively curate your reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

Geeze, Sarcastro, even Wikipedia admits that the right-wing groups got different treatment than the left-wing. It's like you didn't even bother reading it. The right-wing organizations spent long periods in limbo, neither approved nor denied, the left-wing got fairly fast final decisions.

Notably, the left-wing keywords were noted to be problematic, the right-wing automatically triggered a process where the applications were diverted to higher ups for special treatment.

There were also changes to the list after the IRs became aware they weren't going to be able to conceal what they were doing. Though they sure destroyed enough hard drives trying to.

I'm sure you'll say that destruction of evidence is typical behavior for an innocent agency, though.

[Sarcastr0]

It's really telling you read what they say and find it pure support for targeting conservative groups.

Did you keep reading?

Ryan Chittum of the Columbia Journalism Review reported in 2011 that a number of non-profit news organizations saw their applications delayed for years after being flagged for additional review.
In 2013, Chittum linked that scrutiny to the investigation, reporting that non-profit news organizations and Tea Party groups were placed in the same "Emerging Issues" category by IRS reviewers, which was a category flagged for additional questioning. He stated that "Rather than the Nixonian conspiracy that George Will and The Wall Street Journal editorial page so darkly warned about—with zero evidence—you have a routine bureaucratic procedure meant to bundle potentially problematic applicants together for further review."
...
An investigation by The New York Times reported that several organizations selected for scrutiny by the IRS engaged in activities that could be construed as political. The Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application was delayed in excess of two years, sent emails to their members regarding Mitt Romney presidential campaign events and handed out Romney "door hangers" while canvassing neighborhoods. Former IRS officials and tax experts say this type of behavior would provide a "legitimate basis" for additional scrutiny. Ohio State University law professor Donald Tobin said: "While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked."

This is alongside other investigations that found targeting occurred and was illegitimate! But for you to find 'even wikipedia' and then see pure support for your position? That's Brett being Brett, and nothing more.

[Ed Grinberg]

"Memory is the greatest enemy of the Left." (Dennis Prager)

[bernard11]

Dennis Prager is an imbecile.

Remember when he purposely got Covid, so he wouldn't get Covid?

[Brett Bellmore]

That was absolutely a thing with Chickenpox, when I was a kid. But that was because Chickenpox was generally pretty mild if you got it as a kid, and life threatening if you got it as an adult. So, better to get it out of the way.

Actually seems to work somewhat like that with Covid, but Prager is far to old for the reasoning to have applied.

[Nige]

It doesn't work like that with Covid at all, there are too many variants for anyone to acquire immunity and long covid is extremely shitty.

[Brett Bellmore]

While getting one strain of Covid won't outright prevent you from getting another, it apparently does almost guarantee that subsequent cases will be mild.

[Nige]

Often milder, not always, but increases chances of long covid.

[bernard11]

Even if that were true, it's still complete idiocy.

You are saying that after the first case, subsequent ones are mild. But so what? Why hurry to get the first case, so any later ones are mild, when you could just wait. Maybe you won't get it at all, and if you do you are no worse off.

Sorry, Prager is an idiot, and not just because of that.

[M L]

Innocent? Everyone knows Trump is guilty of criminal tax evasion. The IRS just hasn't done anything about it during many years of audits because all those federal bureaucrats are on Trump's side politically.

[bernard11]

Now that the audit is over I presume Trump won't mind. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

Great, so in January, the Repubiclowns can get Hunter Biden's returns. Love to see his "deductions"

[Martinned]

I'd rather that they do that than something that might actually harm the country and/or the world.

[Frank Drackman]

I actually agree. Since we can't legally hang all of them, and Jay-Hay's terrible swift sword seems to be in the shop, next best thing is they just collect paychecks.

[OtisAH]

I love how you idiots act like that’s a threat.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who really believes some Democrat at the IRS hadn't already turned them over?

This was just theater, an act they had to close before the next Congress.

[Bored Lawyer]

"the most important documents in the history of the United States"

Hard to know where satire ends and stupidity begins.

[Longtobefree]

"Hard to know where satire ends and stupidity begins."

There is probably a doctoral thesis in there somewhere - - - - - -

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" What will they do in the month they have "

That seems wishful thinking. The clingers won't have control of the Justice Department, the Senate, or relevant local law enforcement authorities during the foreseeable future.

[Frank Drackman]

Plenty of time for you to get your Pardon "Package" (Pardon might be a bridge too far Jerry, try for the Commutation first) in Jerry!

[Michael D]

I am sorry but those documents do not represent the “most important” in US history. They probably represent nothing of consequence.

[John F. Carr]

Judging by all the fighting over them, and all the predictions that the tax returns will lead to Trump's downfall, they must be very important.

Seriously, I don't think they are entirely without consequence. The New York Times reports on Trump's finances had some results. The hype was Trump derangement syndrome.

[Ben_]

The walls are closing in on Trump.

No one posted it yet this week, so here you go. Trump will be arrested any minute now.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You joke,buy we all know he's done for. The Federals will never let that man rest and they have all the institutional power.

[Ben_]

The weekly fantasy posts about Trump getting arrested any minute now are, nevertheless, ridiculous.

[Sarcastr0]

not guilty is overly optimistic, but no one much gainsays him on his legal analysis.

[Ben_]

legal analysis says ham sandwich can be indicted

[Sarcastr0]

I can tell you don't read his posts. Indictment isn't really what he's talking about.

[Ben_]

Obsessed rambling repeated week after week after week? Of course I didn't read it.

[Sarcastr0]

Whether I agree with your take on him or not, next time at least say that, rather than pretending you did up above to argue with me.

Difference between you and me.
Hunter Biden goes to jail? Fine. It's a political investigation, but failson pretty clearly isn't Mr. law abiding.

Anyone who has ever supported Trump being investigated? You cry it's all fake news and they're innocent.

[Ben_]

"Anyone who has ever supported Trump being investigated? You cry it’s all fake news and they’re innocent."

Just because many, many of them are innocent doesn't always mean "all" are. But congratulations on your defeat of strawmen.

[Sarcastr0]

I've never seen you fail to go to bat for anyone in Trump's orbit.

[Ben_]

You haven’t kept track

[Michael P]

Right. Indictment in the District of Corruption (or Communism) is.

[not guilty]

I expect Donald Trump to be indicted at some point, both in Fulton County, Georgia and in D.C. When that will occur is impossible to predict.

Trump's astounding admission that he "openly and transparently" moved government records from the White House to Mar-a-Lago makes it easier for the government to prove his culpable mental state under 18 U.S.C. § 2071. Trump would be wise to heed Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes: stop digging.

[Ben_]

Walls closing in

[Frank Drackman]

Molly Ivins??? way to go back to the Grooveyard (literally) of mediocre pundits, she'd have been more readable if she'd drank before writing.

[Martinned]

Also amusing: QAnon Leader Inadvertently Outs Himself as a Groomer

new court records reveal that QAnon leader Phil Godlewski has a criminal past of his own involving an inappropriate relationship with a minor that police records suggest turned sexual.

Thanks to an ill-conceived defamation lawsuit against a local newspaper, Godlewski has put his conspiracy-theory career at risk by inadvertently prompting the release of more details regarding his case, including lurid text messages and a video of his erect penis.

[Frank Drackman]

well yeah, who would send video of a flaccid penis?

[Martinned]

Someone who is impotent and trying to get his doctor to prescribe him viagra?

[M L]

The CIA agent who created QAnon has surely received several well-deserved promotions.

[Martinned]

Ooh! A conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories!

[M L]

Well whoever "Q" is, they apparently stopped posting in Dec 2020, but recently started up again earlier this year.

It's not really a "conspiracy theory" to speculate about who "Q" is.

What do you think?

One thing that seems like it should be relatively certain, is that the NSA and other intelligence agencies are not in the dark about just who is posting on some message board.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe they ignored the warrant process despite the utter lack of a crime in posting cryptic conspiracizing. You have no proof of that other than 'c'maaan.'

Your speculation on that front will never get you to QAnon is a CIA op.

[M L]

No, it should be self-evident that intelligence agencies would know who Q is at this point. It's of course a massive national security concern, you don't need a warrant for "unmasking" and such, and a warrant is easily justifiable anyway, I mean this is insurrection and sedition and foreign interference we are talking about.

Of course none of that establishes who "Q" is, unlike the moron below posits, it's not established. From day one though, it resembles typical intelligence games or other LARPing games, an effort to trick people for business and pleasure, and maybe catch some people willing to be bad guys. Anyway, highly likely that intelligence agencies have involved themselves in some way. I mean isn't it just recently revealed that they are involved at the highest levels of Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, J6, the Whitmer kidnapping plot, etc . . . I can't think of more things like this right now? Go back to Black Panthers in the 60s, any many other examples, it's the same stuff for 70 years, probably longer. But "sure, they did bogus stuff in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, but now it's totes different!" is some kind of position you can go with.

[Sarcastr0]

Something tells me you think a lot of things are self-evident that the vast majority of other people think is evidently bullshit.

[M L]

Don't you think it is self-evident that "Q" is bullshit, that they were never what they purported to be, a real insider with access to intelligence that was posting real, truthful information? A fantasy you might call it. Just as self-evident that intelligence knows who they are, unless you think they are a super genius hacker that evades the NSA. And the idea they wouldn't involve themselves borders on fantasy as well.

[Nige]

Qanon might be a concern because they're extremists and extremists can be dangerous, but the idea that Q was an insider with access to intelligence is a fantasy.

[Nige]

The identity of Q seems reasonably well established, it’s the desperate attempt to paint it as a CIA psyop rather than an embarrasingly demented cult of Trump that has lost energy and is reduced to chasing its own tail while everyone else has moved on to more politically respectable tactics like attacking trans people and calling gay people groomers and claiming the election was stolen that gives this a Peoples’ Front Of Judea looking down on the Popular Peoples’ Front Of Judea feel.

[Martinned]

Less amusing: The biggest news of the day (probably) just broke. South African President Ramaphosa is about to resign.

Ramaphosa has run out of options after a Section 89 panel, headed by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found that he may have violated the Constitution and anti-corruption laws in his Phala Phala game farm dealings. (...)
Ramaphosa himself has been mired in a credibility crisis since the country's former spy boss, Arthur Fraser, opened a criminal case against the president for a burglary of millions of rands that happened at Ramaphosa's Phala Phala game farm in early 2020.

Ramaphosa was accused of covering up the source of the money, allegedly stashed in furniture, and of thwarting a proper police investigation into the case.

The Ngcobo report confirmed the suspicions and found Ramaphosa had to answer the case for possible impeachment.

[Mr. Bumble]

Substitute Biden's name and you'd have the biggest story.

[Martinned]

Myopia, it's a dangerous drug...

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow, deep thoughts from the Dutchman.

[Sarcastr0]

's nothing. I remember when the right memed Obama onto every pop culture item there was.
Hero, villain, whatever, his face was on it.

Now they photoshop Trump onto supervillains mostly.

No one much gets obsessed with Biden enough to start projecting him onto random stuff like that. OP excepted, of course.

[shawn_dude]

There is the whole "Dark Brandon" meme which backfired and ended up making Biden look more like a cool, badass grandpa.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh yeah...haven't seen that one for a while, but that was a wild week or 2.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Myopia"

You are posting on a US web site. About 3 Americans outside DC know Ramaphosa's name. He's going to be replaced by some other unknown. Nobody cares if he resigns and its impact here is zero.

[Martinned]

About 3 Americans outside DC know Ramaphosa’s name. He’s going to be replaced by some other unknown. Nobody cares if he resigns and its impact here is zero.

Yes, that's what I meant by myopia.

[Bob from Ohio]

But its not "dangerous". The dude has no impact on any American life.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ooh, an African political leader was acting in a corrupt fashion.

In other shocking news, a dog was seen barking at a mailman today…….

[Bob from Ohio]

"biggest news of the day (probably)"

LOL

[Martinned]

Well, there's still time for someone to launch a coup d'etat against Putin, for example. But the President of a G20 country resigning is pretty big news, as far as breaking news stories go.

(Although he hasn't technically resigned yet.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"President of a G20 country resigning is pretty big news"

In fact its not.

[Mr. Bumble]

Biggest news of the day to Dutch farmers:
The Dutch government is planning to buy and close down up to 3,000 farms near environmentally sensitive areas to be in compliance with EU environmental rules.
***
The government will conduct a “compulsory purchase” of large nitrogen emitters as part of a voluntary, one-time offer, announced Nitrogen Minister Christianne van der Wal….

Nothing like a voluntary "compulsory purchase".

[Commenter_XY]

And what happens when the farmers 'refuse' such a 'generous' offer from the government to confiscate purchase their property?

[Martinned]

They don't have eminent domain in the US? I could have sworn that there was something about it in the Constitution, and it wasn't a clause forbidding it.

[Frank Drackman]

There's a 2d amendment too

[Martinned]

Has the 2nd amendment ever been relevant when farmers had their land forcibly purchased to build a road or another piece of infrastructure?

[Frank Drackman]

It's like the burglar who doesn't break into Hairy Callahan's house after seeing the Model 29, try "Forcibly purchasing" land in Northern Georgia/Florida (or California for that matter) and see what happens.
I mean, unless you get a fair price and were gonna sell anyway, we're not Stew-pid,

Frank "make me an offer"

[Martinned]

Well yes, that's what eminent domain usually entails, both in the Netherlands and in the US. You get to have a fair price. You just don't get to abuse your position as the last hold-out who hasn't sold yet before the entire railway can be built to squeeze every penny out of the government.

[Frank Drackman]

"Fair" price is whatever the seller says it is. If it's too much for you buy someone elses place.

[Martinned]

If you can't understand the basic logic of eminent domain, your grievance is with whoever taught you law, not with me or with the Dutch government.

[Michael D]

I had not heard about this. However, it seems to be a trend in South Africa for corruption among the highest levels of ANC leadership. I believe the previous president, Jacob Zuma was sentenced last year for corruption related crime(s).

But corruption did not begin during the Zuma administration. The roots of corruption in the party runs deep, traceable to the year 1994 under the leadership of the venerable Nelson Mendela when it accepted the principle of black empowerment and subsequently adopted and codified the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policy in 2001. At its core, the policy sought to use the power of the newly captured state to direct intervention in the redistribution of assets and opportunities so as to deracialize the control of the economy or resolve the wide economic disparity created by apartheid policies that favoured only white business owners.

While the black economic empowerment was rammed through selling a few of the SOEs to blacks, the majority of the beneficiaries were ANC apparatchiks. Revelations at the Zondo Commission hearing on state capture bears this out. “Many of South Africa’s SOEs have been left on the verge of financial collapse because of tender fraud linked to ANC members who were deployed to senior position”.

Look at South Africa’s deputy president, David Mabuza, for example. His corruption resume is as solid, if not worse than Zuma’s. He’s accused of building and running a network of political patronage by corruptly awarding contracts when he was premier of Mpumalanga, to strengthen his power base within the ANC. Besides accusations of monumental corruption, he’s also widely known for, and accused of assassinating political opponents. A staunch Zuma loyalist, Mr Mabuza smartly switched his support at the last minute to enable the emergence of Cyril Ramaphosa instead of Zuma’s preferred candidate to the presidency of the party, thus winning himself the deputy presidency of the party and the country in return.

[Martinned]

Yes, South Africa's track record for President is starting to look worse than the Illinois governor's office. And Rhamaposa was supposed to be the clean one. Now they'll have Mabuza in office, unless the DA can force an early election.

[Michael D]

Wow, that is an excellent comparison as well as a witty one.

But yes, I think your assessment is correct.

[John F. Carr]

A lesson for future rebels and malcontents: write your constitution to force at least two political parties to be viable. One party rule has not served South Africa well.

[Martinned]

In ex-communist countries the political left was typically (and understandably) pretty unpopular in the 1990s, but nowhere did that lead to consistent one-party rule. Even the Hungarian right has only been in power consistently since 2010. (Fidesz was previously in power between 1998 and 2002. From 1994-1998 and from 2002-2010 the socialists ran Hungary, and from 1990-1994 it was the centre-right HDF.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are you really surprised at what has happened in South Africa?

I am not -- a lot of the ANC folk came to UMass for essentially do-no-work degrees where they got to submit ANC documents for class assignments. And I got to read some of them and saw all of this coming back in the early '90s.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fact that they were going around necklacing people before they got power was enough for me to figure it out.

[Michael D]

Interesting story about the ANC at UMass. That sounds like one of those parts of history which will be lost and forgotten in a few short years despite the intriguing questions raised by hosting them in the first place.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh, there's way more to that story -- at the time (this would have been circa 1995 or so), both the Provost and the Dean of the School of Education were graduates of the School of Education and neither had a Bachelor's degree of any sort...

I'm not making this up -- both had come out there back when the School of Education let people enroll in a Doctoral program without any prior college work, let alone degrees. And this was a class being taught by the Provost, whose husband was Department Chair. (She was one of his former students.)

So you have the Provost of all people letting ANC-affiliated students submit government documents in lieu of actually writing their own papers. And what struck me about the ANC wasn't that they were Marxists -- that was a given and why we had supported the White government through the Cold War -- but how fascist they were.

The program still exists: https://www.umass.edu/education/programs/international

[Dr. Ed 2]

The "Future Studies" program does not -- Doctress Neutopia was the last graduate from there, she literally invented her own religion for her dissertation. https://independent.academia.edu/DNeutopia

She is the one who thought that the UM Tower Library was a penis and wanted to tear it down, not because it was (is) a defective building with many problems, but because she preferred to have buildings built that resembled vaginas, particularly buildings built into hillsides. (She was neither an engineer nor understood why pipes are run in straight lines wherever possible, or that load bearing is vertical wherever possible...)

Yes, a square penis with a flat end (i.e. flat roof).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Maricopa County reported that they had 500 000 election day visits.

Maricopa County also reported they had 280,000 election day votes which in mind boggling fashion given the low election day turnout of Democrats seemingly broke for Democrats in the governor and senate races but widely Republican down ticket.

Weird.

[Nige]

FRAUD!

An oldie but a goodie.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Your jokes are not an explanation of the bizarre data.

[Moderation4ever]

Curious where you got this data. The Maricopa County web site reported that there were 570,000 registered voters that waited to vote, that is they had not voted prior to actual election day. That only 250,000 of that number chose to exercise that right on election day is about a 50% participation rate which is not unreasonable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they did announce that they had over a half million people show up in person, only a quarter million of whom voted in person that day.

But they also said that more than half of those were just dropping off absentee ballots in person, which didn't count towards the "voting in person" number.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

On Election Day, over 540,000 voters visited a site, which is more Election Day voters than all prior General Elections since 2008.

https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/80026/Maricopa-County-Response-11-27-2022

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, right-wing
blog has operated for

NINE (9) DAYS

without using a
vile racial slur*

and for

THREE (3) YEARS

without imposing** hypocritical,
viewpoint-driven censorship.

* (so far as we can ascertain; racial slurs are published so frequent at this blog we certainly might have missed a slur or two)

** (without imposing new censorship; ongoing impositions of censorship have continuing effect)

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

How long since you last buggered a lineman, Jerry??

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are the audience the Volokh Conspiracy cultivates and the defender this white, male, right-wing, faux libertarian blog deserves.

[Frank Drackman]

so it's been a while, I think that's the purpose of Incarceration, Jerry, keep anal rape safe, legal, and predominantly in prisons.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Incessantly calling me a criminal, a rapist and gay -- for the crime of leavening the polemical wingnuttery at this blog with some content from the liberal-libertarian mainstream perspective -- may provide some giggles for your fellow right-wing bigots, Mr. Drackman, but it marks you and this disaffected, downscale conservative blog as unworthy of respect in mainstream American debate among responsible adults.

How Republican culture war casualties wish to spend the time they have remaining (before replacement) is their call, of course. The important point is that America will continue to progress against the wishes and efforts of the Volokh Conspirators and their fans.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm sorry Jerry Sandusky's a criminal rapist (Gay? do you have personal knowledge? I thought Homosexuals had nothing to do with Homosexual rape)
And it's "Dr" Drackman, Jerry

Frank

[M L]

JUST IN - Police conducted 91 house searches and interrogations across Germany today over "hate postings" on the Internet.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1597949138464694272?cxt=HHwWgICj9c2Rh60sAAAA

[M L]

Germany rounding up people for wrongthink. Sounds like a nice place.

[Martinned]

Maybe read the actual press release before spouting off on the internet?

Here's the most relevant bit:

Denn Aufforderungen zu Straftaten, Bedrohungen, Nötigungen oder Volksverhetzungen im Netz sind Straftaten, die mit bis zu fünf Jahren Haft geahndet werden können.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because requests for crimes, threats, coercion or incitement to hatred online are crimes that can be punished with up to five years in prison." (Per Google.)

One of these things is not like the others, conspicuously so. Except inasmuch as it can be punished...

[Michael D]

Sounds very reminiscent of recent German history. The government gets to decide what people can say and then arrest them when it violates their rules

[Martinned]

You would prefer it if the German government did nothing about neo-nazi's? Because that worked out so well for them?

[Michael D]

Yes, I would prefer no action by government to censor anyone. You seem to forget, it was the Nazi Party which used similar laws to throw their opposition into concentration camps in order to bring about “corrections” to their way of thinking.

But sure, repeating that, should work out just fine.

Thank you for your Orwellian input

[Martinned]

I'm not sure that the consequences of American free speech absolutism really suggest that it is the lesser evil. Most people would probably say that letting Nazi's run a country is generally a bad idea, which seems like a pretty sensible lesson to draw from World War II.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think letting Nazis OR communists run a country is generally a bad idea.

Why is it a bad idea, though? Some mystical emanation from people calling themselves that? No, it's a bad idea because they do the things Nazis and communists are inclined to do.

So, maybe the better lession isn't "Don't let Nazis or communists run your country." Maybe the real lesson is, "Don't let the people running your country do the things Nazis or communists would do."

You know, like censor opposing viewpoints?

[Martinned]

If you think censorship is the (main) reason why Nazi's and communists shouldn't be in charge of countries, I really don't know how to help you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reality is that neither the National Socialists nor the Communists can maintain power in an open society where people can criticize their means.

[Martinned]

Really? I'd like to see your proof for that.

(Not that it's a rebuttal of what I said. But it's an interesting thought experiment.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of hard to test, given that closing society so that peolpe can't criticize them is just about the first thing they do. Apparently THEY don't think they could.

[Michael D]

Is not the Warsaw Pact and USSR falling apart evidence to support that assertion? What was Glasnost other than “openness”?

[Martinned]

Fair point. Although Glastnost obviously came hand in hand with Perestroika (and a general unwillingness to shoot at civilians in the way they did in previous decades).

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's certainly one of the reasons, yes. And a pretty important one, because if you give somebody a pass on that Nazi-like behavior, then when they engage in other Nazi-like behavior you won't be able to talk about it!

Censorship is a rate limiting step for tyranny. If you don't want tyranny, you draw the line there, not at the concentration camps you wouldn't be allowed to complain about.

[Nige]

It seems weird of you to assume this is censorship, and not a crack-down on people who have been committing actual crimes. They're Nazis, after all, the love doing crimes, then complaining about being opressed when they're caught.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I'm sure they've been committing "actual crimes", in the sense of doing things that are against the law. You know, like saying things the government wants to punish.

[Nige]

Like threats? Coercion? Fraud? Most governments punish those.

[Nige]

That's why it's a good idea to keep an eye on Nazis, because they do things like that if given half a chance. But it's very brave of you to stand up for Nazis.

[Brett Bellmore]

At one time the ACLU got a lot of credit for being willing to do exactly that, you may recall. I just happen to be more principled than they are, I'd STILL let the Nazis march through Skokie, to this day.

[Nige]

At some point you have to stop defending Nazis and actually oppose them, because by their very nature they will take rights away from everyone if they get any power. If you really are opposed to them.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Just like Biden and the progressives and freedom of speech, right?

[Sarcastr0]

I blame that freaking authoritarian Commie Karl Popper!

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t know who that is but I’m thankful I’m not named Popper.

[Sarcastr0]

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

[Nige]

Amazing that the idea of being opposed to actual Nazis is so controversial to some.

[M L]

Thanks for providing the anti-free speech perspective. Very interesting.

On another topic, may I interest you in the US emigration process?

[Nige]

Another voice raised in opposition to opposing Nazis.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's the thing, Nige: I don't care if people 'are Nazis' according to some random person. I care if they do the things Nazis do.

Like try to shut down free speech.

The closest thing to an actual Fascist movement in the US today is Antifa, which have the perverse sense of humor to call themselves "anti-fascists", and everybody they want to punch "nazis".

So, yeah, I'm going to continue opposing people who want to take rights away from everybody. Very few of those people are Nazis, and many of them claim to be fighting Nazis.

[Nige]

The closest thing to a Nazi movement in the US today is the actual Nazi movement - Trump supporters all, and one of them just had dinner with Trump. Bearing in mind your ideological commitment to violence in opposition to tyranny, but also also your opposition to a movment that came about as a response to state violence, I'm not sure you're fit to judge people like antifa who stand up to actual Nazis. Again, you claim to believe you have the right to, at some point, shoot someone in the face if they try to take away your rights, which won't do their freedom of speech much good, but get mad because people punch the faces of those whose very ideology is the removal of people's rights.

[M L]

Freedom of speech, how does it work? Even Communists, who greatly outnumber Nazis, get to enjoy freedom of speech. Even a dimwitted elementary school child can understand this, but not you.

But if you end up getting your way and we're going to round up people with abhorrent ideas, then so be it. Nazis, communists, and socialists (overlapping ideologies here) get ready.

[bernard11]

The closest thing to a Nazi movement in the US today is the actual Nazi movement – Trump supporters all, and one of them just had dinner with Trump.

Exactly.

[Nige]

'Freedom of speech, how does it work?'

You keep saying things like that, but it's just a rote response to the question of why, exactly, are you not opposing Nazis.

[Martinned]

Basically this: https://twitter.com/HistoryMuppet/status/1598436645967200257

[Martinned]

Here's a more difficult legal question:

Normally in Germany a civil servant (or equivalent) who is elected to parliament is entitled to have their old job back when they lose their seat. The question has now arisen whether that rule should also protect a former MdB for the (extreme right) AfD, who wants his old judgeship back. The judiciary's disciplinary board ('Dienstgericht') in Leipzig just ruled that forcibly retiring him instread is permissible in the interest of justice.

https://www.medienservice.sachsen.de/medien/news/1058760

[Brett Bellmore]

So, did he actually break a law, (I couldn't find anything at that link suggesting he had.) or did they just break precedent and deny him getting his job back because he belonged to an icky party?

[Martinned]

No, he didn't break any law. Otherwise it would be a much easier question. The question is whether someone who used to be an extreme-right politician should be allowed to be a judge.

[Ridgeway]

I'd probably argue more broadly that if a judge-turned-MP does things while MP that would seriously call into question his ability to be a fair and impartial judge, then he could no longer serve as judge. Simple membership in a party would generally not cross that threshold, though.

[M L]

EU threatens Elon Musk with Twitter ban unless the platform sticks to strict rules and police content, the Financial Times reports.

EU Commissioner Thierry Breton told Musk he must ditch an "arbitrary" approach to reinstate banned users, pursue "disinformation aggressively," and agree to an "extensive audit" of the platform.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1598021531803652096?cxt=HHwWgMCoqbqHqK0sAAAA

[rloquitur]

Elon will figure out a way to deal with this nonsense.

[M L]

NEW - Elizabeth Warren says Elon Musk should not be able to go into a "dark room" alone and make decisions.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1598048008079540224?cxt=HHwWgIDQ-cmMtK0sAAAA

[rloquitur]

She is a truly awful woman.

[Martinned]

Because she agrees with Clarence Thomas?

[Frank Drackman]

Because she claims to be an Injun, taking a law school spot from some deserving boner-fide Injun.

[bevis the lumberjack]

She’s an awful woman for repeatedly lying about her heritage, doubling down when caught, and earlier in her life using her phony heritage to her educational and career advantage. Kept doing it even after the tribe(s) asked her to stop.

I have a large Cherokee branch in my ancestry that’s thoroughly documented. So I’m able to say that she’s a truly awful human being.

[Nige]

I've noticed it doesn't take much for you to magnify a Democrat politician's awfulness to that of even bog-standard awful Republicans.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Show me the magnification, jackass. All I did was describe what she did.

And I’ve criticized Trump consistently on here, which somehow you never seem to notice, because you’re a broken partisan progress hack.

There is no politician running around that is worse than Warren. It’s personal to me. So fuck that bitch. What she did was unconscionable. And you’re so pathetic you can’t even criticize her - you’ve got no basis from which to criticize me. Clean up your own fucking act.

[Nige]

No, you repeated the right wing spin on what she did - the right being famous for their support of Native Americans. I mean it's weird, Trump HATES Native Americans, but with Warren it's personal? Idiotic.

[VinniUSMC]

Trump HATES Native Americans

Citation needed.

[bevis the lumberjack]

And Sarcastro, i dunno if you’re going to get involved in this string or not, but finally you can say I’m angry and be correct. Warren and the Cherokee stuff lights me up. Because it’s personal.

She’s every bit as bad as Trump, arguably worse. Same totally nasty personality, and with all of Trump’s, uh, baggage at least he never lied about being a minority to advance himself - and do so by displacing an actual minority out of positions and money.

The fact that Democrats can support her so enthusiastically elicits the same disgust from me as the fact that the Republicans do so with Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

She’s every bit as bad as Trump, arguably worse. Same totally nasty personality

Um. That's not at all clear.

She was my candidate of choice in 2020.

[David Nieporent]

Warren is my least favorite major Democratic Party figure; she's a socialist demagogue who's dishonest about it (during the campaign her positions weren't very different than Sanders, but he admitted to being a socialist while she pretended not to be). I'm not a Musk fan, but he was 100% on the nose when he called her "Senator Karen." Hell, most of her economic policies aren't very different than Trump's.

But I'm not clear why lying about being a minority is so much worse than lying about any other aspect of one's resume to advance oneself. (If you're an Indian I can see why it might offend you more, but not why it should be deemed objectively worse than any other lie about one's background.)

[bevis the lumberjack]

David, it’s personal with me because my dad’s poor country family didn’t try to take advantage of a family rumor that turned out to be true. Also, the lie lead to her taking positions and college money intended for a minority thereby displacing an actual minority candidate (or more) out of opportunities.

Sarcastro, it’s absolutely clear. The fact that she was your favorite demonstrates (clearly!) that character and principle isn’t a criteria you use in selecting political leadership because she has none of either. I don’t see how you can complain about Trump’s lack of character while supporting Warren. What she did was indefensible although I’m sure you’ll try to justify it somehow.

[Nige]

You said she lied, but there’s no reason to believe she didn’t think it was true except for partisan reasons or personal animosity. I thought she handled it okay right up until the business with the DNA test. She rightly got criticised for that, but it’s funny how actual critcism from the left gets drowned out by screeching from the right.

[bevis the lumberjack]

David – another thing that makes this worse is that it wasn’t just a one off lie. It was a charade that she maintained for decades. And when she was finally caught, she didn’t apologize but repeatedly doubled down to the point that the Cherokees had to ask her to stop.

[David Nieporent]

Also, the lie lead to her taking positions and college money intended for a minority thereby displacing an actual minority candidate (or more) out of opportunities.

Not only is that not true, but it would have been illegal if it were. They can neither set aside positions for minorities nor limit positions for minorities. To the extent it gave her a boost, it did so at the expense of (other) white job applicants.

[David Nieporent]

You said she lied, but there’s no reason to believe she didn’t think it was true

No, she lied. If she had said, "I have a Native American ancestor somewhere on my family tree," you could go with "She was told that and believed it to be true."

But that's not what she said. She said that she herself was Native American, which is a very different claim.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I dunno. Pictures of her original Texas bar card are online and her race is Native American.

And the stories at the time explicitly said that during some of the stops in her career she was occupying spaces reserved for minorities. Is that actually true? Beats me. It was certainly said to be true by news coverage back in the day.

Even if she was ultimately white students that she displaced, she still lied and cheated to give herself an advantage. And maintained the lie for 30 years. And tried to defend it when exposed.

Scholarships for minority students are legal

[Sarcastr0]

I do think she handled the whole blood test with amazing tone-deafness.

But my understanding is that around Oklahoma, basing your tribal affiliation on family legend is pretty ordinary, and not some intentional lie at all.

Doesn't mean she shouldn't have policed herself better once she reached national prominence, but I don't think the narrative of her doing a stolen glory thing by intentionally lying about her roots is the clearest story here.

[Nige]

'She’s every bit as bad as Trump,'

Well, no, you hate her for, um, reasons, that doesn't make her as bad as Trump, that just makes you weird.

[VinniUSMC]

I’ve noticed it doesn’t take much for you to magnify a Democrat politician’s awfulness to that of even bog-standard awful Republicans.

Polly want a cracker? *Bwaak*

[Frank Drackman]

He should set the exposure at 1/1024th

[shawn_dude]

Yeah, he'll make a few off-the-cuff tweets he thinks sound cool but only dig his hole deeper, then he'll get angry at the response to his idiocy and threaten some dumb thing, which he'll follow through on and then retract when it only makes things worse for him.

[Martinned]

I saw a fascinating tweet/screenshot the other day of someone explaining how much effort goes into managing Musk at the other companies he's owned for a while. Whole swathes of people who spend most of their time manipulating the boss to make sure he takes the right decisions and doesn't do too much stupid shit.

[VinniUSMC]

Did I mention I have a bridge for sale in San Francisco? It's a really beautiful bridge.

[EscherEnigma]

Given that he probably fired the lawyers who specialized in EU law…

[rloquitur]

Kathleen Casillo.

Can you imagine being in your car, trapped by a mob banging on the car, trying to break windows, calling you a white privileged bitch. You step on the gas, and now it's you that is being prosecuted. This is an appalling injustice, and, in my view, it discredits the entire justice system in Manhattan--for many reasons, the first of which is that those who created the situation are not being prosecuted, yet the person who, confronted with a dangerous situation is.

Why does society have the right to ask her to submit to this injustice?

[BadLib]

I assume those banging on her car and calling her a white privileged bitch are being aggressively prosecuted for hate crimes as it sounds like their offenses qualify under New York law.

Since I don't believe Casillo suffered any bodily injury at the hands of her attacker, IRCC, unfortunately her attackers would not be eligible for prosecution under Federal hate crime laws.

[YepThatGuy]

No. But for sport, let's turn it into a provocative act/felony murder/implied malice hypothetical. If one of the rioters had been killed, would any of the others potentially been liable under one of the above homicide theories of liability? Add as many facts as you feel necessary. For example, Rioter A used a baseball-sized rock to crack the passenger window, but the rock did not intrude into the interior space; Rioter B was immediately next to the rioter who was killed, and was heard to say "stand directly in front of the bumper so she has to run us over to get out of here"; Rioter C was at the driver's window, unarmed, but was heard to say "let's kill these fools."

[bernard11]

Can you imagine being in your car, trapped by a mob banging on the car, trying to break windows, calling you a white privileged bitch. You step on the gas,

Well, that's her version, anyway.

I guess you think criminal defendants are always absolutely truthful.

[Frank Drackman]

Strawman much?

[bernard11]

Not strawmanning.

Just suggesting that all the accounts so far seem to presenting her version of events, and that defendants do, occasionally, lie about things, so maybe it would make sense to not take her statements as gospel.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, this is a suggestion Reason really needs to take to heart in their typical crime reporting. I've lost track of how many times they've gone hyperbolic about some purported injustice, and when I look into it, they're omitting some detail that renders the injustice less than manifest.

Remember that lady who they were outraged was being prosecuted for mistakenly thinking she'd had her right to vote restored? Technically, for perjury on the affidavit? It was just an innocent mistake, she claimed, and Reason purported to believe her.

They omitted that her previous felony was advising people to file false affidavits, and then claim it was an innocent mistake if they got caught... The judge noticed that, though, which is why her defense fell a bit flat.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Video supports her version....

[bernard11]

The one I saw didn't support any version. It was just her car speeding through an intersection, and gave no clue as to what happened before that.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't suppose they'd had access to a longer video, and deliberately showed you too little of it to draw conclusions?

[bernard11]

No.

Because the one I saw was on the NY Post site. Not exactly a radical left-wing rag.

[shawn_dude]

There’s video which the jury will be able to view and see if her side of the story matches actual events or not. Still images of the scene show the street as not crowded which suggests she might have been able to avoid hitting people. All of the top hits on this story, though, are well-known right-wing sources so it’s hard to find anything trustworthy.

Assuming her side of the story is generally accurate, though, there’s still the issue of all the people she struck and harmed that weren’t banging on her car window. If a “good guy with a gun” misses his target and shoots people not directly involved, are they legally immune to the harm they caused others?

She was offered a plea deal of community service and a license suspension. She’s choosing a jury trial, which is her right. She’s lucky she didn’t kill anyone.

[Brett Bellmore]

"All of the top hits on this story, though, are well-known right-wing sources so it’s hard to find anything trustworthy."

The whole "I'll only trust accounts from sources that wouldn't have carried them" thing is becoming a bit of a problem.

[EscherEnigma]

And yet, that's why I stopped linking sources years ago 'round here. 'cause y'all would always be like "ugh, we didn't mean a non-conservative source. Where's your conservative-source?"

[shawn_dude]

FOX, DailyMail, and NYPost? Of the three, the NY Post is the most reliable, but it skews facts in emotional ways so it’s hardly reliable. The Post also has a long history of using race-baiting to get clicks.

FOX has a long and documented history of telling outright lies or omitting known facts in order to juice up a story and keep the interest of their particular audience.

And the DailyMail is just the National Enquirer with even fewer scruples.

I’d read stuff from the WSJ (especially if I want to know what Rupert Murdoch is thinking lately), Politico, the Hill, and similar. I don’t spend much time at MSNBD/NBC but do pay attention to the Guardian if I want a center-left perspective. The fact that none of the recent articles returned by Google include them tells me there’s really not much to know at this time. The right-wing publishers are just selling more racist outrage and fear.

[bernard11]

The whole “I’ll only trust accounts from sources that wouldn’t have carried them” thing is becoming a bit of a problem.

The whole, "We should believe sources which habitually lie to promote right wing agendas" thing is becoming a bit of a problem.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

But the mainstream media lying to promote leftist traitors is okay?

[bernard11]

More sewage seeping in from the main Reason site, I guess.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She was offered a plea deal of community service and a license suspension

Problem with *any* criminal conviction is the inevitable civil lawsuits from all of the purported "victims." She would inevitably be bankrupted if she plead guilty to anything....

[shawn_dude]

So now she goes to jury trial with video evidence and if she's found guilty the penalty will likely be much, much greater and still include civil liability.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If a “good guy with a gun” misses his target and shoots people not directly involved, are they legally immune to the harm they caused others?

Generally, yes.

She was offered a plea deal of community service and a license suspension.

She may regret turning that down in the future, of course, but this is not the kind of plea agreement that gets proposed by a prosecutor confident in their case.

[John F. Carr]

When it comes to bystanders in use of force cases there is a duty not to be negligent or reckless, depending on the state. There was a post on this subject here earlier in the year.

[apedad]

Can't speak to the merits of the case but there has to be video showing everything even before she hit the gas.

Anyhoo, this happened at East 39th Street and Third Avenue, and I just wanted to point out that there's a cool hotel called Pod 39 right here.

Rooms are small (even for NYC standards), but the really cool thing is they have a roof top bar with sort of an Italian courtyard flair.

https://www.thepodhotel.com/pod-39/gallery.html

[shawn_dude]

The slim amount of information I could find suggests that she was confronted, accelerated into a person and knocked them out of the way, stopped in what appears to be a sparsely populated area, and then proceeded to accelerate into another group of people. If that's true, then even if the first person she struck was out of self defense, she'd still have to explain the second set of people she hit.

[Ed Grinberg]

This is an appalling injustice, and, in my view, it discredits the entire justice system in Manhattan–for many reasons, the first of which is that those who created the situation are not being prosecuted, yet the person who, confronted with a dangerous situation is.

Like I said above:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/01/thursday-open-thread-112/?comments=true#comment-9815142

[David Nieporent]

This is an appalling injustice, and, in my view, it discredits the entire justice system in Manhattan–for many reasons, the first of which is that those who created the situation are not being prosecuted, yet the person who, confronted with a dangerous situation is.

Why does society have the right to ask her to submit to this injustice?

You can tell when someone is a rabid ideologue vs. a serious person when they declare that it's a "rabid injustice" to prosecute (or fail to prosecute) one side or the other based on disputed facts. Yes, if the facts were as she described them, then it's an injustice to prosecute her. It's an injustice to prosecute any person who's innocent. But we don't know if the facts were as she described them.

[apedad]

Leader of Oath Keepers and Oath Keepers Member Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy and Other Charges Related to U.S. Capitol Breach

Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, and Kelly Meggs, the leader of the Florida chapter of the organization, were found guilty by a jury (Tuesday) of seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Their actions disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress that was in the process of ascertaining and counting the electoral votes related to the presidential election.

Three additional defendants, who were leaders and associates of the organization – Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, and Thomas Caldwell – were found guilty of related felony charges. The verdict followed an eight-week trial and three days of deliberations. No sentencing date was set.

The defendants also, collectively, employed a variety of manners and means, including: organizing into teams that were prepared and willing to use force and to transport firearms and ammunition into Washington, D.C.; recruiting members and affiliates; organizing trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics; bringing and contributing paramilitary gear, weapons, and supplies – including knives, batons, camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection, and radio equipment – to the Capitol grounds; breaching and attempting to take control of the Capitol grounds and building on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to prevent, hinder, and delay the certification of the electoral college vote; using force against law enforcement officers while inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; continuing to plot, after Jan. 6, 2021, to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power, and using websites, social media, text messaging and encrypted messaging applications to communicate with each other and others.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-oath-keepers-member-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-and-other

Little boys playing soldier.

[Bob from Ohio]

I feel safer already.

[John F. Carr]

In the long term, the lesson that storming the Capitol won't work and you will be caught is more important than any one defendant's sentence. And if somebody took away the lesson "it would have worked if we tried harder", I feel safer because the defenses will be better next time.

[Bob from Ohio]

The real lesson is you should actually bring weapons, you get punished anyway.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Exactly. If they're going to punish you as if it were a real insurrection, you might as well have a real insurrection.

[apedad]

And what's stopping you now?

[Frank Drackman]

time and opportunity

[shawn_dude]

They did bring weapons. So I presume you mean "bring more and deadlier weapons?"

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think what he meant was "bring the weapons all the way, instead of leaving them somewhere short of the destination in case they were needed."

Obviously they didn't think they needed the weapons in order to break into the Capitol, because they did enter the Capitol, and didn't go get the weapons for that. So, what DID they expect to need them for?

One of the reasons I didn't attend Trump's rally on the Mall was that I expected it to be attacked by Antifa, and I don't heal as fast these days. Maybe they were going to go get the weapons if things went South on the Mall, and the DC police took the wrong side, or just stood aside?

Just speculating here, but the fact remains that they dropped the weapons off short of their destination, so they obviously hadn't brought them to do what they DID do.

[John F. Carr]

If they had used guns well, with the element of surprise, they would have won the battle. Except those who met the Secret Service details around Pence and Harris. The cops were not ready for a gun fight. We don't want trigger-happy cops working the Capitol. We want the 1950s stereotype of the friendly officer.

They would have lost the war and ended up dead or on death row, but they would have stopped the certification for a lot longer than a few hours.

They probably didn't anticipate the charges a creative prosecutor can bring. They must have been thinking about tresspass and disorderly conduct. Upside, they swing the election and are national heroes. Downside, they get a misdemeanor and are told not to do it again.

[Bob from Ohio]

"they get a misdemeanor and are told not to do it again"

Yes, they saw thousands during the summer get that treatment.

Approved violent rioters who use deadly weapons get 15 months, non-violent un-approved rioters without such weapons get long sentences.

[bernard11]

What you really mean is that they are morons.

[David Nieporent]

One of the reasons I didn’t attend Trump’s rally on the Mall was that I expected it to be attacked by Antifa, and I don’t heal as fast these days.

Gee, one of the reasons I didn't attend Trump's rally on the Mall is that it was organized by a sociopath and his sycophants for the purpose of protesting against the idea that the winner of an election should be allowed to take office.

No, wait, that's actually all of the reasons I didn't attend the rally: it was bad people in support of a worse cause.

(Fears of an imaginary boogeyman played no role in my decision.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically ALL Presidential rallies are organized by sociopaths and their sycophants. Non-sociopaths don't tend to get elected to high office, they're not ruthless or power hungry enough. Heck, few enough non-sociopaths even run for President.

"for the purpose of protesting against the idea that the winner of an election should be allowed to take office."

I did say "one of" the reasons. I've already said many times that I thought Trump should have stopped fighting the election outcome after the EC voted.

[Nige]

'Basically ALL Presidential rallies are organized by sociopath'

Speak for your own guy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lmao no they didn't

[Bob from Ohio]

"So I presume you mean “bring more and deadlier weapons?”

Yes, firearms.

[Sarcastr0]

That's how you get killed.

[M L]

I agree but they killed an unarmed peaceful protestor, with zero consequences or investigation or anything, so . . .

[shawn_dude]

I know, right?! She was just peacefully trying to crawl through a barricaded door which protected members of Congress during a riot and insurrection while law enforcement pointed guns at her and told her to get back. Totally peaceful. Not at all worrisome.

[Bob from Ohio]

Unarmed woman crawling, many feet away from anyone. Best to kill her.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not when there are three beefy cops standing behind her -- and whose lives were placed in jeopardy when the idiot cop shot her.
They were more than capable of arresting her, which is the preferred practice of most departments.

[shawn_dude]

There were several people charged with bringing firearms onto capitol grounds. The vast majority of people brought no weapons, grabbed makeshift weapons (like fire extinguishers), or had less deadly weapons like bear spray.

[Bob from Ohio]

"several people" "onto capitol grounds"

Nobody took a deadly weapon into the building.

[bernard11]

Right, Bob, because everybody knows you can't kill someone with a spear.

[Nige]

The real lesson is these people were willing to ruin their lives for Trump. Of all people.

[Nelson]

Not "You shouldn't smash your way into the Capitol"? Or even, "when your candidate loses fair and square, don't throw a violent temper tantrum like an overgrown 2-year-old"?

Interesting that your problem wasn't the violent rioters, it was that the violent rioters should have been better prepared.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I feel safer because the defenses will be better next time

WHERE THE HELL WERE THE DEFENSES????

The untold story is that the CHPD stood down -- that they WEREN'T THERE -- and not even there in the numbers they are when trouble isn't expected.

Hopefully the GOP House will force Nancy Pelosi to answer that question....

[M L]

Some people were "waved in" by the police, and then got charged.

[David Nieporent]

Why would Nancy Pelosi have any answer to that question? She's not a police officer. Nor does she run the capital police.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's already been explained to you that, no, actually she did.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Anyone notice the steep decline in America and her future after Obama became President?

Given the status of places like Detroit or New Orleans, could you deduce America's decline us because he's black? Or, given the historical outcomes of places like the Soviet Union or pre-Capitalist China, could you deduce its because he's a Marxist?

Or maybe it's a little bit of both?

[apedad]

"Anyone notice the steep decline in America and her future after Obama became President?"

No, we haven't noticed but we're not privy to your dementia either.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You look around the country and think things are hunkey-dorey?

lmao speaking of dementia

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, give demented Joe a break (man!) lots of people mix up Cambodia and Colombia

[Frank Drackman]

Barry Hussein O will go down as the last POTUS opposed to Same Sex Marriage, only dragged kicking and screaming to the "Correct" Position by that Visionary Progressive (only thing "Progressive" about Demented Joe are his bi-focals) Sleepy Joe Biden

[Ed Grinberg]

...could you deduce [that] America’s decline [i]s because he’s black? Or, given the historical outcomes of places like the Soviet Union or pre-Capitalist China, could you deduce it[']s because he’s a Marxist?

There're plenty of perfectly reasonable, non-Marxist black people. So that's "No" on your first question.
Obama is most definitely a Marxist (though he doesn't advertise the fact), and yes, having a Marxist for a president is indeed highly correlative with national decline.

[Nige]

The idea that Obama is a Marxist is so patently stupid it must be a ham-handed effort to conceal that it's because he's black.

[bernard11]

Obama is most definitely a Marxist.

WTF??

You're an idiot who plainly has no idea what Marxism is.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ed your political hyperbole doesn’t speak well for your judgement. Obama in no way resembles a Marxist.

[Nige]

Could that have been the massive financial crash and the interminable and expensive wars bequeathed by the preceding Republican administration? Obama left things in good enough shape but you guys were so threatened by a black president you left yourselves wide open to the dubious charms of a reality-show host whose one talent was in telling angry resentful people what they wanted to hear.

[VinniUSMC]

Given the status of places like Detroit or New Orleans, could you deduce America’s decline us because he’s black?

The decline, or not, of America has nothing at all to do with Obama being black. Racist twit.

[Michael D]

The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that Tennessee’s mandatory sentence of life in prison when imposed on a juvenile homicide offender is cruel and unusual punishment and violates the juvenile’s rights as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a narrow ruling, the Court did not change the juvenile’s sentence, but granted him a parole hearing after he has served between 25 and 36 years in prison so that his age and other circumstances could be considered.

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/tyshon_booker_-_majority_opinion.pdf

[apedad]

(From the decision)

"In short, Tennessee is out of step with the rest of the country in the severity of sentences imposed on juvenile homicide offenders. Automatically imposing a fifty-one-year-minimum life sentence on a juvenile offender without regard to the juvenile’s age and attendant circumstances can, for some juveniles, offend contemporary standards of decency."

Tennessee is looking at 'contemporary standards of decency?!?'

Huh....maybe they're not all mouthbreathers.

Of course they still have a ways to go:

(11/29) The Senate approved the Respect for Marriage Act in a bipartisan 61-36 vote. The legislation now goes back to the House for final passage before heading to President Biden’s desk. The bill would repeal a decades-old federal law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Tennessee's two U.S. senators, Republicans Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty, voted against the bill, saying the version that passed fails to adequately protect the religious freedoms of Tennesseans.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/30/tennessee-sens-marsha-blackburn-bill-hagerty-vote-no-on-same-sex-marriage-bill/69685358007/

[John F. Carr]

Tennessee is looking at recent Supreme Court precedent and bowing to the inevitable.

[apedad]

Bowing to the inevitable. . . .

I kinda like that.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court of Tennessee pretermitted consideration of any independent state constitutional grounds for its decision. I suspect that the current SCOTUS will grant certiorari here and retreat from its prior juvenile sentencing precedents.

[Bob from Ohio]

Legal rot affecting GOP states too.

He's old enough to murder like an adult, he's old enough to be sentenced like an adult.

[apedad]

How does it feel to be on the losing side?

[Ed Grinberg]

How does it feel to be on the side of (underage) murderers?

[EscherEnigma]

Which side held up Ritenhouse as a champion?

[Bob from Ohio]

He wasn't a murderer though, according to his jury.

[EscherEnigma]

Cool beans bro. Go find another murderer to defend.

[Martinned]

I've never understood this American creativity of treating a defendant like a juvenile or not depending on the crime they're accused of. Or rather, I understand it, it makes sound political sense. I just don't understand how anyone could defend it with a straight face.

[Michael D]

Actually, you might want to reread the decision. A juvenile can in fact be sentenced for an extremely long period of time, to include LWOP. What has changed is that the sentence for a juvenile is not mandatory but instead must allow for discretion to include the age of the defendant, etc.

It is difficult to say that a person under the age of 18 lacks the ability to make a contract and to vote but possesses the ability to make rational choices to commit murder.

Every case must now take other factors into consideration.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Every case must now take other factors into consideration."

The existence of a murder victim is the only relevant factor to consider.

Bleeding heart judges always abuse discrrrtion, best to give them none.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe don't commit murder and you don't have to worry about "Cruel and Unusual" Sentences.

[Ed Grinberg]

Decoupling one's actions from negative consequences is one of the primary tenets (the primary tenet?) of "liberals'" / "progressives'" fucked-up philosophy.

[bernard11]

Trump has dinner with one raving antisemite and one actual Nazi sympathizer.

Hardly a peep from the right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Milo has already admitted that they deliberately blindsided him to damage him politically; 'Ye' didn't tell him he was bringing friends. That's bound to reduce the impact among people previously sympathetic to Trump.

[bernard11]

Oh yeah. That's believable.

And why was he dining with Ye to begin with?

Besides, that doesn't address my point. The right has been remarkably quiet on the matter, and Trump himself has not issued any kind of statement other than his usual "not my fault" crap.

Meanwhile, MTG, who will no doubt be prominent in the House now, has no problem associating with Fuentes either.

[apedad]

Actually Trump did make a statement that if Fuentes had started on talking about anti semetism, that he would have stopped the conversation (yeah right).

Anyhoo, Jewish groups have said this isn't strong enough because Trump hasn't clearly denounced anti semetism.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Anyhoo, Jewish groups have said this isn’t strong enough because Trump hasn’t clearly denounced anti semetism."

Yeah, they claimed that in Charlottesville, too, even though he expressly had.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Because we're not a bunch of adult children who crave high school drama of the politically correct mean-girl crowds.

Only juvenile emotional children give a flying f who someone hangs out with.

[Nige]

...when it's Trump.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Plenty of prominent conservatives (to include, however hypocritically, Greene herself) have issued pretty pointed statements. Here’s Mitch McConnell, for instance:

First, let me just say that there is no room in the Republican Party for anti-Semitism or white supremacy. And anyone meeting with people advocating that point of view, in my judgment, are highly unlikely to ever be elected president of the United States.

What else would you have them do?

[Martinned]

Say that he wouldn't vote for such a person to be President?

[bernard11]

"highly unlikely to ever be elected president of the United States. "

Oh come on. How about, " I would not vote for such a person." And how about, "it was wrong of Trump to have dinner with these people, and he should personally issue an apology."

Plus, you quoted one of the stronger statements. Most GOP'ers, if they said anything, were much milder. Even McConnell did not name Trump

[David Nieporent]

What else would you have them do?

How about a statement more like this: "Donald Trump had already proven himself to be morally unfit for the White House. This is just the icing on the cake. I will never again support him, and if he runs I will do everything in my power to prevent him from winning the nomination and the presidency"?""

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, the words out of the mouth of Milo (and Kanye West - Ye) are crystal clear. They 'outed' themselves. I also think that one cannot jump all over Kanye West for his actions, as it is wrong to mock the poor (West has bipolar disorder and it clearly shows in his uncontrolled actions and words). To me, Trump saying 'C'mon over for dinner' to Kanye West makes sense....why would POTUS Trump turn him away? Did they not work together on the First Step legislation with West's ex-wife? I do not think that it is fair to hold POTUS Trump responsible for the actions of Kanye West (who was the only person actually invited by Trump), Fuentes (who was not invited) and Milo (also not invited).

Kanye West has said numerous clearly antisemitic things of late; no doubt. I personally think the things he has said stem from his bipolar disorder and his inability to perceive reality correctly. I don't think West needs cancellation, West needs psychological and medical help. Nick Fuentes is simply a vile human being. That Milo guy is a real piece of work.

To me, it would have been better for all involved had it not happened; but it did. I don't see POTUS Trump as being even remotely antisemitic; that is laughable.

I will also say that POTUS Trump needs to exercise significantly more care on the company he keeps.

[bernard11]

Do you think Trump might make a statement other than "not my fault?"

You are bending over too far backwards. And it doesn't mater if Trump hates Jews or not, he is plainly willing to legitimate antisemitism, as is much of the GOP.

[Brett Bellmore]

"he is plainly willing to legitimate antisemitism,"

That's kind of a vague accusation, isn't it? What exactly is meant by "legitimating" anti-Semitism? Is it something that's materially different from what Democrats do in regards to Sharpton or Farrakhan, or other prominent left-wing anti-Semites?

[Commenter_XY]

Bernard11....nobody is legitimizing antisemitism in this sorry saga. Quite the opposite, I think.

[shawn_dude]

Milo's gist was that he wanted Trump to lean into the sort of people Fuentes and Ye represent, not to tank Trump's election opportunity. He wanted Trump to stop listening to the people who advise distance from white nationalists and antisemites.

[Nige]

Look, at the end of the day, Trump likes anti-semites and Nazis. They've always supported him, so why not court them now? Plus if he hadn't had dinner with them he would have been censoring them.

[VinniUSMC]

Quite the mind reader.

[Nige]

I guess his genius-level media management skills are failing.

[EscherEnigma]

This might surprise you, but expecting a former president to vet his dinner guests isn't unreasonable.

And yes, that includes if one guest brings additional, previously unmentioned guests.

[shawn_dude]

Former presidents have Secret Service details who do this as well.

[EscherEnigma]

Secret Service details are concerned with threats to a president's body, not their reputation. That's on them and their staff.

[Mr. Bumble]

Then how does tax deadbeat, anti-semite, race baiting provocateur
Al Sharpton get anywhere near the White House?

[David Nieporent]

Milo has already admitted that they deliberately blindsided him to damage him politically; ‘Ye’ didn’t tell him he was bringing friends.

"The rabid antisemite I decided to meet with for funsies didn't tell me that he was bringing another rabid antisemite with him!"

It's also an obvious lie, because the one aspect of the presidency that Trump retains as a disgraced ex-president is not (as he thinks) executive privilege, but rather Secret Service protection. The Secret Service didn't let some random unknown guy wander in to meet Trump unannounced.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you have a rather exaggerated notion of how much control the SS have over an ex-President's life.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Hardly a peep from the right."

Oh that's not true. Plenty of peeps.

"Rev. Al Sharpton speaks to the media along with other civil rights organization leaders after meeting with President Joe Biden on July 8, 2021."

Sharpton actually led a pogrom, he's a Dem leader.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

But that's different you see...

[bernard11]

I despise Sharpton.

He's hardly a Dem leader.

When he starts having dinner with neo-Nazis let me know.

Whatever he is, that does zip to excuse Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

He ran in the 2004 DemoKKKrat Primary, I know, I voted for him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He’s hardly a Dem leader."

WASHINGTON — The Rev. Al Sharpton visited the White House on Thursday to talk political strategy with President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

"February 21, 2019 5:06 pm
Sen Harris Meets With Rev Al Sharpton
On Thursday, Senator Kamala Harris made a stop in New York City to meet with Revered Al Sharpton. Melissa Russo reports."

"When he starts having dinner"

Oh, dinner, that's bad. Eating is the worst! Far worse than leading a pogrom and actually killing Jews.

Harris had lunch with Sharpton btw. There are pictures and everything Not dinner though, that would be bad.

"Rev. Al Sharpton meets with Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris at Harlem’s historical Sylvias"

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah he won’t respond to this.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't cheerlead.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t agree with Bob on much but this time he clearly documented his assertion and that at least merits an “oh, ok”. Doesn’t it?

[Sarcastr0]

That's quite a low bar you got there. Presidents and Veeps meet with lots of people. That standard would make thousands of people a year Dem leaders.

At best, it means he can make things uncomfortable for Dems if not sufficiently mollified.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In this analogy, the Democrats in high office (Biden, Harris, Obama, etc.) are the counterparts of Trump, and the left-wing antisemites (Sharpton, Farrakhan, etc.) are the equivalents of Kanye and Fuentes.

Trump's associations look like yet another nail in the coffin of his political career. Would that the same were true on the other side.

[Sarcastr0]

Sharpton sucks, but he's no Fuentes or Kanye.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the sense that he's a Democratic Fuentes, yeah. Only in that sense.

[bernard11]

No. He's not a Democratic Fuentes. That's nonsense.

He's not a Holocaust denier, or Nazi supporter. He doesn't want non-Christians to leave the country.

What he is is a race hustler and a charlatan.

[VinniUSMC]

Sharpton sucks, but he’s no ... Kanye.

Are you actually fucking serious with this shit? Dude, you're demented.

[Bob from Ohio]

Forgot to congratulate you on "gaslight" being chosen "word of the year". You did your part!

[Bored Lawyer]

Are you blogging from an island somewhere? There has been plenty of peeping from both politicians and commentators.

[Ridgeway]

Maybe he posted an open letter on his website requesting comment.

[Ridgeway]

Well, except for Pence, Scott, Rubio, Daines, Collins, Christie, Kemp, Cassidy, Romney and a host of others, nary a peep!

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/11/republicans-condemn-trumps-fraternizing-with-antisemites/

[bernard11]

I despise Sharpton.

He's hardly a Dem leader.

When he starts having dinner with neo-Nazis let me know.

Whatever he is, that does zip to excuse Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm assuming Sharpton regularly has dinner with Sharpton, (In much the same way Fuentes regularly has dinner with Fuentes.) why would that not suffice?

[bernard11]

OK. I overstated things. Some of those were fine. Some weak-kneed.

Kemp:

"Racism, antisemitism and denial of the Holocaust have no place in the Republican Party and are completely un-American.”

Scott:

“There’s no room in the Republican Party for white supremacists and antisemitism, so it’s wrong,” Florida’s junior GOP senator Rick Scott said. “I think Republicans should all condemn white supremacy and antisemitism.”

Daines:

“We cannot tolerate antisemitism. Period.”

And that's the best NR could do.

[Estragon]

Ye shows up to Mar a Lago with this huckleberry and then proceeds to drop jimmy the Dane talking points on the Don. This is truly the worst timeline.

[bernard11]

Meanwhile, the GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee tweet out,

"Kanye, Elon, Trump."

Quickly deleted after Ye tells Alex Jones how much he likes Hitler.

But hey, it was all a misunderstanding.

[Frank Drackman]

Barry Hussein Obama down in Jaw Jaw cam-pain-ing for an actual Anti-Semite, Hardly a Peep from the Marxist Stream Media.

[Michael P]

The only thing sadder than this petition is the fact that they can cite universities that already lump laundry costs in with the rest of tuition costs:

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/free-laundry-for-university-of-cincinnati-students/

Econ 101 should be teaching them why it's an awful idea to take long-term loans to cover operational costs like laundry, but I guess they're counting on Uncle Joe's helicopter money.

[bernard11]

Silly idea, but no, it's not necessarily a bad idea "to take long-term loans to cover operational costs."

[shawn_dude]

Universities have two costs that they quote: Tuition and fees, and cost of attendance which includes housing, meals, and other living expenses, books, and insurance. UC Berkeley, for example, has a resident tuition cost of $16K (rounded) and a cost of attendance for students in the dorms of $43K (rounded).

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that Indiana’s attorney general, Todd Rokita, is seeking professional discipline of Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist who performed an abortion on a 10 year old rape victim from Ohio. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/30/us/indiana-attorney-general-abortion-doctor.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-variants-shadow-lda-unique-time-cutoff-30&alpha=0.05&block=trending_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=260400303&impression_id=34a66c13-718e-11ed-aacb-6d4e41c893c6&index=4&pgtype=Article&pool=pool%2F91fcf81c-4fb0-49ff-bd57-a24647c85ea1&region=footer&req_id=878068711&shadow_vec_sim=0.45069088355712167&surface=eos-most-popular-story&variant=0_bandit-eng30s-shadow-lda-unique

Mr. Rokita’s office said in a statement on Wednesday that he was asking the board to discipline Dr. Bernard because she had “failed to uphold legal and Hippocratic responsibilities by exploiting a 10-year-old little girl’s traumatic medical story to the press for her own interests.”

Uh, speaking of disregarding a professional oath, what about Mr. Rokita's oaths, as an attorney and as a state official, to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment?

[Brett Bellmore]

"by exploiting a 10-year-old little girl’s traumatic medical story to the press for her own interests.”"

IOW, the professional discipline isn't for performing the abortion, but instead for violating patient privacy.

[Estragon]

Did you read the article? I’m not well versed enough in the particular area to know if this is technically a violation, but the assertion is somewhat misleading:

“Dr. Bernard has refused to discuss the details of the girl’s case, and has not revealed her identity.“

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the above article is pay-walled. But the defense is that the abortion was reported within a few days, and that the doctor didn't reveal the patient's name.

Here's the AG's side of it:,

""The Office of Attorney General Todd Rokita today released the following statement:

“Today, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General filed an Administrative Action against Dr. Caitlin Bernard before the Indiana Medical Licensing Board. Based on the physician’s own testimony under oath, she violated federal and Indiana law related to patient privacy and the reporting of child abuse.

First, the physician failed to uphold legal and Hippocratic responsibilities by exploiting a 10-year-old little girl's traumatic medical story to the press for her own interests. The Hippocratic oath provides, in part: “I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.” Dr. Bernard violated the law, her patient’s trust, and the standards for the medical profession when she disclosed her patient’s abuse, medical issues, and medical treatment to a reporter at an abortion rights rally to further her political agenda. Simply concealing the patient’s name falls far short of her legal and ethical duties here.

Second, she failed to immediately report the abuse and rape of a child to Indiana authorities. This is required under Indiana law. Here, only Indiana authorities could have possibly stopped this little girl from being sent home to endure possible future harm by her alleged rapist.

This case is not about whether an abortion was performed. It also is not about the Office exposing anyone’s medical file. Those were arguments designed to thwart our investigation into the physician’s behavior.

As the Office of the Attorney General, it is our duty to ensure that doctors meet the standard of care. In our opinion, Dr. Bernard fell short in this situation. Now, it is up to the Medical Licensing Board to determine whether there are consequences for violating a patient’s privacy rights and the obligation to immediately report child abuse to Indiana authorities.”

[Estragon]

The claim about reporting to CPS is disputed by the Doctor and her attorney. There is some documentation to back up their side of the story. This AG has also allegedly been investigating that aspect since July, it seems to me that it would be fairly easy to prove the absence of a report.

As to the assertion “Simply concealing the patient’s name falls far short of her legal and ethical duties here”, I am unclear if this is the AG’s opinion, or settled law in this area. I suspect the former, willing to be corrected.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the argument isn't that she failed to file a report, it's that the law required her to do it "immediately", and she waited a couple of days, by which time the girl had gone home, before filing it.

[Estragon]

The claim about timeliness is disputed.

[shawn_dude]

Further, the rape and initial report were already filed in the girl's home state prior to her seeking medical assistance across state lines.

The real issue here is that the doctor embarrassed a bunch of anti-abortion politicians with a story that demonstrated the weakness of their position in both states. Their first reaction was to declare it false and then, when the rapist was caught, to try and spin this as malpractice on the part of the doctor.

[bernard11]

And Rokita's reaction was to use this to set himself up as some sort of anti-abortion champion, never mind how ridiculous his case is.

He really is scum.

Plus, he's a great example of why anti-abortion politicians can't be trusted when they claim their bans allow for exceptional cases. It only takes one ambitious asshole DA or AG to change that.

[David Nieporent]

No, the argument isn’t that she failed to file a report, it’s that the law required her to do it “immediately”, and she waited a couple of days, by which time the girl had gone home, before filing it.

If this were someone other than Brett I'd call them a liar. Since it's Brett, I'll just say that he's doing his usual ignorant parroting of stupid things he heard on OANN, knowing all of the wrong facts.

The law required reporting within three days. She reported within three days.

[not guilty]

The AG's complaint acknowledges that the child's pregnancy was terminated on June 30 (paragraph 13) and Dr. Bernard on July 2 submitted a terminated pregnancy report to the Indiana Department of Health and emailed a copy of the form to DCS, noting that the case was already reported to DCS in Ohio (paragraph 17). https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/thestatehousefile.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/70/a70387e6-71ae-11ed-96cf-1ffd3d9b3ccc/6389014f6b707.pdf.pdf That is well within the applicable three day window.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Since it’s Brett, I’ll just say that he’s doing his usual ignorant parroting of stupid things he heard on OANN, knowing all of the wrong facts."

I'll have to remind you that I have never seen so much as one second of OANN. Its my usual ignorant parroting of stupid things I found thanks to Google.

[Brett Bellmore]

I did a bit of searching, and apparently the Indiana case law does require the report be "immediate". I suppose the question is, how fast is "immediately". According to this, 'as soon as practically possible' is the almost uniform rule.

The AG's argument appears to be that waiting a couple of days so that the girl could go home first was hardly as fast as was practically possible, but instead was apparently intended to put her beyond the reach of Indiana child protective services.

[Estragon]

You have to love Brett, going to a secondary source, full of weasel words like “almost uniform rule”

Whereas you can find the actual rule quite easily:

https://www.in.gov/health/vital-records/files/TPR-Submission-Guidance-Updated-9.9.22.pdf

Three day reporting period.

[not guilty]

Fish gotta swim.
Birds gotta fly.
Brett gotta prevaricate.

[EscherEnigma]

If you'd been paying any attention since July, the AG's argument is, and always has been "she embarrassed me, I'm going to pin something on her."

Your pretended ignorance on this matter would be laughable if you weren't so serious.

[Michael P]

The NYT is being misleading -- Bernard made very public descriptions of the girl's case, apparently without consent from the girl or the girl's mother. Only after that did Bernard refuse to provide any details.

[shawn_dude]

Guy rapes a juvenile and the anti-abortion crowd's recent win denied that child an abortion so what lesson do they learn from this? Blame the doctor that helped the girl so that future doctors will think twice before helping children.

Any bets on when this AG is planning to run for governor?

[David Nieporent]

Wait… only after she didn't provide any details did she refuse to provide any details? Do you even speak English?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"what about Mr. Rokita’s oaths, as an attorney and as a state official, to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment?"

As a mandated reporter, I am not aware of any exception of my legal obligation to report child abuse -- which this was.

In other words, if I knew that someone performed an abortion on a 10-year-old without certain things being met, even in Massachusetts, I would be required to file a 51A report.

What is your issue???

[not guilty]

Speaking to the press about the travesty attendant to a ten year old rape victim having to travel out of state to obtain an abortion -- an issue of public concern -- is plainly protected by First Amendment guaranties. Mr. Rokita is seeking to punish Dr. Bernard for her exercise of First Amendment rights. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by medical “professionals.” National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). Shame on him.

[Michael P]

There are a lot of things that are protected by the First Amendment -- until there's a professional obligation to keep one's yawp shut.

It's surprising that an alleged lawyer doesn't know this.

[not guilty]

Unclear on what the First Amendment means? A state may not punish for exercise of protected First Amendment rights, including imposition of professional discipline. See, e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1054 (1991) (“At the very least, our cases recognize that disciplinary rules governing the legal profession cannot punish activity protected by the First Amendment, and that First Amendment protection survives even when the attorney violates a disciplinary rule he swore to obey when admitted to the practice of law.”) Content-based prohibitions of physicians’ speech “are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)

[Michael P]

Yes, you are unclear on what the First Amendment means. HIPAA has not been struck down. The Hippocratic Oath has not been repealed. Compelled speech is not the same as patient confidently, and a vague rule against public advocacy is different from client privilege.

You have not even asserted this case shares any relevant fact pattern with the cases you cite. Very sad for an alleged lawyer.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Anyone find it weird how we all of a sudden we have flu deaths again this year?

[Estragon]

Why? What numbers are you seeing and what’s weird about them?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, not really.

1. Covid and influenza tend to kill the same people, and if you got killed by Covid you're certainly not going to die of influenza.

2. Many of the anti-Covid measures would actually have been more effective against influenza.

3. Probably some deaths that were put down as Covid deaths just on general principles would have actually been influenza deaths.

But, mostly points 1 and 2.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Does anyone at VC have anything to say about this business with the Wright family and Rev. Schenck and the alleged "Hobby-Lobby" leak and SCOTUS apparently for sale?

It's so funny that they're surprised to find themselves held in low esteem. Is anyone in the world, other than them, surprised by it?

[Estragon]

This subject will be steadfastly ignored, especially by Josh. I continue to be surprised at the cowardice of certain contributors in addressing (or declining to address) certain uncomfortable topics.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That cowardice should no longer be surprising.

Neither should the hypocrisy.

Nor the regular use of vile racial slurs.

This blog's record in established and vivid.

[Frank Drackman]

carry on, Klinger,

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://media.patriots.win/post/ULYQ2kN5CWkw.jpeg

lmao of course

[Estragon]

Is anyone else a little leery of clicking on random links from the “Michelle Obama has a penis, I’ve seen it” guy? Thanks but no thanks!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I showed you a video of Michelle's penis literally swinging in her pants.

[Estragon]

You don’t know what “literally” means, among your other… idiosyncrasies

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Watch around the five minute mark in the video.

https://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/InspectorSmith/forum/main-forum/obama-s-major-fraud-issues-and-serious-character-flaws-general-discussion/16690-michelle-obama%C2%92s-swinging-nuts-on-the-ellen-degeneres-show

[Estragon]

It’s almost poetic, you posting a link to “wasobamaborninkenya.com”

What began with birther Brett has ended here, a full circle of huckleberry. These are your people Eugene!

“Watch around the five minute mark”

… uhhh, NO!

[Brett Bellmore]

Reminder: I always said that it was extremely unlikely that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, and that my main concern was that the people who thought otherwise deserved to lose in a court, on the merits. The native born citizen clause is there in the Constitution, and I don't believe any clause of the Constitution should be denied effect.

Not wanting the best evidence looked at rather evinces a certain doubt about what that evidence would say, it seems to me.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" my main concern was that the people who thought otherwise deserved to lose in a court, on the merits "

Yeah, that was the main concern expressed by Birther Brett.

That ranks with another commenter who continues to deny the existence of censorship this blog's proprietor admitted (and indicated he would engage in again).

Carry on, clingers.

[Estragon]

Whatever the nuances of your birther curious position, I bring it up more to point out the direction the commentariat has gone over 15 years. It’s a clear line, and I’m sorry to say that, yes, I associate you with the beginning of that process.

[apedad]

"Native" born citizen?

How about 'natural' born citizen.

[Mr. Bumble]

Too much scrapple.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not a thing!

[EscherEnigma]

and that my main concern was [...]

That he was black, we know, you don't have to keep up the charade.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're like that stooge in 1984.

[apedad]

I (quickly) read 1984 as 1941 and thought you were talking about John Belushi.

[Estragon]

Senator Blutarski was no stooge

[Frank Drackman]

it's where mine usually swings, not really interested in videos of Peni, swinging or not, but hey, knock yourself out!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/PP_ofAmerica/status/1597583323983118341?cxt=HHwWioDQ0bPk4KssAAAA

Are you Caucasian and would like to use your white privilege to do good?

If you visit our website, you can add a note to your donation that specifically requests that your donations are used to help minority groups access abortion.

I think this is the first time I've ever been motivated to donate to PP.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is this legal?

I’m not saying ethical — it isn’t — but is it even legal???

Could the Shriner's say that they will only provide medical care to White Christian children? (They would never do that, but could they?)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Anyone find it weird that the only all White commercial you can find on TV these days in Canada is that one about assisted suicide?

[Estragon]

I haven’t given it much thought! What do YOU find weird about it?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm guessing what he finds weird about it is that Canada is only about 4% black. But that's just guessing, I haven't been watching Canadian TV since I moved out of Michigan.

[Voize]

And 7% East Indian, and 5% Chinese, and another 5% Native.
Yours is a rather narrow definition of non-White.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm just suggesting that in a country as white as Canada, it would be statistically odd if you weren't frequently seeing commercials where everybody was white. Small samples of a heavily skewed population, and all that.

Obviously, if his observation is true, (I don't know, that's why I mentioned that it's been a while since I was watching Canadian TV.) the racial composition of the people in the commercials isn't random, the people making them are engaged in a deliberate effort to avoid all white casts.

That wouldn't be surprising, the casts of commercials, TV, and movies here in the US are radically unrepresentative of actual population frequencies, too. Absurdly so.

[great Unknown]

Would somebody please elaborate on what authority Congress has to impose a settlement in the Railroad Labor dispute?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The commerce clause.

[Purple Martin]

Specifically, under the Railway Labor Act of 1926, Congress can intervene in the case of a railway strike to impose a contract on the railroads to block or stop a rail strike.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Katie Hobbs office emailed counties who felt their elections weren't of sufficient quality to certify so quickly and threatened to imprison them for two years if they didn't certify Hobbs as the winner.

How could that be allowed to happen?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Observe and (try to) learn, grasshopper.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/01/katie-hobbs-threatened-county-arrest-prosecution/

Democratic Arizona Secretary of State and Gov.-elect Katie Hobbs’ top deputy threatened the Mohave County Board of Supervisors with prosecution if it didn’t certify her election results before a Monday deadline, according to emails and documents reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

What should I watch and learn? How to steal an election and disenfranchise then enslave a previously free people?

We've got the history of Democrats and the Left already, why do we need to watch it happen in realtime?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Stolen election? Enslavement?

You are entitled to wallow in delusion, disaffectedness, bluster, and bigotry, but none of your childish, impotent whining will alter your trajectory, which is to comply with the preferences of your betters until you are replaced, with the rest of the right-wing culture war casualties.

[Frank Drackman]

You like "Kung Fu" too?? finally a point of agreement!

[David Nieporent]

Um, no, that's not what happened.

Also, those people weren't balking based on "feeling" that their elections were flawed in some way. (Though as Ben Shapiro can tell you, facts don't care about your feelings anyway.) They were balking based on "feeling" that elections in other counties were flawed in some way, which isn't remotely a thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thread is too long to navigate easily. Need some way to filter comments.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe a notification that there has been a reply to one of your comments?

[EscherEnigma]

Ctrl-F, type in your user name, do a quick scan of your own comments.

Not the most elegant, but it works.

[Sarcastr0]

I ctrl-F for 'Mins.'

[Brett Bellmore]

It was certainly better when it gave time and date, instead of how long ago.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, best would be a hybrid: time and date before today, and duration for today. (When you have a Thursday open thread with hundreds of comments, searching for today's date is useless.)

[not guilty]

The Superior Court in Fulton County, Georgia has issued an order finding a non-waivable conflict of interest requiring disqualification of two lawyers from simultaneously representing eleven bogus electors. The court ruled that the lawyers could continue to represent Georgia Republican Party chairman David Shafer, or they could continue to represent the other ten bogus electors, but not both. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23322036-2022-ex-000024-ex-parte-order-of-the-judg

[John F. Carr]

The problem seems to be that Shafer is the ringleader and the other electors might try to make him the fall guy.

I can imagine the defendants in any of the false elector cases testifying that they thought their false electoral votes would be kept secret until the election was overturned. I never meant for the Republican Party to use that document I signed for them. It's all the Party chairman's fault!

[Mr. Bumble]

Where in the world is Miguel Aguilar from NBC news.

Ever since he correctly reported that Paul Pelosi, after opening the door for the SF police, went back into the house. NBC claimed this was not true, then reversed course and said it was the case but Aguilar has been off the air and twitter since November 4.

What's going on? Will he be found propped against a tree in Fort Marcy Park or floating in SF Bay?

[David Nieporent]

He's in Barcelona, you loon.

https://www.instagram.com/p/ClUVa_HLGYL/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading

Maybe you can't find him because — despite being so deeply invested in the story — you don't even know his name? It's Miguel Almaguer, not Aguilar.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is kind of unusual for a reporter to be taken off the air for making the mistake of accurately reporting what happened, though.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, kinda…

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Democrats:
If you spend some a couple hundred extra at the grocery store to feed your children because prices are high, you cause inflation.

Also Democrats:
If we spend trillions of dollars and make our clients and families rich, it doesn't cause inflation.

Sincerely,
Janet Yellen and the rest of her synagogue

[Purple Martin]

Just now, to the astonishment of every four-year-old child in the audience:

A federal appeals court on Thursday overturned a judge’s decision to appoint a special watchdog to review documents seized by the FBI from the Florida residence of former President Donald Trump in August as part of a criminal investigation.

...special master appointments are rare, and judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit expressed concern at oral arguments that Cannon’s decision set a troubling precedent: allowing the target of a search warrant to go into court and request a special master that could interfere with an executive branch investigation before an indictment is ever issued.

“In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents,” the Thursday opinion read. “We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed.”

[Purple Martin]

The panel included Judge William H. Pryor, the former attorney general of Alabama, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush. The other two judges on the panel, Andrew L. Brasher and Britt C. Grant, are Trump nominees.

[John F. Carr]

A separate order will issue the mandate in 7 days, instead of the usual 7 days after the the ritual post-decision paperwork has been filed and rejected. A motion in the Appeals Court to stay the mandate "must show that the petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay." (Rule 41) Trump can of course ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

[David Nieporent]

Trump will of course ask SCOTUS to intervene. There will be roughly zero votes on the Supreme Court in favor of staying the 11th Circuit’s order or hearing the appeal.

It is impossible to overstate how bad Judge Cannon's original decision was. I am not going to do as some have and say she was acting in bad faith. (She might have been, but the mere fact that she made crazypants rulings does't prove it.) But it was really terrible judging.

[John F. Carr]

I noticed that the opinion did not have the district court judge's name on it. First Circuit opinions usually mention who the judge below was.

[Purple Martin]

The opinion, only 23 pages is double-spaced, wide-margin text, is a quick read.

In the 32 instances of “district court” in the opinion, nearly all could be accurately replaced by “Judge Aileen Cannon.” Point-by-point and in total, they form a truly epic slap-down of Judge Cannon.

The district court [Judge Aileen Cannon] improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction in this case. For that reason, we VACATE the September 5 order on appeal and REMAND with instructions for the district court to DISMISS the underlying civil action.

Well worth reading for the entertainment value alone.

[David Nieporent]

As is normal, they tried to mock the losing litigant's arguments rather than the judge directly, but in this case they were so intertwined that it was impossible to mock Trump for making the arguments without mocking her for accepting them. Plus they pointed out a couple of instances where Cannon just made stuff up to fill in the gaps in Trump's briefing.

[not guilty]

I suspect that Trump will seek rehearing en banc prior to asking for Supreme Court review. Delay and fundraising are the names of the game.

[bernard11]

So how much longer does he get to play this game, and what happens in the interim?

Oh. And what do those who defended Cannon's idiocy have to say?

[Purple Martin]

As I understand it, The rules of the 11th Circuit don’t allow for decisions made by a three-judge panel to be appealed to the court en banc. Instead, any appeals go straight to the Supreme Court.

That’s what happened in their ruling on the DoJ’s request to partially stay Judge Cannon’s initial TR. On Oct 4, Trump filed the SCOTUS appeal to the Justice handling 11th Circuit Court of Appeals…and on Oct 13th, Clarence Thomas denied it.

“The application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on September 21, 2022, presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied,”

[John F. Carr]

This is a merits decision, not a motion panel.

The order in the case states: "Absent a stay or withholding of the mandate in the appeal to which this order is appended, the clerk is directed to issue the mandate after seven (7) days of the date of this opinion. Consistent with Eleventh Circuit Rule 41-2, the clerk is directed to provide the active members of this Court with notice of the issuance of this opinion and our direction to expedite issuance of the mandate."

Rule 41-2 states "In any appeal in which a published opinion has issued, the time for issuance of the mandate may be shortened only after all circuit judges in regular active service who are not recused or disqualified have been provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to notify the clerk to withhold issuance of the mandate."

So a judge who thinks Trump deserves en banc rehearing can speak up in the next week. But Trump (if I read rule 41 correctly) can not delay it unilaterally by filing motions for rehearing as he could in an ordinary case.

[Purple Martin]

Thanks! I’ll revise my previous comment to: “As I partially understand it, …”

[John F. Carr]

In the district court the government has requested a 7 day delay of all deadlines expecting that the mandate will issue and terminate the case. "As of the time of filing of this motion, we have not heard back from Plaintiff’s counsel."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.194.0_1.pdf

[bernard11]

So you think she is completely incompetent?

[Purple Martin]

I don’t think she’s incompetent, I think she did what she could short of direct collusion (including at least twice, leading the trump team by the hand and telling them—in her issued rulings— exactly what they needed to add to their pleadings…it was “give me something to work with guys”).

[Commenter_XY]

Was Judge Cannon 'bench-slapped' by Judge Pryor in his opinion? It sort of read that way to me.

[not guilty]

No surprises in the 21 page per curiam opinion. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/11th-cir/eb9858de31042399/full.pdf

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol at this paragraph:

“The next day—August 27—the district court issued an order declaring “its preliminary intent to appoint a special master” and requiring the government to provide Plaintiff with a more detailed list of seized items. The court stated that it had jurisdiction pursuant to the court’s “inherent authority” and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b)(1), which reads: “Before appointing a master, the court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard. Any party may suggest candidates for appointment.”

Maybe it was a typo and she meant 53(a)(1), which actually outlines when a court can appoint a master (this doesn’t help her either btw). But just quoting the actual rule she cited and ending the paragraph without needing to ever do any explanation of why that makes no sense is amazing.

Here’s Cannon’s original order

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.29.0.pdf

[not guilty]

CNN reports that a federal judge has ordered former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipillone and his deputy, Patrick Philbin, to provide additional grand jury testimony, rejecting Donald Trump’s privilege claims in the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of his effort to overturn the 2020 election. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/01/politics/cipollone-philbin-trump-lawyers-testify

Bad news for Team Trump.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

So Gallup released a poll that a majority of people support "stricter gun laws." That means of course we should implement them, Constitution be damned, because "We have to protect democracy."

But when a majority in red states vote to ban baby killing, and when a majority in blue states like California vote to deny "marriage" licenses to men who think another man's tush is the right place to park their diseased members, then "You can't vote away civil rights!"

[Sarcastr0]

That means of course

Of course!

[Brett Bellmore]

Typically, people who support "stricter gun laws" change their minds when they learn how strict gun laws already are.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Yes. Or, when you actually demonstrate to them that none of the "stricter" things being called for would actually work.

Now, the people who support a full ban will not change their minds, but they're not the ones you need to convince.

[Krayt]

It’s a little late for a Thursday thread entry, but wth, it only happened Friday morning.

Listening to NPR as I like to do every morning. Apparently there was just a regular poll for best movie in the UK. Last time, Vertigo won. This time, from some other country. That isn’t the observation.

This is: Some representative talked about how the number of voters external to the UK was doubled since last time, and sung a hymn to the wonderful graces granted by diversity. He felt it was much more democratic for democracy democracy fuck yeah!

So…unsatisfied with a result democracy was providing, a politician worked to alter the voting pool for the purpose of changing to a more desired outcome.

Democracy. Fuck yeah.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So…unsatisfied with a result democracy was providing, a politician worked to alter the voting pool for the purpose of changing to a more desired outcome."

During the Brexit debate, didn't some British politicians come right out and say they were doing that?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, it's kind of a category error to conflate the Sight & Sound poll for best movie with "democracy" in the first place, but your complaint is a bit odd.

By your own telling, he wasn't complaining about the "result." He was complaining about the process. And it's hard to call something "democratic" if large swathes of the electorate are excluded from voting.