Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome to the kinder/gentler open thread.

[John F. Carr]

"We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We got a kindler, gentler machine gun hand." – Neil Young

[Kazinski]

Unlimited access to fentanyl is what a kinder gentler machine gun hand looks like.

Its the unlimited meth that's the iron hand.

[darkknight9]

I haven't felt like seeing anything moviewise for years now... but I find myself wanting to see The Flash simply because Keaton's 90's Batman is in it.

Anyone seen it yet? Any good?

[Illocust]

I've seen it. Keaton shows up in the last half of the movie and steals the show. It's exactly what you want to see him in. First half of the show was honestly boring.

[Frank Drackman]

Keaton was great in Jackie Brown too

[Frank Drackman]

"You don't know Beaumont? well that's funny, because Beaumont knows you, or knew you, Beaumont isn't knowing anyone right now because he's dead"

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Everything about Jackie Brown was fantastic.

[Frank Drackman]

Ordell Robbie:
Is that what I think it is?
Jackie Brown:
What do you think it is?
Ordell Robbie:
I think it's a gun pressed up against my dick.
Jackie Brown:
Well, you thought right. Now take your hands off from around my throat, nigga.

Frank

[Martinned]

That's consistent with the reviews I've seen: Not great, unless you're into cameos and gimmicks.

[Mr. Bumble]

In other words, most new releases.

[Martinned]

Gimmicks are in the eye of the beholder, I guess. But the new Pixar movie sounds pretty good, and there are new movies coming up from Wes Anderson and from Jennifer Lawrence. So there is plenty of non-gimmick choice, I'd say.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly sounds like "plenty" and I did say most, not all.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why are there only two options for gender reassignment surgery?

[Kazinski]

That's like asking why there aren't any trans-men running track or boxing or playing tennis competitively against cis-males.

The answer is "'shut up' they explained".

[Nige]

Who says there aren't?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are there?

[Gandydancer]

Well, maybe, e.g., when cutting off the balls and installing a "vagina" you could leave the penis in place, creating a third "gender"..

[Nige]

Hermaphrodites do actually exist, Gandy.

[Gandydancer]

If when carving out a "vagina" you cut off the penis the result isn't a woman and if you leave it the result isn't a hermaphrodite. It's a mutilated man either way. The question, let me remind, you was whether there were only two options for "gender reassignment surgery", not how many "genders" there are.

[Nige]

Just like a man without an appendix is a mutilated man.

[David Nieporent]

…which is why they don't remove an appendix unless the organ is infected and/or ruptured and thereby threatening the life of the person it is in.

[Nige]

Nobody seems bothered one way or the other. How awful!

[Michael P]

Aren't all the other options just called "body modification" rather than "gender affirming care"?

[Moderation4ever]

Better question is why does this topic get so much more attention that some of the real problems in this country? I was born in a country that won WWII, that in my lifetime put men on the moon, that ended legal segregation. Today's big issue is focused on a small number of people who choose to live their lives as a sex other than their birth sex.

The US has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrial world, but what about trans?

[Martinned]

I think you've just answered your own question. Culture war issues, as always, are a technique that the right uses to avoid talking about things they don't want to talk about.

[Brett Bellmore]

The left's position is that they can do as they like, and it's not a culture war until the right resist.

[Sarcastr0]

Both sides want to do what they believe is correct, and don't like the other side having different beliefs.

Neither side is covering themselves in glory handling it these days, but the right is the one that can't top talking about violence and rally around a criminal because he owns the libs.

[Martinned]

I wouldn't say that "resist" is the word, but you're right, it's not a war until the right blows something out of all proportion. See also: Juneteenth.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, Juneteenth. More bread and circuses and another holiday for overworked government employees.

[Nige]

'The left’s position is that they can do as they like'

You're mad at the left for acting as if they live in a free country?

[Moderation4ever]

Left position is kind of libertarian isn't it.

[Super Scary]

Hahaha, great joke. Good stuff.

[Moderation4ever]

I didn't say "The left’s position is that they can do as they like," that was Brett B and that sounds libertarian.

[Illocust]

Eh, the high infant morality rate has more to do with how we count it. We count mortality from the moment of birth, other countries start counting after the highest mortality point has passed. We should honestly ask our hospitals to report how many days pay birth an infant has died, so we can data mine and recreate other country's metrics as needed.

[Moderation4ever]

Changing how we count is not really important because the real crisis is that some of those babies will one day want to live as a different sex than their birth sex.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federal Government spends over $1.5T on healthcare each year and heavily regulate and control the rest of the spending.

Why can't they solve high infant mortality rates?

[Nige]

Is it because of a rigid ideological movement that demands that access to healthcare be limited and controlled and costly and highly profitable to entirely unnecessary middlemen?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you not classify the government as a middleman in your preferred scenario?

[Nige]

Because they're not.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Better question is...

Weren't you just whining about others circumventing?

why does this topic get so much more attention that some of the real problems in this country?

You're asking this during "Pride Month"?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Pride Month? There are 170ish LGBTQ related special days each year.

You never ever get away from their programming.

[VinniUSMC]

You’re asking this during “Pride Month”?

He’s not very bright.

[Nige]

You're right, of course, Pride Month really brings out the bigots sometimes.

[Gandydancer]

"The US has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrial world, but what about trans?"

Not talking about the unnecessary mutilation of kids won't decrease the infant mortality rate. But it would help evil people like you evade pushback if your most unpopular initiatives were ignored.

[ThePublius]

I predict that there will be a time in the future when big breasts will become a masculine fashion trend, and good looking, macho, masculine men will have great big beautiful breasts. Clothing styles and fashions will change to accommodate, accent, and enhance this look. Guys with the means will go double-D and bigger.

Can you imagine?

[Brett Bellmore]

I can imagine a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I'd expect them to happen.

[DaveM]

Good question. And why only reassignment to human body parts? If there is no objective truth and everything is just a construct, then why not construct yourself using parts from across the animal kingdom?

[Sarcastr0]

Did you hear someone say gender is a social construct and just make a bunch of assumptions?

[Frank Drackman]

It's like the music choice at Bob's Country Bunker they have both types, Country AND Western!

Frank

[OtisAH]

I’m sorry for you that “deeply closeted bottom with gynecomastia” is not yet recognized as a gender.

[Martinned]

Just in case you thought that hysterical headlines in favour of very cold-blooded rich people interests was something that only happens in the US, here is former UK home secretary Priti Patel in the Telegraph yesterday:

Britain can still escape the OECD’s radical plan for permanent worldwide socialism

(What she's referring to is an OECD-led treaty setting a minimum tax rate for companies, to combat tax evasion through overseas tax shelters.)

[Brett Bellmore]

What she's describing is a plan by high tax jurisdictions to spare themselves competition with lower tax jurisdictions by forcing everybody to adopt the high tax policy. Nothing more.

[Martinned]

No, what she's describing is a plan to prevent countries adopting a beggar-thy-neighbour strategy with respect to taxes, by allowing companies with no real link to the jurisdiction setting up a mailbox firm to allocate all their global profits to.

If you want lower taxes, just vote for them. But don't pretend that this sort of thing is in any way ethical or otherwise to be encouraged. (And I say this being from the Netherlands, a country so famous for its role in global tax evasion that it has its own nickname.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"If you want lowerhigher taxes, just vote for them. But don’t pretend that this sort of thing is in any way ethical or otherwise to be encouraged."

It's not the low tax jurisdictions trying to force the high tax ones to lower their taxes. It literally IS the high tax jurisdictions trying to compel lower tax jurisdictions to raise their taxes. You can describe low taxes as pejoratively as you like, and that's still what is going on.

[Martinned]

What's going on is a bunch of people trying to find a solution for tax havens taxing profits that have no substantive connection to the jurisdiction without having to define what a tax haven is. If you have a better solution, please let us all know.

[Krayt]

The reason Earth does not need a one world government is that people would have nowhere to flee to to get away from arrogant politicians.

This is a real step in that direction. To hell with arrogant politicians trying to extend their claws into other countries.

Sorry, my fellow science fiction buddies. One world government is the ancient dictator's goal, not the goal of those who enjoy freedom.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure what it is about the last 10,000 years of human history that makes you think we're doing all that well without a single world government.

Also, I take it from this comment that you're a big fan of a generous refugee policy? (Just checking...)

[Brett Bellmore]

The point of not having a single world government isn't to achieve the best case, it's to take the worst case off the table.

[Martinned]

Why would we prioritise avoiding the worst case regardless of its probability? Just because someone wrote a science fiction book once, doesn't mean we should prioritise avoiding that scenario above all else. That's not how we do policy in any other domain, including when we apply the precautionary principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Strong_vs._weak

[Kazinski]

The best thing about not having a one world government is having someplace to flee to if we don't like the government where we live.

Sure a one world government might raise the average level of government around the world, but it would bring quite a few of us down to that average, and no alternative.

And no aspirational beacon for people around the world. And no competition for government to contend with with lower.taxes or more freedom. And no place to experiment with new ideas in governance to make improvements. And no place with less regulation for entrepreneurs to develop the things that have made everyone on the planets lives better.

[Martinned]

What are you talking about? You're describing a level of centralisation that exceeds even what the US has.

[Bwaaah]

What is it about the last 10,000 years of human history that makes you think we're note doing SO MUCH BETTER THAN WE'VE EVER DONE BEFORE, ALMOST EVERYWHERE. What wretched little corner of the present world do you seize upon so as to liken the quality of life today to 10,000 years ago? What trivial measures do you rely upon? (Not lifespan? Starvation? Routinely unchecked disease? Median individual wealth? General safety? Consumer comforts?)

It's as if your words have no _real_ meaning.

[Martinned]

Yes, as we've moved towards more global governance in the post-World War II era, a lot of terrible things have become a lot less terrible. What's your point again?

[Bob from Ohio]

The reason things have been "less terrible" is and was US power, not the UN and the other worthless international bodies.

[Martinned]

So you're saying that the US acting like a de facto world government made the world better?

[bevis the lumberjack]

One world government? No way. You keep yours. We’ll keep ours and be happy to do di.

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, the Attorney General of the United States paid an official visit to the International Criminal Court today. https://twitter.com/IntlCrimCourt/status/1670850522251657247

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, Garland sucks.

[ducksalad]

Martinned, if one lists the characteristics of a free country, one essential item is the right to leave if you don’t like it. A government that does not allow people to leave is by definition not a free country, no matter how good they are on other liberties.

Future hypothetical: some golden era of good feeling arises where overwhelming democratic majorities across the globe want to unite. Fine, do it. But carve out some liveable piece of territory and don’t govern it and don’t prevent people from going there, even if few or no people are interested. Like banning torture, it’s not just for “their” rights, it’s to prevent ourselves from going nasty.

[Martinned]

That's a level of sophistry up there with proving God exists by arguing that God is by definition perfect and if he didn't exist he wouldn't be perfect. Just because only billionaires can leave the earth doesn't mean that a world government would, legally, prevent people from leaving.

[Nige]

Weird take from people so hostile to migrants.

[Nige]

Two things were supposed to happen when people got a covid vaccine:

Mountains of bodies killed by the vaccine.

The One World Government.

[VinniUSMC]

Not for lack of trying. We got lucky this time. Y'all just gonna try harder next time though. We must remain vigilant against the lefty shits.

[Sarcastr0]

What are we going to try harder to do, Vinni? What are you talking about?

[Nige]

You were proven completely and utterly wrong, you were proven liars and dupes, fools and opportunists. But yeah, next time you should be listened to.

[Gandydancer]

"No, what she’s describing is a plan to prevent countries adopting a beggar-thy-neighbour strategy with respect to taxes, by allowing companies with no real link to the jurisdiction setting up a mailbox firm to allocate all their global profits to."

If some company doing business in the Netherlands allocates its profits to an entity in, say, the Cayman Islands there is nothing real preventing the Netherlands from ignoring that and allocating those profits any way it likes and taxing it accordingly. If you've somehow hobbled your ability to do that, free yourselves instead of plodding more deeply into the quagmire.

[Martinned]

We are freeing ourselves. We are making a treaty. That's what we non-Americans do when faced with a global problem.

[Gandydancer]

As I just explained to you with pellucid clarity it's NOT a global problem. People like YOU are a global problem.

[Kazinski]

I've been going through a similar challenge as the German Green party has been facing, although I've had a lot better success.

We've both been trying to install a carbon friendly heat source in our respective buildings. They've spent 5 million Euros installing a heat pump in their Berlin Headquarters and they can't make it work. What's even more embarrassing as members of the government they are trying to make everyone else retrofit their buildings to use heat pumps.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-greens-fail-to-install-green-heating-system/

I on the other hand spent about 2 weeks.and 2k installing a zero carbon heat source in my house. It took me about 2 weeks to do myself, and most of that was waiting for shipments to arrive. I fired up my new system tonight and it works great, maybe it was too warm, but temps are supposed to drop in to the upper 30s by morning so I'll be glad to have it by then.

But to be fair my zero carbon heat source isn't really zero carbon, it pours out tons of carbon and other pollutants, its a wood stove. But I don't make the rules, they do. After all Britain's largest power plant is completely carbon neutral even though its burning wood chips imported from the US and Canada, they don't even count the emissions from the ships that transport the wood chips that are burning bunker fuel.

Then they sell the carbon credits.

I got some carbon credits to sell if anybody wants some, and aren't too particular about their provenance, which seems to be industry standard practice anyway.

[Moderation4ever]

I installed a dual heat system last year that uses a heat pump paired with a traditional NG furnace. I am finding that my natural gas use has decreased with no real increase in electrical use. I suspect that the new heat pump is significantly more efficient that the AC it replaced. I did spend a few thousand more for the system and I don't expect to recover the cost in my lifetime, but I see it as doing my part to address climate change.

[John F. Carr]

Air to air heat pump?

I know a builder who loves heat pumps that use ground water.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was looking at switching to a heat pump using my 1/2 acre pond, just laying a bunch of plastic pipe on the bottom, before I lost my job in Michigan and had to move. It was more cost-effective than trucked in propane, but the outdoor wood stove had it totally beaten, since my property was already wooded.

There was a single pass system I could have run off my well, that was even better, but I lived in one of two counties in the state that had outlawed its use.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ground water heat pumps work better especially in colder climates but are much more expensive.

[Brett Bellmore]

Heat pumps powered by electricity they won't permit to be generated, that's the massively stupid thing. They didn't just shut down their nuclear plants, they spent extra money to demolish them, so that a future administration wouldn't be able to undo the decision.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Germany is doing us all the favor of taking the bullet to show us that these Green New Deals won’t work, but the stupid politicians in the rest of the world decline to absorb the lesson.

It’s the classic definition of insanity thing, but feeling good about your virtue and your environmental heroism is more satisfying than making realistic hard decisions. So we get Existential Jennifer and Smug Gavin leading us into the German abyss.

[John F. Carr]

The previous owner of my house is one of the zero emissions people. She left some research she did on wood pellet heating for the house. I chose not to go that route in part because we can't use wood pellets for everything and I didn't want two fuel sources. I was uncertain about the supply options too. How many suppliers of wood pellets for any particular type of furnace are there? Do we have to keep hauling wheelbarrows full of wood? The furnace would be in a place you can't park a truck next to.

[Mr. Bumble]

Having more than one source of heat (and fuel) is not a bad idea.

[Gandydancer]

Reality bites. AfD vs Greens

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/germany/

[Nige]

Greens dropped... 0.5%?

[Gandydancer]

Your total incompetence at thinking extends to being utterly unable to read simple charts?

Hint: Follow the GREEN line, not the red SPD one.

Jeez.

[Nige]

I did.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There was another potentially disturbing aspect in the Trump investigations, regarding potential misconduct by the Biden DoJ.

Turns out when the DoJ prosecutors were doing their investigation, they wanted the cooperation of Trump's valet Walt Nauta. So, they brought him in for questioning, with his lawyer Stanley Woodward. And they're trying to get Nauta's cooperation. But...then they turn to the lawyer, Woodward. And they say..

"Bratt (The DoJ guy) then turned to Woodward and remarked that he did not think that Woodward was a “Trump guy” and that “he would do the right thing”, before noting that he knew Woodward had submitted an application to be a judge at the superior court in Washington DC that was currently pending, the letter said."

That's...disturbing. Disturbing on multiple levels. Now, prosecutors don't have direct oversight over who is to become a judge. But, a few quiet words here, a recommendation there on the "right sort" of person...a judge who would cooperate with the DoJ when the "interests of the country" were more important than the "interests of the client"....

Then, we've got to ask....How many other current judges took this sort of quiet...suggestion...from the DoJ? How many potential candidates were subtly eliminated from contention because they valued their ethics more than cooperation?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/lawyer-trump-valet-nauta-mar-a-lago-classified-documents-misconduct-allegation

[bevis the lumberjack]

That might matter a great deal if Trump hadn’t spent the last couple of years bellowing publicly that he was doing everything he was ultimately indicted for.

[Frank Drackman]

Kindler/Gentler Frank
probably best to let questions of guilt/innocence be left to a Jury of one's peers. Not sure where they're going to find 12 other Billionaires.

Frank

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ultimately, this isn't really about Trump. It's about a disturbing trend within the DoJ. We need to ask a number of questions here.

1. Is it ethical or proper for the DoJ to pressure a suspect's lawyer? Not the suspect, but the lawyer of the suspect.

a. Here's the problem with this sort of action. It's two-fold. First, it encourages the lawyer to act contrary to the best interests of the client. That damages the system of government we have.

b. Second, it encourages those lawyers who don't wish for such "pressure" to simply not take cases where they may be so pressured...thus reducing the potential pool of skilled representation available to those who have offended the government.

Both of these help the DoJ long term. But are damaging to the criminal defense system we have today.

2. What does this do to future judges?

-Again, it must be pointed out, DoJ prosecutors don't have direct oversight over who will become a judge. But they do have a sort of "soft power" by recommending or discouraging certain individuals. Those judges who work with the DoJ (against their potential client's interests) are promoted. Ultimately, if they become judges, they may "owe" the DoJ one.
-Those who work against the DoJ are discouraged, and are selected against as judges...the exact people who are supposed to reign in excesses by the DoJ.

Long term, this substantially skews judges and their behavior.

This again, is bigger than Trump...It's a more long-term insidious process.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

But that's the kind of system the Democrats want.

Why else would they be engineering it?

[Gandydancer]

This is way too serious a reply to give to Bellowing Bevis.

Do you really think this behavior by the DOJ is new?

It comes to mind from a recent viewing... Did that Tom Hanks movie about engineering a prisoner exchange with East Germany circa 1950 get this part (pressuring the lawyer) wrong?

[David Nieporent]

1. Is it ethical or proper for the DoJ to pressure a suspect’s lawyer? Not the suspect, but the lawyer of the suspect.

No, it would not be proper to pressure a defendant's lawyer based on the lawyer's career ambitions. If it happened that way, it would be unethical. Has no relation to the merits of Trump's case, but it would be unethical.

-Those who work against the DoJ are discouraged, and are selected against as judges…the exact people who are supposed to reign in excesses by the DoJ.

He was supposedly applying to be a D.C. Superior Court judge. That doesn't have anything to do with DOJ. It's the equivalent of a state level judge (although since D.C. isn't a state the selection process does involve the federal government); they don't "rein [sic] in" the DOJ.

[Gandydancer]

I’m pretty sure the Biden regime can influence the selection of a D.C. Superior Court judge. Did you think you had a point this time, Nopoint?

nb("N.B."?): Your “[sic]” is an error. It should be there only if you’d retained AL’s “reign”.

[not guilty]

Judges on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia are selected through the assisted appointment method. The District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC) releases a notice of judicial vacancy, and interested individuals submit application materials to the commission. The JNC is composed of seven members, each serving six-year terms, except the member appointed by the President who serves a five-year term. The commission evaluates applicants and may choose to conduct interviews or solicit feedback from the public. Three individuals are recommended to the President of the United States by the commission for each vacancy. The President names an appointee from that list who then, like federal judges, must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. https://ballotpedia.org/Superior_Court_of_the_District_of_Columbia

I surmise that, once the nominating commission does the initial screening and transmits its slate of nominees, the President can seek input as to the three nominees from whoever he chooses. But DOJ is not part of the process.

[Bored Lawyer]

The lawyer in question was not Trump’s lawyer, he was the valet’s lawyer. And this kind of tactic is slimy, should be investigated, and if true, the AUSA who did it should be fired. What he did is highly unethical. Of course, a good lawyer would say, F— You to the AUSA, but not everyone is on that level.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"The lawyer in question was not Trump’s lawyer, he was the valet’s lawyer."

I thought I had made that clear with the below statement, but I apologize if it wasn't clear.

"Turns out when the DoJ prosecutors were doing their investigation, they wanted the cooperation of Trump’s valet Walt Nauta. So, they brought him in for questioning, with his lawyer Stanley Woodward. And they’re trying to get Nauta’s cooperation. But…then they turn to the lawyer, Woodward."

But if the AUSA isn't fired, ultimately they make the recommendation that Woodward "isn't judge material".

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, I was replying to Bevis' comment, not yours.

And even if he were Trump's lawyer, it's still unethical. Trump is entitled to any counsel willing to represent him.* Even the worst mafiosos get counsel, and the government should not be trying to dissuade them from representation.

____________
*Of course, Trump himself has done his best to scare off any legal talent. That's a problem of his own making.

[Ben_]

"And even if he were Trump’s lawyer, it’s still unethical."

Should be a sixth amendment violation. Ideally there’d be a severe sanction.

[Gandydancer]

The Guardian's spin: "“Even if it’s true, it would not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct,” former US attorney Joyce Vance said. “Prosecutors don’t have any influence over judicial applications and all the parties to the conversation would have known that.”"

[not guilty]

What should be a Sixth Amendment violation, Ben?

Now if Woodward were appointed as a judge in order (primarily) to keep him from representing Nauta, that might be an interference with Nauta´s right to counsel of his choosing.

[Gandydancer]

Improper influence by the prosecution on a defense counsel already chosen by Nauta surely effectively deprives him of that representation.

[not guilty]

Uh, no. It doesn´t deprive him of representation of his choosing.

Suppose that, as you posit, improper influence by the prosecution on a defense attorney in fact occurred. What remedy would you propose?

[gVOR08]

Good, long, deep dive by WAPO today on how DOJ and the FBI stalled and tried to duck the J6 investigation, especially anything involving Trump. Way too detailed to excerpt. De-paywalled: https://wapo.st/43KnQVl.
You’re welcome.

[Gandydancer]

Your description of the article is even more misleading than it is.

This business of de-paywalling the article to make it more easily available for propaganda use is interesting. Any way to tell who did this?

[David Nieporent]

The wackos get nuttier and nuttier. Now allowing people to see what a newspaper published is itself a conspiracy.

[Gandydancer]

You are a brainless twat, Nopoint. gV is perfectly capable of providing a bogus description ("how DOJ and the FBI stalled and tried to duck the J6 investigation") without conspiring with anyone else to do it, and I never suggested otherwise.

[David Nieporent]

What you "suggested" was that "de-paywalling the article" was a conspiracy for "propaganda use." Which is loony.

[not guilty]

Bratt´s comment is unremarkable. Woodward´s background, related on his firm´s website, http://brandwoodwardlaw.com/, suggests no affinity for Donald Trump, so Bratt likely was surprised to see that he was representing a Trump minion. (As an aside, the firm is headed by a lawyer who from 1976 to 1983 served as general counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives under Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, Jr. and who has a history of representing prominent Democrats.)

The article linked by Armchair Lawyer suggests no indication that the mention of the judicial opening was nefarious.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, I take it you believe such comments to attorneys are completely legitimate then and have no potential for ill abuse?

Prosecutors should regularly bring up bits of commentary regarding lawyers. "I know you'll do the right thing and get your client to cooperate. Oh, by the way, I see your wife has applied to the DA's office in this other city".

You're completely on board with these types of comments?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The primary problem with your argument, is that you're assuming the statements are linked at all, let alone immediately.

I'd check your original source, if I were you. Pay careful attention to the description used, then come back here and tell me that couldn't mean, for example, several minutes after.

That's setting aside the entire problem of Bratt not having the power to make Judges in the first place, but let's just start small.

[Gandydancer]

Bratt absolutely has the power to volunteer disparaging comments on Woodward's likelihood of playing ball if a political suit or prosecution were to come before him as a judge.

[not guilty]

¨Bratt absolutely has the power to volunteer disparaging comments on Woodward’s likelihood of playing ball if a political suit or prosecution were to come before him as a judge.¨

Yes, the First Amendment can sometimes be a bitch.

[Gandydancer]

The first amendment does not protect a threat to disparage as a way for a prosecutor to blackmail a defense attorney to cooperate with him regardless of the interests of the latter's client. And it anyway is irrelevant to the falsity of asserting that there is a "problem of Bratt not having the power to make(sic) Judges in the first place".

[not guilty]

Any suggestion of blackmail of a defense attorney is simply ridiculous.

Suppose for sake of discussion, though, that Jay Bratt volunteered a comment on Woodward´s judicial application to the nominating commission, to the President, or to the Senate. That would be core political speech protected by the First Amendment. Do you have any authority to the contrary -- that it would be unprotected?

[not guilty]

As a prudential matter, it is not a comment I would have made under the circumstances, so I can´t say I am ¨completely on board.¨ Whether an offhand comment in November 2022 taints the indictment found by the grand jury in June 2023, however, is a different inquiry. It plainly does not.

The defense team is grasping at straws -- not that there´s anything wrong with that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And why wouldn't you have made the comment?

[not guilty]

Because it was not germane to what the attorneys and Nauta were there to discuss.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And you would never make non-germane comments to the lawyer? "How was traffic?". "Rainy weather today, isn't it?"

As much fun as it is seeing you bob and weave around the question, you know exactly what the problem is with such comments that the DoJ made, which is why you wouldn't make them....

[Ben_]

Did you expect a forthright and principled answer from ng?

[Gandydancer]

Not me.

[not guilty]

You asked a simple question, and I gave a responsive answer.

The bobbing and weaving here is by those who claim that an isolated comment by a DOJ lawyer somehow constitutes misconduct which taints the prosecution of Walt Nauta. That claim doesn´t pass the giggle test.

[Armchair Lawyer]

“Those who claim”…

You seem to be saying I made I claim, which I didn’t actually make. Taking lessons from Strawman0 are we?

Read what was actually said. And continue to bob and weave.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The very comment which started this stupid thread included you suggesting that this was prosecutorial misconduct.

You've also extrapolated that it's a 'disturbing trend' in the DOJ. Whatever 'this' is according to you, and your example consisting of precisely 'one' alleged action.

Gaslight more. Tell us what you haven't actually said while it's all on the same page for everyone to see.

[not guilty]

Right, Jason. Groucho Marx had panache enough to ask, are you going to believe me or your lying eyes. Armchair Lawyer does not.

[Gandydancer]

It was clearly prosecutorial misconduct intended to suggest to Woodward that playing ball on getting Trump convicted would benefit his prospects of becoming a judge during the Biden administration.

NG’s assertion that AL has made an argument that said misconduct “taints the indictment found by the grand jury in June 2023” is of course a falsehood. It might, depending on what other malfeasance the DOJ is shown to have engaged in, but the issue AL has addressed here is so far solely the egregiousness what Bratt did in THIS instance. As Cavanaugh says, “it’s all on the same page for everyone to see”, and what was written is not what you are pretending it was.

[not guilty]

¨It was clearly prosecutorial misconduct intended to suggest to Woodward that playing ball on getting Trump convicted would benefit his prospects of becoming a judge during the Biden administration.¨

How do you glean that intent from Jay Bratt´s reported comment?

Do you claim that a mid-level DOJ functionary has that kind of juice on a presidential appointment?

[Gandydancer]

That's an idiotic take on what I said. No "juice" controlled by Bratt was implied in his threat against Woodward. The one with the juice to grant or deny him the judgeship would of course be a Democrat interested in convicting Trump and in making sure that anyone put on the bench would be someone not unwilling to carry water in the future.

[not guilty]

¨That’s an idiotic take on what I said. No ´juice´ controlled by Bratt was implied in his threat against Woodward. The one with the juice to grant or deny him the judgeship would of course be a Democrat interested in convicting Trump and in making sure that anyone put on the bench would be someone not unwilling to carry water in the future.¨

Do you actually think that Donald Trump will come before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Gandydancer?

That Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia are different tribunals.

[not guilty]

As an aside, Mr. Woodward´s representation of Mr. Nauta may be ethically compromised by the payment of fees from Trump´s Save America PAC. Brand Woodward Law represents multiple Trump underlings, whose interests are potentially adverse to Trump, in both the Mar-a-Lago documents scandal and the January 6 investigation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/05/trump-witnesses-legal-bills-pac/

If Mr. Nauta goes to trial before the jury and is convicted, he will almost certainly collaterally attack the conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He will likely claim that Mr. Woodward labored under a conflict of interest that impaired his ability to negotiate a favorable plea agreement on his behalf, owing to concern about whether Save America PAC would turn off the $pigot to his law firm.

[not guilty]

Like any criminal defendant, Walt Nauta has a (qualified) Sixth Amendment right to retain counsel of his choosing. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006). While the right to select and be represented by one's preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant, rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988).

Where a defense attorney has a potential conflict of interest, the defendant may offer to waive the conflict and consent to continued representation. Before accepting such a waiver, a trial court may inquire into whether the conflict is indeed waivable. "When a trial court finds an actual conflict of interest which impairs the ability of a criminal defendant's chosen counsel to conform with [applicable rules of professional conduct,] the court should not be required to tolerate an inadequate representation of a defendant.¨ Wheat, 486 U.S. at 162.

A trial court must be allowed substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interest not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses. Wheat, at 163.

Here the district court or magistrate should inquire into whether the payment of Mr. Woodward´s fees by a Trump-affiliated PAC poses an actual conflict or serious potential for conflict, whether Mr. Nauta desires to waive such conflict, and whether the court should accept any proffered waiver.

[Gandydancer]

Feel free to help Mr. Nauta escape his need to accept help from Trump by assuming the burden of his legal costs yourself. Otherwise save your crocodile tears.

[not guilty]

If Mr. Nauta is unable to afford conflict-free counsel, he can ask the trial count to appoint counsel for him at public expense.

[not guilty]

Armchair Lawyer, do you have any indication that Jay Bratt´s alleged comment to Stanley Woodward was made known to the Miami grand jury that charged Walt Nauta?

As I wrote upthread in regard to Donald Trump, ¨In our system, so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.¨ Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978). By lying to the FBI and refusing to accept responsibility when confronted, Walt Nauta sowed the wind. The instant indictment means that, like ancient Israel, he is now reaping the whirlwind. (See Hosea 8:7.)

[Gandydancer]

You keep trying to change the subject, which is Bratt's misconduct.
An investigation of Bratt to discover whether this behavior is part of a pattern of his eagerness to bring the indictment overcoming ethical constraints is the next step that is actually called for.

[not guilty]

Let´s assume for purposes of discussion that Bratt´s comment was misconduct. What remedy do you think is appropriate? Whether it affected the grand jury´s charging decision would surely be relevant to that.

[Gandydancer]

Your attempt at distraction is unavailing. Since Woodward didn't succumb Bratt's threat had no effect on the charging decision. As I already said, "An investigation of Bratt to discover whether this behavior is part of a pattern of his eagerness to bring the indictment overcoming ethical constraints is the next step that is actually called for." Depending on what turns up various punishments could be called for, starting with a reprimand at least.

[not guilty]

Such an investigation may be already underway. According to the Guardian, a complaint has been made in a letter filed under seal with the chief US judge in Washington, James Boasberg. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/lawyer-trump-valet-nauta-mar-a-lago-classified-documents-misconduct-allegation

I will be very surprised if anything comes of it.

[Brett Bellmore]

But that's not saying that selective prosecution doesn't happen, or is a good thing. It's just to say that the law permits it, as the law permits a lot of evils on the part of government. Shockingly, considering the government writes the laws.

[not guilty]

Brett, every indictment names at least one defendant which a grand jury has ¨selected¨ for prosecution. There is a body of case law on when that selectivity is or is not problematic.

The anguished cries of selective prosecution regarding Donald Trump are a red herring. IMO Trump would have a (marginally) more persuasive argument for vindictive prosecution in retaliation for his assertion of First Amendment rights, which would be a Due Process violation rather than an Equal Protection problem -- the claim that no Special Counsel was appointed until he declared his candidacy for another term as president.

That claim would not involve the conduct of other persons and would eliminate the hurdle of who is ¨similarly situated¨ to Trump. While this defense is highly unlikely to succeed, it might warrant an evidentiary hearing.

[NOVA Lawyer]

As the article points out:

The justice department’s characterization of the meeting is unclear – a spokesperson declined to comment – though a more innocent explanation for the exchange could be, for instance, that Bratt was genuinely surprised to see the application and raised it as an aside.

Prosecutors also regularly collect background information about lawyers they meet with, including prior interactions with the justice department and cases they have argued, and it is not unusual for them to make small talk with defense lawyers about other projects they are involved in.

Definitely if it can be proved there was pressure, then that's bad.

But sounds likely to be different characterizations of the mention of a judge application. As has been noted, merely mentioning what someone is doing in their career is not necessarily pressure (especially where, as here, the AUSA and DOJ have no official or special power in regard to the career move).

I doubt there is anything provable here. People like you will run to the worst possible interpretation with absolute certainty. Others will dismiss it entirely as there is no transcript and will believe the US attorney rather than the private attorney, also with certainty. All we have now is an allegation.

But it fits nicely with your pre-conceived narrative, so you have no doubts about it being one more example of a corrupt "witch hunt" or whatever you think the wheels of justice closing in on an shady character who has, essentially, publicly admitted to the crimes with which he's been charged.

(Trump's "defense" in the Brett Baier interview is all but a confession. What grownup, much less high office holder, hides boxes with documents he's not supposed to have so he can sort the contents, rather than just tell the government here are the boxes, I need more time? His stories just get dumber. It's a decent story to tell to gullible voters half paying attention, I suppose, but it makes no sense as a legal defense. It's an admission he knew he had the stuff, so moving the boxes so his lawyers would not find them and, consequently, would submit a false affidavit in response to a subpoena is pretty clearly obstruction.)

[Frank Drackman]

Did you ever notice that June-teenth weekend is the most violent weekend of the year???

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12209385/Two-dead-three-injured-including-one-critically-mass-shooting-Chicago-celebration.html

[Ed Grinberg]

Shhhhh!!!!

[Martinned]

Given the prevalent ideological bent of late, I thought it might be useful to make a legislative proposal for everyone's convenience. Send it to your local state assembly member asap!

28Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material.
(1)The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the M1Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition of political publicity)—
“2AProhibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material.
(1)A local authority shall not—
(a)intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b)promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.
(3)In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.
(4)In subsection (1)(b) above “maintained school” means,—
(a)in England and Wales, a county school, voluntary school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944; and
(b)in Scotland, a public school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.”

Adapt as required, of course.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I dunno about the future of civilization anymore. Just heard that Air Canada is now doing land acknowledgements as part of their pre-takeoff safety thing. Oy Vey. Decent airline, but if I’m paying too much money for not enough legroom I’ll spend my dollars somewhere that won’t preach bullshit at me while I’m losing circulation in my feet.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do realize that they don't intend to let you have that option, right? That's the point of ESG based evaluations by banks and funds.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'd be OK with so-called "land acknowledgements" if they were more historically complete, and didn't stop at just the most recent changes in possession. Tell us which tribe(s) the land was taken from by the tribes that European settlers took it from. It would be even more interesting in Mexico, Central and South America, where you could be treated to a list of the indigenous peoples who were conquered, subjugated, enslaved and/or slaughtered by the Mayan, Incan and Aztec empires (among others).

[Martinned]

That would be easier to do if those cultures hadn't been so drastically wiped out by the Europeans.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That would be easier to do if those cultures hadn’t been so drastically wiped out by the Europeans.

Weird that we can easily talk about the histories of other cultures that haven't existed for centuries...or even millenia.

[Mr. Bumble]

So the Europeans wiped out the native cultures in Latin America?
So all of those trying to cross into the US are Europeans or their descendants?

[Sarcastr0]

Fuckin’ Mayans on our border better back off! No need to deny genocide here.

I think land acknowledgement are say something because doing something is hard.

The right doesn’t seem able to just roll it’s eyes and move on these days.

[Ben_]

"The right doesn’t seem able to just roll it’s eyes and move on these days."

We learned leftists always escalate.

[Sarcastr0]

I can't stop being a ragey asshole because the liberals make me do it!

[Gandydancer]

"The right doesn’t seem able to just roll it’s eyes and move on these days."

Given the results all around us of just doing that it's obviously well past time to stop.

And given that there are now more fucking Mayans than at any time in the past it would be extremely weird to be apologizing for genociding them, wouldn't it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, precisely. We've "rolled our eyes and moved on" to the point where we've lost major institutions, and might even have gone beyond the point of no return. I don't think there's going to be much more rolling eyes and moving on from here on out.

I mean, do liberals roll their eyes and move on when they see something they don't like?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, there is I’m sure a ton of rural or southern stuff the left would cringe at but they ignore.

Keep rationalizing being whiney babies.

[Brett Bellmore]

This country would be a lot less tense if Democrats were content to cringe at stuff they don't like, and then ignore it.

[Nige]

Shut up, Democrats, he explained!

[Gandydancer]

"Shut up, Republicans, he explained!" is in fact not a bad translation of "The right doesn’t seem able to just roll it’s eyes and move on these days", but Idiot Nige totally misses that.

[Nige]

Good thing my response was to Brett.

[Michael P]

Why would that make it any easier? Those cultures didn't keep good histories of the people they so drastically wiped out.

[Nige]

Seriously, the things you people think are threats to civilisation are a joke.

[Gandydancer]

Nige meanwhile thinks continued climate change is a threat to civilization.

Whereas I think its the failure to cull out the brainless like Nige that’s the real threat.

What we actually need is gender-affirming surgery for his ilk before the spawn again.

[Nige]

More of a threat than an announcement on an airline, that's for sure.

Vroom vroom Gandy.

[Gandydancer]

Agreed. You're a threat to spawn and vote. The airline groveling is merely a disincentive to use it.

[Nige]

Gandy's feeling threatened.

[Ben_]

The RCMP might arrest you and seize your bank accounts if you complain.

Canada fell to the tiny fraction of the population that embraces woke totalitarianism. Restoration of government by the people may not be possible.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Thanks again to the folks at Ballot Access News for alerting me to these two stories.

“Incumbent Mayor of Sackets Harbor, New York, Removed from Ballot For a Paperwork Error

“…He needed 32 signatures and submitted 46. Although the Board of Elections determined that he had enough valid signatures, his petition was challenged by supporters of his opponent, a Democrat, who pointed out the petitioner failed to show the number of signatures on the sheet.”

https://ballot-access.org/2023/06/17/incumbent-mayor-of-sackets-harbor-new-york-removed-from-ballot-for-a-paperwork-error/

I’m not sure I like the No Labels party, but that’s irrelevant to the right of ballot access:

“This week, it was reported [behind a paywall] that a group of leading Democratic strategists and former officials — including President Biden’s former chief of staff — met recently with anti-Trump Republicans to hatch a plan to “subvert” a third option for the 2024 presidential race from the group No Labels, which I lead.

“To be clear, this was not a meeting about how to beat No Labels on the merits (which we would welcome). Rather, it was a meeting about how to find and exploit legal technicalities, silence supporters interested in our approach and raise money for a campaign against us….

“The private meeting could have been purposed around coming up with ideas to improve the two parties and make No Labels unnecessary. This would have accomplished the same goal. Instead of embracing competition, those strategists and think tank leaders dedicated their attention to devising ways to block us and limit voters’ choices.”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-06-16/no-labels-third-party-candidates-democrats-republicans

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Here's a non-paywalled version of the No Labels story:

"Democrats meet with anti-Trump conservatives to fight No Labels 2024 bid

"...They said attendees discussed efforts to put pressure on No Labels donors and to educate potential No Labels presidential candidates about the dangers of the effort resulting in Trump’s election."

Can pressure on ballot-access petitioners be far behind?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-meet-with-anti-trump-conservatives-to-fight-no-labels-2024-bid/ar-AA1cyCqL

[Brett Bellmore]

The never-Trump Republicans have really been putting a lot of work into putting the "uni" in Uni-party. They've largely dropped the pretense of ever intending to be anything but controlled opposition.

Or even opposition at all, in some cases.

[Nige]

Imagine that, some Republicans not liking the guy you frequently admit was pretty terrible as a president.

[gVOR08]

You do know No Labels is funded by Trump supporters?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Since I said “I’m not sure if I like the No Labels Party, but that’s irrelevant to the right of ballot access,” then I’m not sure that your comment is the zinger you think it is.

[Nige]

The fact that third parties almost always turn out to be cynical fronts designed to split votes is probably why your not unreasonable points about ballot access get little traction.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Our current system is biased in favor of cynical fronts, since duopoly supporters can bring enough money to get their front parties on the ballot.

Even under the current regime, some bona fide grassroots parties, without the benefit of duopoly money, manage to get on the ballot sometimes. Imagine if they were no longer at a disadvantage vis-a-vis cynical front parties, there’d be more grassroots parties.

Your point about cynical fronts ought to gain little traction because cynical fronts are precisely the sort of thing the current set-up encourages.

(Also, is “not unreasonable” the same thing as “reasonable”? It sure sounds like it – you simply seem to be trying to convey your discomfort about admitting I’m right.)

[Nige]

So long as third parties and cynical fronts are more or less indistinguishable, you’ll have difficulty gaining traction for what would be pretty good and pro-democratic reforms. However, until the reforms are put in place, that’s not likely to change. That is to say, launching third parties won’t bring about reform, reform will bring about viable third parties. I fully support your agenda here, but it would be dumb to act blind to what something like the No Labels Party actually is. Campaign finance reform would play a role here, too.

[ducksalad]

And so what if it is?

[David Nieporent]

“…He needed 32 signatures and submitted 46. Although the Board of Elections determined that he had enough valid signatures, his petition was challenged by supporters of his opponent, a Democrat, who pointed out the petitioner failed to show the number of signatures on the sheet.”

I don't know anything about this particular story, but New York's candidate petition laws for years have notoriously been among the worst in the country in terms of their ticky-tackiness.

What's weird is that NY simultaneously actually allows cross-nominations of candidates (most states don't), which strongly benefits third parties.

[John F. Carr]

Editors at the Boston Globe are ecstatic after they got to call three people racists in the past week.

1. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts said offensive social media posts by your lawyer are a "get out of jail free" card:

After learning of counsel's anti-Muslim, racist postings, the [Black Muslim] defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and obtain a new trial on the ground that his court-appointed counsel had an actual conflict of interest.

2. An employee of the Suffolk County DA's office was placed on leave for the opposite reason, associating with the Nation of Islam was too Muslim.

At the mosque, Allah said Minister Don Muhammad introduced him to a man who was involved in bringing Reebok to a Boston neighborhood, according to the 2016 interview. Allah described the man associated with Reebok as a “Jewish guy who’s got short arms and deep pockets.”

3. A Rhode Island official was forced to resign after a company he had a business meeting wrote to his boss about his odd behavior.

[The email] said Patten commented on a pair of sneakers he’d received, saying, “Are these made in China? I hope not, because I really hate China” — and then looked at a female Asian staff member in the room and said, “No offense, hun.”

You can't have three links in a comment here. The quotes will let you find the stories.

[Mr. Bumble]

“No offense, hun.”
Would no offense,hon have gotten him off the hook?

[John F. Carr]

Even though it was over 30 years ago I still remember that time I was "hon"ed by somebody I had just met three minutes earlier.

[Frank Drackman]

Bless your heart!

[Mr. Bumble]

Don’t frequent diners much, do you? Around here that’s a standard for waitresses.

[Frank Drackman]

I eat at Waffle House so much my blood type is "Hash Browns"

[Sarcastr0]

Elon Musk wants a debate between a doctor and an anti-vax nut.

We did this with creationism a decade ago. I'd have hoped we've learned from that - reflexive 'debate is how you get at the truth' is not how humans work.

Similarly, the increasing rhetoric on the right that this or that opposing position is delusion, or a cult, or motivated by evil, shows how more and more actual debate is not what they want. They want the trappings of debate so they can seem legitimate without doing the work.

I'm all for engaging with conservative positions and opinions. But increasingly they're not taking them as opinions, but as axioms that cannot be assailed.
Some on the left do this as well, but the momentum is with the right these days. Positions that you cannot legitimately take include gun regs, abortion, trans issues, Biden not being a criminal, addressing climate change.
Heck they're almost there with the 2020 election.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

reflexive ‘debate is how you get at the truth’ is not how humans work.

How then, do humans work, Sarcastr0?

Positions that you cannot legitimately take include gun regs, abortion, trans issues, Biden not being a criminal, addressing climate change.
Heck they’re almost there with the 2020 election.

And here Sarcastr0 suggests the only "real debate" exists after accepting the Left's premises on these topics, then debating which Lefty solution is best.

He's not a serious person. Ever.

[Nige]

Is the left's premise that thousands and thouands of people haven't been killed by the covid vaccines? Because that puts them way ahead.

[M L]

Yes, why debate, or read, or think for yourself? Let the bureaucrat do it for you.

https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1665078398828576769

[David Nieporent]

Yes, why have people study for years to become experts when you can just "think for yourself" (i.e., watch a YouTube video and listen to Joe Rogan).

[M L]

Why listen to experts on both sides of an issue, all qualified but disagreeing with each other, when you can just listen to the government- and lobbyist-approved experts and ignore, censor, and cancel the others?

[David Nieporent]

There aren't experts on both sides of the issue, and RFKJ certainly wouldn't be one if there were. Why are you pretending that Rogan was calling for a scientific debate among experts — newsflash: those take place in scientific journals, not on podcasts — rather than a debate between Hotez and RFKJ?

[M L]

I agree that RFK Jr isn't an expert. I'm not interested in that, and I would think someone else would be a better fit to participate in such a debate. Also, RFK is running for office and is seeking publicity and boosting his profile here. But I was responding to Sarcastro's general dismissal of debates:

I’d have hoped we’ve learned from that – reflexive ‘debate is how you get at the truth’ is not how humans work. . . .

I strongly disagree. If political divides are widening and people are more entrenched and prone to delegitimizing the other side, it's not because debate and discussion have failed. Instead, it's all the more reason for more debate and discussion - even on issues where one side might be ridiculous. To shut down debate because it might "legitimize" something that's wrong or that you don't like - well that's just delegitimization, after all.

I came across this tweet on the issue which I thought was good:

People use the example of flat earthers to show that there are some kinds of people who shouldn’t be debated.

But why shouldn’t flat earthers be debated? Debating flat earthers might be interesting to many people and help people to understand science better.

There is nothing immoral or bad about flat earthers. Flat earthers, though they may be wrong, should surely be appreciated for their courage, nonconformity, and the diversity that their opinions provide. By questioning the round earth, and by being wrong, they help even round earthers understand their own positions better. And if by some fluke chance [flat] earthers turned out to be right, we would all be much better off for their having carried the torch despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Talk to flat earthers. Debate them. Make friends with them. Laugh about it. Have fun. Science is supposed to be joyful and wonderful and fun.

The people who tell you otherwise want you to shut up. This enjoyment of knowledge and thought, this fun, and this wonder, is one of the greatest acts of resistance against tyranny.

Moral self-righteousness about knowledge is the attitude of the authoritarian. Light-hearted, joyful curiosity is a profoundly revolutionary act.

https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/status/1670897327052328972

(I corrected above where he said round when it seems he meant to say flat.)

[M L]

"between a doctor and an anti-vax nut."

Lots of doctors are low IQ conformists, unhinged political nut jobs, and/or greedy big pharma shills.

Others are highly intelligent and accomplished like Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone.

[ducksalad]

One doctor asked for my help in getting his paper published. It was his new theory of the planets based on numerology, although he didn’t know it was called numerology, he thought he’d discovered that part himself.

Another doctor wanted my help with his new solar energy system. It was a rectangular box. The top was open, the bottom was lined solar cells. In between were a bunch of mirrors at various angles. Somehow, due to the mirrors, more power was supposed to hit the solar cells at the bottom than went into the top.

Another doctor who I didn’t know personally managed to lose a US Senate election to a semi-comatose stroke victim…..

[Life of Brian]

For those who may have missed it, Hotez had no trouble at all making time on his calendar to scurry over to a friendly forum and make his case uninterrupted and in perfect echo-chamber pitch to people whose minds are already made up.

[David Nieporent]

It's not a question of "time." It's a question of utility. A "debate" between a nut with no scientific knowledge who lies whenever he speaks, and an actual SME is completely useless. It is not a way to get at truth.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, cross-examination has no utility whatsoever. Gets in the way of the experts imparting truth to the jury!

[David Nieporent]

That's an utterly nonsensical response. Even if cross-examination were a scientific model rather than a legal one — spoiler alert: it's not — RFKJ is not an expert. He's a lawyer who makes shit up. (And, of course, he would not be under oath on the Joe Rogan podcast.) There is no scenario in which RFKJ would be allowed to testify and be cross-examined.

And Hotez is not a lawyer, so why would he be any good at cross examining RKFJ anyway?

[Life of Brian]

As much as it may pain a career attorney to have to consider this, cross-examination is a concept with far broader application than the law -- though, as you note, RFK is indeed a lawyer so he's likely quite adept at dealing with squirming, dissembling experts.

And if you're suggesting Hotez doesn't know how to listen to what someone else is saying about a topic upon which he's supposedly an expert and ask targeted questions to call the other person's position into doubt based on his purportedly superior knowledge and background, that really just sounds like the next round of whiny excuses for why he should just be able to sit in front of a microphone in friendly settings and docsplain to the rest of us plebes.

[Sarcastr0]

We went through this on creationism. Non-experts with an agenda have zero value add. And thanks to anti-expert anti-institutionalists on the right, if they have enough charisma raising them up to debate may be detrimental.

RFKJ thinks vaccines cause autism. That's been proven wrong many times, and it's damaging. I presume you, as usual, won't take a position on the question, you just want to stir shit.

[David Nieporent]

Vaccines causing autism is one of the least of his wacky theories. He is a conspiracy theorist on everything, from vaccines to 5G to Sirhan Sirhan to Ukraine to the 2004 election.

[Life of Brian]

Non-experts with an agenda have zero value add.

I'd say experts with an agenda (that would be Hotez in this case) have negative value add.

RFKJ thinks vaccines cause autism. That’s been proven wrong many times, and it’s damaging.

Setting aside your generous interpretation of "proven wrong," you're probably referring to mercury/Thimerosal, which curiously the industry cut way back on despite how wrong they proved everyone. The question of aluminum adjuvants he mentioned on Rogan's podcast -- which I understand you didn't bother listening to because you already knew it was wrong -- is still being actively studied by those whose salaries don't rely on everything being ok.

[Nige]

He should instead go on that other show and do the job of pushing back against ludicrous claims the presenter was too incompetent/stupid/credulous/cynical to do himself.

[Gandydancer]

“Elon Musk wants a debate between a doctor and an anti-vax nut.”

Gaslightr0 is being typically slippery for no good reason. Here’s the skinny:

“Rogan offered Dr. Peter Hotez $100,000 to the charity of his choice if he agreed to debate [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] on Rogan’s program after Hotez slammed a recent interview Kennedy had on Rogan’s program as “awful” and “nonsense.” Kennedy, who is making a bid for the 2024 Democratic nomination, repeated unfounded [sez Fox] claims he has long made like vaccines cause autism, and he and Rogan also discussed what they viewed as the dangers of 5G technology and the power of the pharmaceutical industry.

Several other figures also offered large sums to encourage Hotez – a frequent guest on CNN and MSNBC during the pandemic who pushed controversial mask and vaccine mandates – to debate with Kennedy…”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-rogan-elon-musk-challenge-scientist-debate-robert-kennedy-jr-vaccines-sets-off-firestorm

And then, there’s this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/06/14/robert-f-kennedy-jr-tops-biden-trump-in-new-favorability-poll

But, sure, us humans prefer our Presidential candidates to have dementia and spend their campaign time drooling, falling, and filling their diapers while hiding in their basements,.

[Nige]

You need all this to help decide whether wi-fi causes cancer?

[Gandydancer]

Nige thinks he's said something clever, but I can't tell why.

[Martinned]

Here's an interesting thread about the history of backmasking conspiracy theories and the efforts of sane people to argue with these nutcases: https://twitter.com/electricalWSOP/status/1670505490126602242

[Frank Drackman]

Excellent post, Sarcastr0 Kindler, Gentler Frank here, Why do we have to debate? People can believe they evolved from monkeys, and I’ll believe everything was made in 7 days, since nobody really knows for certain, what’s the harm??? And why not leave the choice to get vaccinated to the Individual? If I want to avoid the jab and ride the Herd Immunity for free, who’s it hurting?

and don’t even get me started on Motorcycle Helmet Laws….

Frank

[Longtobefree]

It is very important that motorcycle helmets obey the law; just like guns.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This conservative
blog has operated for

ZERO (0) DAYS

without using a vile racial
slur and has published
such slurs in at least

SIXTEEN (16)

different discussions
(that's 16 distinct contexts,
not 16 racial slurs -- many
of this blog's exchanges
feature multiple racial slurs)
during 2023 (so far).

(This assessment of the Volokh Conspiracy's
habitual publication of vile racial slurs does
not address this blog's incessant stream of
homophobic, antisemitic, Islamophobic,
xenophobic, misogynistic, and transphobic
slurs and other expressions of conservative bigotry.)

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Me Chinese
Me play joke
Me put Covid in your throat!

[Theendoftheleft]

Another day, another mindless hypocritical post by AIDS the bigot.

How are your efforts to subvert and destroy Islam going?https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned

How about your efforts to convince normal, sane people that it’s a genuine form of phobia, ‘transphobia’, to be incredulous about mental defectives’ gender essentialist claims?

What about forcing people to call it ‘Islamophobia’ when you yourself repeatedly state on this blog that that faith, like others, is merely barbarous superstition?

And why should anyone consider the holding of evolutionary duds to be inferior and unequal, and their relationships in disesteem, to be a form of ‘phobia’? Think it’s just a function of religious dogma? Then explain Chinese and other cultures’ treatment of such folks. Choose reason, AIDS: deconstruct your own essentialist notion of equality. It’s simply a product of the Semitic cults, a product of superstition and unreason, one that will fall by the wayside as more people secularize.

Further, your entire ‘liberal’ multicult ideology, which you foist down the world’s throat, is just a function of White supremacism and western cultural imperialism. You also just use it to try to use people as clay to form a new society, relying on knowledge and skills you don’t actually possess, to craft a new American Man, a new American culture and identity. The whole world sees that now, ie that you’re con artists and just as totalitarian as the Jacobins of old, the Soviets, etc, and so they consciously rejects you and your values. You’re done, AIDS, and so is your entire worldview.

Where do your grandkids go to school?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The audience of right-wing bigots attracted by the Federalist Society bigots who operate this faux libertarian blog objects when a voice from the mainstream quantifies the level of conservative bigotry -- well, one flavor of the bigotry; this blog is a bigot buffet -- found at the Volokh Conspiracy every day.

Bigotty.

Bigoted.

Bigots.

Carry on, clingers.

[Theendoftheleft]

A mindless response, AIDS; it's the best you can do, though, because you're a hypocritical fool and bigot.

[Theendoftheleft]

Oh, and quit it with the 'faux libertarian' nonsense, AIDS. Howsoever you style yourself politically, you're really just a social authoritarian and totalitarian, looking to completely socially re-engineer society, police thought and speech, silence divergent points of view and dialogue, etc.

[M L]

Here's a provocative tweet:

AlphaFox
@Alphafox78
Happy Fathers day to the best dad ever!!

https://twitter.com/Alphafox78/status/1670512480433446913

[Mr. Bumble]

Was that from Hunter to Joe?

[M L]

Backstory from the replies:

https://twitter.com/Andy82Raggedy/status/1670554135496630273

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauch%C3%A9

[M L]

Brilliant clip from the great Jimmy Dore

https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1665078398828576769

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet another day with no SC decisions.

[BrotherMovesOn]

You do realize that today is a holiday, right?
It was in all the papers.

[ducksalad]

Forgot until I got to the office and doors were locked.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Bumble is a shut-in, isolated from external stimuli such as a closed office door.

[M L]

High schooler is banned from graduation ceremony, gets offer of employment from US Forest Service rescinded for saying 2+2=4.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/travis-lohr-banned-from-graduation-after-saying-there-are-only-two-genders

[Gandydancer]

He departed from his "preapproved" remarks to say that there were only two genders, and so was banned from his graduation ceremony and a summer firefighting job offer was withdrawn. Also, "Bus driver Dakota Mailloux, who joined the protest on his own time, told the outlet he was fired for his participation."

In Iowa.

It's past timer to take our country back.

[Gandydancer]

Correction: Idaho. Worse.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Another instance of ML's 'hot take' where it will then say that it doesn't actually advocate anything at all and has no opinion on the matter.

Did you think that Brett needed some competition on being a shit-stain and a liar? Congratulations - you're in the running!

[Gandydancer]

In that contest neither are any competition for you.

[M L]

BREAKING: Secretary of State Anthony Blinken gives China the green light to invade Taiwan during his visit to Beijing, China.

"We do not support Taiwan independence."

What a pivot from Biden’s previous comments from just months ago. What happened?

"Yes, if in fact, there was an unprecedented attack,” Biden said after being asked if he would defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion.

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1670798090054381573

[Bored Lawyer]

Not sure this is a pivot. It has been US policy since Nixon that there is only one China, and at the same time we oppose any attempt at using military force to reunite China.

The former is a polite fiction. The latter has been backed up by US military presence.

What makes you think Blinken gave anyone a green light?

[M L]

Feels like a bit of a change in the winds, coinciding with the diplomatic meetings. Yellen made some comments the other day too opposing "decoupling." I don't know about green lighting invasion, but if it happens might look that way in retrospect.

[Gandydancer]

I agree that no substantive change in policy is indicated.

But has anyone else put it this way?: :“We do not support Taiwan independence.”

The reality is that we do. Maintaining a polite fiction involves not saying so. But it does not require saying the opposite. Gratuitously saying the opposie DOES risk that being taken as a signal. Do you deny this?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the reality is that we did. Biden has actually substantively changed US policy towards China, not just rhetorically. To be expected of a President on the take from a strategic adversary, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden is not on the take, our policy has not changed, 'We do not support Taiwan independence' has been the boilerplate since I became aware politically, and you are a conspiracy nut.

Jesus Christ, Brett, another Biden conspiracy you've found.

You're critical thinking is getting worse, somehow.

[Martinned]

As long as Taiwan doesn't support Taiwanese independence, I'm not sure why anyone else should.

[Gandydancer]

In what sense does Taiwan not support Taiwanese independence?
Have they demobilized their armed forces?
What do you think they're for?
Attacking or defending against Japan or Korea?

[David Nieporent]

In what sense does Taiwan not support Taiwanese independence?

Apparently you don't understand the situation in east Asia. Of course Taiwan does not consider itself to be ruled by Beijing, but that's not because Taiwan has declared independence from Beijing; it never did so. Both China and Taiwan, at least formally, hold that there is only one China. Both claim to be the legitimate government of that one China.

[Gandydancer]

Apparently you don’t understand the situation in east Asia, Nopoint.
The world is not flat even if you avoid saying so.
And Taiwan is independent of China and both Taiwan and (so far) the US support it remaining so.
Maybe Blinken's words are traditional and required on such occasions.
But if not he should have found a less embarrassing way to lie.

[not guilty]

Gandydancer, if you think that the U. S. supports independence for Taiwan, you may want to google ¨strategic ambiguity.¨

[Martinned]

And Taiwan is independent of China

That would be news to Taiwan.

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

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"To be expected of a President on the take from a strategic adversary, of course."

Just a few days removed from lying his ass off, Brett has returned to remarkable form.

Someone should take away your internet, old man, and put you in a home with the other artifacts society recognizes as obsolete.

[Gandydancer]

You're sounding more and more like Artie.
It's not a good look.

[M L]

NEW: The United States military is running an undercover operation that can pinpoint the exact coordinates of social media users who 'embarrass' military generals.

The U.S. Army Protective Services Battalion is tasked with safeguarding top generals from assassination, kidnapping, injury and now "embarrassment."

The unit is now pinpointing social media users' exact locations simply for expressing “negative sentiment” of military leadership.

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1670854214204149760?cxt=HHwWgMDS0cTDiLAuAAAA

[Nige]

Defund the military.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A tweet says so? MUST BE TRUE.

Shut up, idiot.

[M L]

The full story is linked right there my friend, note that it is based on a report by the leftwing Intercept, also linked.

You guys are getting lazy. Just denying what is right in front of everyone's face doesn't cut it. To have any effect, you need to dig in. Go much deeper, come up with creative sophistries. If you want to keep collecting your ShareBlue checks, put in the damn work.

[Nige]

Reflexively disbelieiving your lies and distortions and exaggerations takes a toll, it's true. The military sucks, surely we can all agree.

[Gandydancer]

Lazy Nige tries to gaslight us. Epic fail:
https://theintercept.com/2023/06/17/army-surveillance-social-media/

Wikipedia: The Intercept is an American non-profit news organization founded by Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Laura Poitras,[1] and funded by eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar. Its editor is Betsy Reed.[2] .. On October 29, 2020, Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept, saying that he faced political censorship and contractual breaches from the editors, who he wrote had prevented him from reporting on the conduct of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, with regard to China and Ukraine.[39] ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept

So, yeah, everything ML said checks out.

Anything said by Nige: As expected, not so much.

[Nige]

Oh dear. Vroom vroom.

[Gandydancer]

What a sad little non-attempt at rebuttal.

You’re such a loser.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

My most sincere apologies. Just two threads up you stated a bald-faced lie as your headline.

Reflexively, I presume that you're a lying piece of shit whenever you post anything, because of your demonstrated history of doing exactly that.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/19/monday-open-thread-5/?comments=true#comment-10116756

[Bored Lawyer]

There were a few posts here about how lawyers got in trouble for using ChatGPT to do their legal research.

This morning I got a spam advert in my email Inbox, for a legal AI program named CoCounsel. Acc to the ad, it is "Legal AI you can rely on." It even has a testimonial from a lawyer saying that ChatGPT is unreliable, but this product is reliable.

The website says:
"CoCounsel does document review, legal research memos, deposition preparation, and contract analysis in minutes—with results you can trust."

Count me as highly skeptical, but clearly there is a market for this kind of thing. Has anyone here tried this or some other AI legal assistance program?

[Gandydancer]

Has a waitlist for a free trial.
https://casetext.com/waitlist/

[Bob from Ohio]

Tweet
ThePublica@ThePublicaNow
"An independent journalist was forcibly removed from a "child-friendly" drag show in Alamo, Texas after organizers became concerned he had caught the drag performers exposing themselves in front of children."

Family friendly!

[Life of Brian]

NSFW article/video here.

Surely a decent percentage of us can agree that it's inappropriate to teach small children to hold out dollar bills to provocatively clad people gyrating around in some sort of strip-lite routine, regardless of gender.

[Randal]

Can we also agree not to teach little girls that they'll get rewarded for presenting as strippers and strutting around provocatively in front of aroused adults?

https://capstone-viray.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/5/5/31558043/8556224.jpg?243

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that's another subculture that's headed off the tracks. Even without the oversexualization, I'm not crazy about the life lessons learned in that sort of high-stress, hypercompetitive environment at such an early age -- but then I feel similarly about gymnastics, Little League, etc. Lots of channels for overbearing parents to wage proxy battles through their kids.

[Randal]

So why aren't you calling for bans?

[Life of Brian]

Aw, look at that -- I gave you the benefit of the doubt and answered in good faith what appeared likely to be a loaded question, and indeed it was just a setup for a gotcha moment (exploiting young children for your benefit? hmmmm).

If you can identify a prior discussion here about beauty pageants for young children at all -- much less one in which I didn't weigh in similarly to the above -- maybe you'll actually start making progress toward your gotcha. Best of luck.

[Randal]

I'm of course implicating conservatives in general, so don't take it too personally.

In other words, why are we only talking about drag shows and not beauty pageants? Because conservatives want to talk about drag shows and not beauty pageants.

[Gandydancer]

Never mind the strange remark from the off-duty cop about the anti-drag show activist "filming genitals", did you catch that bit from the host about someone giving "too much leg coverage" because someone "forgot" that there were kids present?

No, nobody forgot that. Some pervert was pushing the envelope.

Whataboutism is actually perfectly OK if the comparison actually demonstrates a difference in applying standards, but yours is not so convincing. I looked up a kids' pageant video on Youtube...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcPXbpwFrTg
...and what struck me was the near-absence of MEN at the event. Whatever was going on in this exercise in competitive dress-up and dancing that sometimes arguably approached twerking it wasn't about sexually appealing to all those stage moms. The "drag queens", on the other hand, were putting on a show designed to appeal sexually to perverts, but toning it down a bit for political reasons. Things which are different are not the same.

nb: Nige promised us smokin' hot and cuirvey(sic), which sounded doubtful. Hoo-hah, no!

[SRG]

the case for Robert E Lee

[Gandydancer]

He wasn't a traitor, he was a Virginian. And the South lost because it was out-resourced and not because of Lee. As to mistreatment of slaves I found this:
https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-lee-slaveholder/

.. So he whipped recaptured runaways. Whether that qualifies as "mistreatment" is non-obvious to me. What else do you have?

[SRG]

He wasn’t a traitor, he was a Virginian.

"Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them"

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

The strangest part about the continued personality cult of Robert E. Lee is how few of the qualities his admirers profess to see in him he actually possessed.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yeah, and the whole Virginia thing is bull as most U.S. military officers from Virginia in 1861 decided to stay honor their oaths of service and remain in the United States military. Robert E. Lee was one of the minority who decided to be a traitor.

He is execrable and those who venerate him are either knowingly or ignorantly promoting evil.

[Gandydancer]

What does majority or minority of some random collection of people have to do with anything? It doesn't matter how many Virginian members of the US Army chose to be on the federal government's side rather than loyal to their State, Virginia was as entitled by its sovereignty to withdraw from the Union as it had been entitled to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and Lee was entitled to retain his understanding of where his loyalties lay. It's the other group that were traitors to Virginia, if you want to drag that word into this discussion at all.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It undercuts the common defense of his decision by showing that plenty of people made a contrary choice. It wasn't the times that dictated he betrayed his country, it was his character. Others faced with the same choice had better character. A majority, in fact.

U.S. military officers swore an oath of allegiance to the United States, not to Virginia. Lee violated that oath out of misguided loyalty to a pseudo-country formed to perpetuate slavery.

[David Nieporent]

Virginia was as entitled by its sovereignty to withdraw from the Union

Virginia had no sovereignty and wasn't entitled to sneeze without permission from the federal government, let alone withdraw from the union.

[Gandydancer]

The Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 definition clearly doesn’t apply to anyone who is a citizen of another country and not the United States. Erwin Rommel was not a traitor to the US and neither was Lee.

Adam Serwer/Atlantic: “The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together. / There is little truth in this. Lee was a devout Christian, and historians regard him as an accomplished tactician. But despite his ability to win individual battles, his decision to fight a conventional war against the more densely populated and industrialized North is considered by many historians to have been a fatal strategic error.”

Then it goes behind a paywall, and I’m not giving the Atlantic any money, particularly for tripe like this. I can’t imagine what Serwer imagines to have been the successful alternative to fighting a conventional invasion, And the “the more densely populated and industrialized North” bit merely repeats my exoneration of Lee from your nonsense assertion that he cost them the war, never mind that that “strategy” was not his decision to make. He was not even all that close to the top of the military hierarchy when the war began, and the CSA was run by civilians who anyway had little choice once the decision to secede was made (again, not by Lee) and Lincoln decided to unconstitutionally override State sovereignty.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Lee was a citizen of the United States, until he lost it for being a traitor.

"I can’t imagine what Serwer imagines to have been the successful alternative to fighting a conventional invasion."

Then you aren't very familiar with this debate at all. It's widely agreed that a purely defensive war had a better chance of success. Lee squandered troops and galvanized northern resolve by invading and pillaging the North. If the Confederacy had only defended, the public might not have been as supportive of the war.

He cost them the war by making a bad strategic decision to invade rather than defend.

It was Lee's choice to invade. He conceived and advocated the plan. Even Wikipedia details this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_campaign

And, yes, they had a choice. They could take a defensive posture and press their moral/constitutional case. Again, the greater weight of opinion is this had a better chance than the strategy that, quite obviously, failed. Lee is the individual primarily responsible for choosing the inferior strategy. I guess we could venerate him for undermining his own evil cause. But incompetence in service to evil isn't really laudable, it's just satisfying.

Lee was a brilliant military tactician and, apparently, charismatic. He otherwise was lacking in virtually every other favorable character trait, particularly including high-level military strategy (due in significant part to relying heavily on partisan newspapers which convinced him the northern citizenry would rally to his cause).

Those, like you, who choose to live in an echo chamber might want to take note and revise your intake of information accordingly.

[David Nieporent]

Gandydancer is not sure whether whipping people for the crime of not wanting to be slaves is bad.

[Gandydancer]

The claim was that he mistreated slaves, not that he was merely not so opposed to slavery that he would flush his wife's capital down the toilet by freeing them. If merely keeping slaves is to mistreat then then you're right, but I think that's begging the question.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Lee was a particularly cruel master. "Lay it on thick," he exhorted his employee whipping an enslaved person who didn't want to be enslaved.

"Flushing his wife's capital down the toilet"....they were his father-in-law's "capital" and his father-in-law freed them in his will. Lee dishonored his father-in-law and mistreated freed people by continuing to enslave them after they were freed. (Yes, he got a court order to make it legally square, but you think enslaved people got a fair shake in the Virginia court system going against Harry Lee's descendant?)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Whether secession is justified depends on the justice of the cause – opposing the misrule of a king and his violation of chartered rights (did I mention that the king promoted the African slave trade even when colonists tried to limit it?), versus creating a republic based on the alleged awesomeness of slavery and white supremacy.

The first is good secession, the second is bad secession.

[M L]

Ol' George did the emancipation war measure thing before it was cool. If his gambit had worked, we'd have a different giant statue and one side of the party duopoly crowing about "the Party of George."

A violation of chartered rights, you say? Good heavens, bring the fainting couch.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Black loyalists who joined the British were promised freedom from slavery, but not because George III was a friend to slaves. No, not even after the Somerset decision. Britain ran Caribbean slave colonies which were particularly oppressive. And don't forget those pro-slave-trade vetoes.

George III is not the abolitionist you're looking for.

In the wake of the Revolution, freedom-minded Northern states got rid (gradually in some cases) of *their* slavery systems. How many British colonial governments took such initiatives before Parliament acted in 1833?

[M L]

And Lincoln didn't violate all of the chartered rights? Not to mention supporting a Constitutional amendment to protect slavery, initiating a bloody war to prevent independence, which killed more Americans than all other wars before and since combined, and offering three separate times to protect slavery in exchange for the secessionists abandoning their project (an offer declined each time).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm sure that the freeing of the slaves could have been accomplished much more efficiently by some LARPer who boasts of his superior racial enlightenment - he would do anything for social justice except get shot at by actual Confederates (on the other hand, Confederate statues don't shoot back).

If the matter ended up being settled in blood, perhaps this can be traced back to the idea that the South vehemently rejected any peaceful emancipation, no matter how gradual, before and during the war?

[Brett Bellmore]

My only objection to freeing the slaves is procedural; They should have let the Confederacy go. At that point free states would have been a supermajority of all states, and ratifying appropriate amendments would have been a breeze, perfectly legitimately.

Then the remaining union could have pursued its conquest and forcible annexation of the South on exactly the same military basis as happened anyway, and much greater legal clarity on account of not pretending it was something else.

But, of course, freeing the slaves was just a post hoc rationale for a war whose actual basis was establishing that the federation was a roach motel. So admitting that the Confederacy had legally seceded was off the table from the start.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a stupid rationale, and your dislike of our Union is existentially stupid.

Read your Nozick again, and how the state is to deal with independents that don't accept compensation.

[Gandydancer]

I can't even tell what your stupid argument is, but Lincoln had no legitimate basis for invading the seceded States, and it was not in the best interests of his citizenry that he did so.

Nor would Brett's "forcible annexation of the South" have been in their interest. Especially not that of the million or so dead.

[David Nieporent]

I can’t even tell what your stupid argument is, but Lincoln had no legitimate basis for invading the seceded States, and it was not in the best interests of his citizenry that he did so.

Lincoln's legitimate basis for invading the rebelling states was to put down the rebellion.

[Gandydancer]

They seceded, as was their right. Your repeated insistence otherwise is a juvenile, puerile, and inadequate substitute for actually making an argument for your claim.

[David Nieporent]

Lincoln did not initiate the Civil War. The traitors did.

[OtisAH]

Remember how electing Obama “forced” The Right to lose their damn minds? Well, Lincoln’s election “forced” slavers to start the Civil War. The Right is not actually responsible for anything they do. It’s all stuff they’re forced to do.

[M L]

Seceding isn't starting a war.

[David Nieporent]

Rebellion certainly is starting a war. That the rebellion immediately took the form of attacking and seizing U.S. military installations just underscored that.

[Gandydancer]

The south didn’t rebel. The Southern states seceded, as was their right. Lincoln’s carrying out his obvious intent to invade would not have been avoided had the southern States not taken prudential steps to arm themselves, expel hostile alien troops, and repel invasion.

No one died in the takeover at Fort Sumter. The same cannot be said of First Bull Run, which took place inside Virginia’s borders and was the result of Northern aggression.

[Frank Drackman]

It's like General Pickett said, suppose you and some friends formed a "Gentleman's Club" enjoying each others company, but after a while some of the members started to interfere with the home life of other members. Wouldn't it be any members right to leave the club??
Well that's all the South was trying to do, and the damn Yankees were saying they couldn't leave the club!.
OK, besides my use of way too many "Members" tell me what's wrong with that Anal-ology

Frank

[David Nieporent]

The Southern states rebelled, which was of course not their right; indeed, that has never been a right of anyone in any country in the history of anywhere.

The Battle of Bull Run took place inside the U.S.'s borders, and was the result of southern treason.

[Gandydancer]

“The Southern states rebelled, which was of course not their right; indeed, that has never been a right of anyone in any country in the history of anywhere.”

You keep begging questions, but of course I expect no better of you.

As an aside, do you think the Colonies were not part of any country? All that talk about their rights as Englishmen notwithstanding?

From above, “They seceded, as was their right. Your repeated insistence otherwise is a juvenile, puerile, and inadequate substitute for actually making an argument for your claim.”

The US, as its name clearly states, was never a unitary “country” until Lincoln made it one by force.

[David Nieporent]

The US, as its name clearly states, was never a unitary “country” until Lincoln made it one by force.

I mean, the name actually states the opposite.

But there is no provision of the constitution that allows a state to leave, and numerous provisions to the contrary. Arguably they could mutually agree on a split, but there is clearly no right to a unilateral departure.

I am not sure what you mean about the colonies, unless you're implying that because they split from England, my statement about the lack of a right to rebel is incorrect. But that's just wrong. The founders appealed to natural law, not to any sort of legal right to rebel. No British law permitted the colonies to declare independence, and the Americans did not claim otherwise. What they said was that because the British government had become oppressive of their rights, it had forfeited any claim to legitimacy and it no longer had a moral claim to rule. They certainly did not say, "Oh, yeah, British law says we can take up arms against the government if we don't like it"

[M L]

I have known and liked Joe Biden for many years, but we differ profoundly on fundamental issues such as corporate influence in government, censorship, civil liberties, poverty, corruption, and war policy, among others. I look forward to engaging him in debates and town hall meetings, in a primary election that is honest, civil, and transparent. I invite him into a new era of respectful dialog in these times of division.

I am a multi-generational Democrat, but I think our party has gone off track. Remember when we upheld the interests of the poor and middle class against big corporations and Wall Street? Remember when we were the party of peace, civil liberties, and people power? I aim to reclaim my party and its traditional values.

The Biden administration is riddled with Neocons, war hawks, Wall Street people, and former corporate lobbyists. That's what the party elite has become. But I know the rank-and-file — and the American people as a whole — don't share their priorities. It's time to return our party and our nation to the people. #Kennedy24

https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1650847915999461377

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Forcing Ukraine to cut a deal with Putin would be just as bad as any of the Bush foreign policy.

[Gandydancer]

Forcing Zelenskyy to not cut a deal with Putin has resulted in a lot of pointless death and destruction and will probably result in greater annexation by Russia of territory governed from Kyiv before 2014 than would have happened had that not taken place.

Ukraine can't beat Russia. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending otherwise won't end well.

[OtisAH]

I see your name on a post, read the first sentence or two of you rhetorically drooling on yourself, and keep scrolling without response. But I have to know who you think you’re fooling with this nonsense?

[M L]

I am copying and pasting tweets that I think are interesting, along with the link to the tweet. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

As always, retweets/c&p doesn't necessarily imply endorsement or full agreement.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yeah, you're so hard to read.

For example: if you actually had a spine, you'd actually acknowledge your ridiculous opinions, instead of pretending that nobody knows what they are.

[M L]

What RFK said here is very generalized, but makes sense to me. In 2020 I greatly preferred Bernie to Biden, I think I feel the same way about RFK.

I can't say "I have known and liked Joe Biden for many years" or "I am a multi-generational Democrat" - hopefully I'm not unintentionally fooling anyone other than OtisAH, most people aren't quite that dumb here.

[Nige]

Bernie’s a socialist (by US standards) which makes you a bit of a socialist? RFKjr is a joke, though. And if his criticisms of the Democrats rang true, and there's no denying those elements are all there, they'd ring doubly true for the Republicans.

[M L]

Yeah, I disagree with socialism overall, but I also recognize that the government is supposed to help people, particularly its own citizens, and I recognize that the free market is a social and legal construct (but it's a wonderfully beneficial construct on the whole). I mostly think decentralization vs centralization of government power is the bigger issue. I agree the same criticisms apply to Republicans as a party, in the big picture there are few differences between the parties in terms of the actual actions they take, especially legislatively and with respect to spending, things have been shaken up a bit since Trump though.

[Nige]

Fair enough, for the most part, though I think there are issues which the Republicans aren't just bad on, they're actively destructive, so 'they're the same' doesn't quite work for me, for all the Democrats' numerous flaws.

[Sarcastr0]

They're both the same because he wants federal spending cut down to 1850s levels per capita.

When you're that much out there, of course everyone else looks the same to you.

[Gandydancer]

"...OF COURSE everyone else looks the same to you."

Gaslightr0, I'm sure that you claim that I'm at least as much "out there" as ML, and yet they don't look the same to me. The GOP is mostly awful, but the Dems are much, much worse.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Gandy. ML thinks crazy things.

You don't think at all.

[Gandydancer]

You say the stupidest things and imagine them to be clever.

It's not as good a look as you imagine.

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when RFK Jr feels up Eva Longoria.

[not guilty]

Clarence Thomas said the quiet part out loud when he called for Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), to be reconsidered. The reasoning of the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, if applied to a statute criminalizing use of contraceptives, would supply ammunition for an attack upon Griswold.

Efforts in Congress and several state legislatures to codify a right to contraception have met with Republican resistance. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/17/us/politics/birth-control-dobbs-clarence-thomas.html (13 states and the District of Columbia currently have such protections.)

Why do these Republicans think that who does or does not use contraception is any of the government´s business?

[Bored Lawyer]

Why do you think your policy preferences are written into the Constitution? How about using the power of reasoned argument to persuade the electorate to enact your preferred policies?

[Randal]

We're concerned about the women in red states.

But, trust me, blue states' interest in the well-being of the red states is waning fast.

[Bored Lawyer]

So "concern" suffices to amend the Constitution by fiat. Got it.

So if some members of SCOTUS decide they are "concerned" for unborn children, they can ban abortion as a matter of Constitutional fiat.

[Randal]

Not at all. Just pointing out that your proposal of "convincing the electorate" is easier said than done when there are 50 states involved.

[Randal]

Anyway, not guilty’s post is an attempt to do exactly that: convince the electorate. So your objection is super bizarre. You recommended he do exactly the thing he’s doing.

Efforts in Congress and several state legislatures to codify a right to contraception have met with Republican resistance.

Why do these Republicans think that who does or does not use contraception is any of the government’s business?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Women are people and citizens with rights. Conservatives who espouse small government principles should understand that criminalizing contraception affects no one but the woman (and men who may have to support any child born due to the lack of contraception).

Embryos and fetuses are only arguably "people" after, at least, the first trimester (all involuntary movements and an incomplete brain stem, much less other parts of the brain), and, really, two (the cerebral cortex is only even formed then which is where consciousness occurs, if at all). Moreover, they are not citizens with rights until they are born.

Therefore, the Supreme Court declaring by fiat that they have constitutional rights flies directly in the face of the Constitution itself ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.").

Recognizing limits on government power to regulate the sexual lives of citizens within the context of their marriage and within the privacy of the marital bed, especially involving only a husband and wife, is certainly consistent with a right of privacy implied by the Constitution. Sure, big government types think the government can regulate even consensual sex between a married man and woman in the privacy of their home, but most of us think it is fair to say the Constitution has something to say about that.

Being unable to see this disctinction, I presume you're a big government type.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And I noticed too late to edit, but “criminalizing contraception” doesn’t only affect women. The point is that the use of contraception does not have any direct externalities beyond the woman and man with who she has sex and any effects to society are so far removed, that to say woman cannot choose whether to use contraception is akin to being able to decide whether they can have or may refrain from having sex. You’re telling them what they can do with their bodies in private. It’s hard to imagine a solution (to whatever imagined problem) that is more "big government" than forbidding women from using contraceptives in the privacy of their marital home.

If that's allowed, the result in Wickard is beyond obviously correct.

Given I don't find Wickard's holding obvious, in fact I think it was a bridge too far, I find questioning Griswold even worse.

[Gandydancer]

Didn't read beyond this bit of puerile ipse dixit: "Embryos and fetuses are only arguably “people” after, at least, the first trimester (all involuntary movements and an incomplete brain stem, much less other parts of the brain), and, really, two (the cerebral cortex is only even formed then which is where consciousness occurs, if at all). Moreover, they are not citizens with rights until they are born."

What does "only arguably" even mean?

[Martinned]

What does “only arguably” even mean?

It's a lawyer-polite way of saying you were wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Didn’t read

Shocker.

[OtisAH]

There haven’t been any “quiet parts” in “conservative” politics since 2008.

[Gandydancer]

From the NYT link: “Most Republicans saw that as a political vote, not really a serious vote,” John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said of the vote on the House bill last year. “In the Republican coalition, there is a small but vocal element that is anti-contraception, but the vast majority of Republicans don’t have any interest in making contraception illegal.”

Look at the Lefties on this page gaslighting us in claiming that there is no real increase in pervert politics and opposition to that is genned up by the right when there’s no real issue.

On the other hand there REALLY is no movement to ban contraceptives that has the slightest chance of success.

But none of those Lefties will make THAT criticism about THIS.

I will add that it seems these “right to contraception” bills also routinely do things like offer an opportunity to conflate contraceptives with abortifacients and somehow funnel more money to Planned Parenthood, so there’s that.

[Vandalia]

From Hopkinsville, KY

https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/hopkinsville-chief-of-police-expressing-need-of-assistance-from-local-judges/

[Gandydancer]

Subject: Judge releases demonstratively dangerous miscreant on same day as capture on his own recognizance. And his name isn't even "Hunter Biden". (It's "Dynarian Day", FWIW.)

[Frank Drackman]

Kinder Gentler Frank here!
Hope everybody had a great June-Teenth!!
and I've got a great "Father's Day/June-teenth" joke but realized some might find it offensive, so will just let your imaginations come up with your worst,
The "Atlanta Baseball Club" (realize the official name could be offensive to our Native Amurican Conspirators) with the best record in the "Senior Circuit" won't even complain about how in the "pre-divisions" MLB they'd be in the World Series.
Frank "Lets play two!!!!"

[not guilty]

John Eastman´s disciplinary trial begins tomorrow.

Pass the popcorn!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

John Eastman, Volokh Conspirator dreamboat, charged with professional misconduct?

Next you'll probably try to tell us this Federalist Society favorite has been engaged in un-American activity, too.

[Gandydancer]

“…respondent knew that on or about November 12, 2020, the Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees issued a joint statement which stated that the ‘2020 presidential election was the most secure in American history’ and ‘there was no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.’”

It appears that this paragraph appears four times in the allegation against Eastman and that disputing its accuracy in any forum — e.g., on a podcast — is an act of moral turpitude justifying disbarment and other penalties.

Or so the State Bar of California says.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/california-state-bar-charges-eastman-multiple-disciplinary-counts

[not guilty]

Uh, that is not all this disciplinary proceeding is about. Obstructing an official proceeding of Congress and conspiring to defraud the United States is conduct worthy of disbarment.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21561135/eastmanruling.pdf

[Gandydancer]

Are you asserting that absent the other charges penalizing Eastman is not being justified?

The charges you mention are bullshit too, but I’m focusing on the crap I’m choosing to focus on because its application is so wide and need have nothing to do with obstructing or fraud. I repeat: Eastman disagreeing with the Official Truth in an interview on a podcast is asserted to be moral turpitude apparently worthy of disbarment. That’s the way I read the allegation document, and if I’m right then my first comment on this subject is correct as well.

[not guilty]

I am asserting that discipline of Professor Eastman is justified under the totality of circumstances of his professional misconduct. That he has committed multiple felonies is likely the most egregious basis for discipline.

[not guilty]

It looks like Eastman has elected to testify. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/ex-trump-lawyer-eastman-faces-disciplinary-trial-over-election-scheme-2023-06-20/

Eastman retains his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in a civil bar disciplinary proceeding. Segretti v. State Bar, 15 Cal.3d 878, 886 (1976). A person claiming the Fifth Amendment privilege must do so with specific reference to particular questions asked or other evidence sought. Once this is done, the trial court must undertake a particularized inquiry with respect to each specific claim of privilege to determine whether the claimant has established that the testimony or other evidence sought might tend to incriminate him. In re Marriage of Sachs, 95 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1151 (Cal.Ct.App. 2002).

Professor Eastman has considerable potential criminal exposure. It will be interesting to see whether and to what extent he asserts privilege as to particular questions.

[Gandydancer]

"[Eastman] repeated election fraud claims at a rally outside the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, after which Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol and delayed the congressional certification of the election."

The prof got them so excited that they didn't wait around for Trump to speak to take off on their storming? Are his lectures usually that involving?

[SRG]

FWIW Juneteenth this year marks exactly ten years since I became a US citizen. As I noted at the time, if it was good enough for Heifetz, Einstein and Hitchens, it's good enough for me.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Congratulations! I hope you've exercised your right to vote at every opportunity.

[SRG]

Yes indeed. And I have already been called for jury duty, so that's two of the fundamental responsibilities of a citizen taken care of.

[SRG]

This is very disturbing

Hunting the monkey torturers

[ReaderY]

What, if any, are the rights and obligations of the restaurant in a situation like this? A kosher certifying agency? The performers?

None of them is a customer or an employee.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna946256

[Michael P]

According to S_0, if someone objects to that kind of situation, it means they hate the free market system. And probably also freedom of association and Jews.

[Sarcastr0]

Don’t strawman.
I said ESG ratings are not a thuggish cabal.

Not got the time to go through the link, but I can tell you are full of crap.

[ReaderY]

The link refers to a Jewish lesbian comedian who says that she had been scheduled to perform at various kosher restuarants in Brooklyn, but her act was canceled after the kosher suprevision agency said it would withdraw kosher supervision from the restaurants if they did not cancel her show.

[Gandydancer]

What makes food kosher is subject to disagreement. Looking into this I see, e.g., that, for some, the use of electric shocks to daze an animal is not accepted as producing meat that is kosher. So If these particular certifiers don’t think shows featuring this woman are compatible with the place remaining kosher I don’t think they can be forced to change their opinion. It’s a religious one, and the first amendment applies. The restaurants can seek out other certification bodies, or create one, and then it;’ll be up to the customers (and their rabbis) to accept that or not.

[Ben_]

Over 100 Kansas Republican lawmakers and officials were mailed mysterious packets of white powder in the last few days:

https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/politics/government/2023/06/18/kansas-lawmakers-sent-suspicious-white-powder-told-isnt-biologicals/70334126007/

"Patton said his letter had a return address for a church in Topeka and used the name Jahaira Balenciaga, a transgender woman and activist who was murdered in her Massachusetts home in 2021."

Remember when Democrats used to talk about helping poor people instead of doing stuff like this?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, this is clearly something all Democrats got together and decided they were into.

Of course when the Dems talk about helping the poor, you hate it.

[Gandydancer]

So convenient that you mention the distinction between group and individual in THIS instance.

[Martinned]

This is interesting. The Dutch Supreme Court just upheld a conviction for possession of a fire arm despite the fact that the fire arm in question was in pieces and was missing certain essential parts.

On the other hand, the defendant only got a €750 fine, so I think we'll all survive.

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2023:936

[Michael P]

I don't know specific cases, but I understand that US law is even more specific: the "firearm" for possession (or manufacturer, sale, etc.) purposes is the part that normally gets a serial number -- called the frame or receiver. The AR style of firearm has a two-part receiver, and the lower receiver is the one that legally counts as the firearm.

Perhaps a prohibited person could be prosecuted for possessing enough other parts of a fully functioning firearm, but that one piece is probably sufficient.

[Gandydancer]

In the US a silencer alone is a “firearm”. Other unexpected definitions may apply.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they're now ready for Hunter Biden's ceremonial wrist slap.

Hunter Biden agrees to plea agreement on federal tax, gun charges

All his legal problems go away in return for coughing up a bit of the loot. After two years, he'll have a clean record.

From the article: "Republicans have not produced evidence, though, that directly links President Biden to any of Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings."

That's not actually true. But it is the MSM's narrative, and they're going to stick to it.

[Martinned]

The talking points are so predictable...

https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1671156703604387843

[Sarcastr0]

"Mentally preparing for the quick transition from "Biden is corrupt because his DOJ hasn't charged his son with a a crime" Twitter to "Biden is corrupt because his DOJ, which had to charge his son with a crime, took a misdemeanor plea" Twitter."

Goddamn Orin. Good snipe.

[David Nieporent]

Keep in mind that it's not "his DOJ" at all. Rather, this is Trump's appointee, who Biden chose not to replace so that he could not be accused of interfering in this investigation/prosecution.

[Gandydancer]

What are you blithering about? AG Merrick Garland was sworn in on March 11, 2021

[not guilty]

President Biden retained the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware who had been appointed by Donald Trump -- no doubt because Hunter Biden was then under investigation.

[Gandydancer]

It's still Biden's and Garland's DOJ. And the extent to which they "interfered" in this investigation/prosecution is not known. Nopoint is full of shit again.

[Gandydancer]

Orin Kerr: “… it’s notable that a President’s DOJ charged the President’s son with a crime without the President intervening.”

Sure, that happened. And I’ll sell you as many toll bridges from my inventory as you’d like to invest in.

The “transition” from noticing that the Biden DOJ is behaving corruptly by slow-walking Hunter Biden’s prosecution to behaving corruptly by letting him off with a slap on the wrist isn’t even a bump despite Kerr (and Martinned) pretending otherwise.

[Nige]

‘That’s not actually true’

It’s only true in the sense that no such evidence actually exists, which is obviously not Brett’s standard. In other news: Hunter Biden had better lawyers and was a better defendant than Trump – Republicans mad at double standard!

[Brett Bellmore]

You're going with the talking point over objective reality. You can argue that there's not enough evidence to convict in court, but that there's no evidence at all? Nah, that's just a talking point, and a stupid one at that.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?477307-1/tony-bobulinski-statement-hunter-biden

Is that not "evidence"? We nave numerous emails detailing Hunter's schemes, and the cut "the big guy" was getting, and testimony that "the big guy" was Joe Biden.

[Nige]

You have ‘the big guy.’ That’s it. Wishing won’t make it more, though counting on Republican-sourced vapourware is probably even less productive. 'No, we do have evidence: incredibly shit evidence!' is a heck of a defence.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's not the cut the "big guy" was getting, it was what was proposed. We have evidence that he specifically rejected that particular deal. It was also a proposed business deal while Joe Biden was a private citizen. But "the big guy" is a catchy detail for a narrative, so truth be damned and they focus on "the big guy" email. And Brett falls for it. If you had anything, you'd be talking about something other than "the big guy".

But glad to see you understand that Bill Barr lied when he said "no evidence" when he meant "insufficient evidence" of a crime by Trump vis a vis the 2016 election.

[Gandydancer]

Actually what we're talking about now is the Burisma CEO sending at least $5M+$5M to Joe and Hunter, but a brief look at the link BB provides shows that you are full of shit about "the big guy" email, too. Start at 3:55 for the tl;dr version.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett's link contains lots of unsubstantiated allegations. Similar to Comer's bloviations about Burisma. It doesn't show anything. (For example, Tony "found out" the most damning things in the report from other sources which relied on still yet other unsubstantiated sources. It's allegations all the way down.)

If there's something to find, I hope it's found. As yet, everything is fizzled. As you helpfully point out, proving each alleged scheme is abandoned and it's on to the next unproven allegation. Why is it Republicans always do what they claim Democrats do, but do it incompetent?

As to a massive Biden family bribery scheme, I'm skeptical. The Burisma one doesn't make any sense.

[Gandydancer]

As I said, you're full of shit. Adding the new Burisma bribe evidence doesn't require "abandoning" the China bribery schemes Bobulinski had personal knowledge of. Of course nothing will happen until Biden is thrown out, but maybe Trump will have wised up this time.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"what we’re talking about now"

Because you had no evidence, much less proof of impropriety, much less unlawfulness. So you talk about something else. You can pretend it isn't abandoned, and its not in the sense that you will keep jumping from allegation to allegation assuming that for others, as for you, multiplying and repeating allegations make something true.

That's not how it works. At some point, you need proof or you're no different than Sidney Powell.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody has found any evidence that the Burisma CEO sent anything to Joe Biden (or to Hunter Biden, other than his compensation for serving on the board).

[OtisAH]

His record will show two misdemeanor convictions.

[Gandydancer]

More to follow.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That’s not actually true. But it is the MSM’s narrative, and they’re going to stick to it.

That's just the delusional, disaffected, autistic, antisocial bigotry talking.

[Gandydancer]

Artie is OCD on stilts.

"bigotry"? Are criminals a protected class, now?

[Randal]

Brett, do you even think the gun charge is constitutional? Talk about double standards!

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually I don't. But waiving the law for sons of Presidents is not how you get bad laws overturned.

[Randal]

So you're mad at the DoJ for accepting a guilty plea to a charge that you think is unconstitutional, not because it's unconstitutional but because it's unfairly lenient? Man, the amount of cognitive dissonance you're willing to endure in the name of partisanship is astonishing.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Absent Hunter Biden being executed by a sword-wielding Donald Trump, Bellmore and his party of idiots was never going to be satisfied.

[David Nieporent]

Like that would be enough. The more harshly Hunter Biden was punished, that would just prove how bad he was, which would just prove how corrupt Joe is, which would just prove that Trump shouldn't be prosecuted for his crimes.

The only thing that would satisfy them would be a public execution of Hunter and Joe, a groveling apology to Trump, all charges against Trump dropped, an admission that Trump was actually the winner in 2020, and Trump being retroactively made president. (While simultaneously retaining his eligibility for 2024.)

[Gandydancer]

You're a moron and as a result you think we are morons too but no one anyway gives a damn about the gun charge. Letting him walk on that is the very tiniest least bit of the corruption that has gone so far unaddressed.

[Randal]

Your ability to self-own is truly legendary.

[Gandydancer]

Your sad little ipse dixit assertions are weightless.
Why would you imagine otherwise?

[Jmaie]

Not a lawyer, is the sentence normal for circumstances?

Editing to clarify, the circumstances of the alleged crimes, not the people involved.

[Frank Drackman]

for Presidential Offspring, yes!
Oh my edit didn't get together with your edit.
No, usually peoples go to jail for not reporting millions of dollars in income. Ask "Blade"

Frank

[Kazinski]

Well it's like having an ex-wife that you still have fond memories of, but for whatever reason things didn't work out.

There's no need to badmouth her because things didn't work out and you're going to get upset when someone else runs her down.

On the other hand you've found someone new you are absolutely smitten with and have no desire to go back.

I hope you can understand that better now, but I doubt it. You probably burned all your bridges on all your former relationships, but that's just you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically, because,

1) So many of the attacks on Trump are so over the top that something other than just disliking him is going on. I'm worried about that something.

2) Too many of the attacks on him would, if generalized, destroy our democracy.

3) Even where it's just a case of prosecuting him for a crime he arguably did commit, the element of selective prosecution is glaring.

I personally wish he'd just retired, so I wouldn't feel obligated to defend him from this onslaught. But the nature of the onslaught itself demands that I defend against it basically anybody who was treated that way.

[Moderation4ever]

Many years ago it was pointed out to me that a person using "but" in a sentence is never really conceding to facts and is instead just trying to circumvent the facts.

[Krychek_2]

"Polls show DeSantis beating Biden."

Tell me another. It's more than a year until the election and the polls are going to flip multiple times between now and then because most people aren't political animals and don't pay any real attention until around Labor Day of election year. And while DeSantis' culture warrior crap may aid him with the extremist fringe of the GOP, it's not going to help him in the Northern Suburbs he's going to need to win the electoral college.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Queenie...

Pretend you don't particularly like a religiousy preachery person. He always sits at the corner of the street, every day as you pass by, preaching how you should covert and how God could save you.

Then pretend one day, the cops come by, and tell him to get lost. He says "it's my public right". And the cops pull out a billy club, whack him upside the head, and say "Get lost, if you know what's good for you. Or else".

Do you defend the preacher? Say what happened to him is wrong? Or just ignore or applaud it....

[DaveM]

From your lips to the voters' ears.

[Gandydancer]

"Why then do so many folks here feel the need to go to lengths to defend Trump? They often even say 'I’m not a Trump supporter BUT'[.]”

As do I. It's telling that Queenie can't comprehend any commitment to telling the truth if it might interfere with the Piss-on-Trump project. HE certainly won't anything like that get in the way.

[Mr. Bumble]

"A minority of Democrats want to see Biden re-nominated. "

"...but there’s now a contest between the ex and the now for something former. This isn’t the time to say why the latter is better?"

[Kazinski]

You make your choice as you as it happens. If my current spouse is running against my ex -spouse I'll make my choice in the privacy of the voting booth.

Especially since my current spouse might not get past the primary.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There are that many bottle blondes out there demanding the world pretend theh are real authentic blondes and killing themselves if you don't.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nobody hates trans people. If some dude (who is an adult) wants to cut his dick off and pretend he’s a woman, nobody has a problem with that. But:

1. Don’t say I have to pretend he’s a woman. I may or may not choose to pretend he’s a woman to some degree, but that's my choice.

2. Don’t say women have to pretend he’s a woman, and accept him in women’s spaces, including battered women’s shelters and prisons where sexual violence is an issue.

3. Don’t let him play women’s sports and beat all the girls when he was only a mediocre boy’s athlete.

4. Stop telling children that they were born into the wrong body if they don’t feel comfortable with themselves. Adolescence is a confusing time when kids are discovering their bodies. Don’t make it worse.

And most importantly:

5. Stop mutilating children.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't hate "trans" people. You're confusing "hate" and "refuse to humor the delusions of".

Maybe deliberately so.

[DaveM]

The argument over trans is a proxy. The real argument is over the existence of objective truth. And kids.

Several months ago I tried to explain to a trans activist that bringing trans to the children was a third rail, and it would be almost impossible for me to express just how much resistance they were going to face by choosing to go down that path.

I predicted it would literally end their cause. We'll see. Jury's still out on that one.

[not guilty]

There is a primal need to hate other people. When overt bashing of gays and lesbians became less acceptable (in large part because more people realized that it was hurtful to someone near and dear to them), the target shifted to the transgendered -- whose members are less numerous and less likely to be ¨out.¨

Then-Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1960 captured the appeal of racial segregation and the accompanying hatemongering, as described by Bill Moyers:

"I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/11/13/what-a-real-president-was-like/d483c1be-d0da-43b7-bde6-04e10106ff6c/

[Aunt Teefah]

"You claim that I 'hate' trans people? So then why do they feature so prominently in my Pornhub video search history? Checkmate, libtards!"

-BravoCharlieDelta

[Gandydancer]

"Trans people" are gross and mentally ill, and you have not in fact recognized any difference between that observation and "straight up trans hate", though you pretend here that you do.

And of course some tranny who insists on engaging in Tranny Story Hour for Kids goes from being merely repulsive to being detestable, but there's no way in your typology to recognize that distinction.

[VinniUSMC]

I don’t get all the straight up trans hate here.

You don't get a lot of things. Especially considering that nearly everything you think you get is imaginary bullshit. Of course if you assume bad motive to people who don't agree with you, you're not going to understand it. Your tiny brain is capable of little more than shouting "bad people! bad people!"

You can find people who "hate" any group, if you look hard enough. That doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you "hates" or "fears" those things. Get over yourself, you're not smart enough to be so arrogant. Your arguments are little more than throwing shit at walls, most of it just hits the fan and sprays back at you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Obfuscate and dissemble.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Throwing them off bridges is just “overreacting,”"

So, what percentage of people who aren't down with the trans agenda ever throw anybody off a bridge? Can I accuse anybody who favors Bernie Sanders of attempting to assassinate members of Congress, too?

"Same anger about adoptive kids being seen as same as biological kids?"

Since you're imagining that we hate the "trans", you're free to imagine we hate adopted kids, too.

"We should stop telling them they were born into the right body, too?"

This totally misconceives the situation, as though bodies were clothing that somebody just handed you, as though biology were just incidental to who people are. A particularly weird mistake for people who deny any element of the supernatural to make, I'd note.

"What other issues in this area have you posted on? You care about women’s shelters and prisons, can you point to your history here other than trans?"

I forget the name for this fallacy...

"Can you point to your history of opposing circumcision? The use of Human Growth Hormone on kids?"

When people start using HGH to turn their normal kids into something like Andre the Giant, you'll see the opposition.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Who the hell is throwing anybody off of bridges?

Some of the problem is your aperture on “hate”. Expressing the opinion that biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports, regardless of how they identify, makes you a hater.

Over the weekend the ACLU pitched a fit over the execution of a guy named Duane Owen, because for a good chunk of his time on death row he claimed that he identified as a women and wanted to be moved to a woman’s prison. Why was he on death row to begin with? He was a serial rapist and torture murderer if women. Florida said no. The ACLU found this horrifying.

I can’t blame Florida a bit. Obviously you don’t put a perdon like Owen into a universe of captive women. The ACLU screams that it’s an act of hate.

People who want to change gender should be free to do so. And go on to live their lives in peaceful anonymity like the rest of us. But that’s not good enough. They have to get in society’s face and demand that the life of the 99.5% be disrupted to accommodate the 0.5%. Resisting this at all, even if you’re simply trying to protect biological women, gets you branded as a hater of transgenders. It’s the playlist of the left these days - label your opponents to try to avoid discussion of certain complicated things.

If you want to see less hate maybe you should stop looking for it where it doesn’t exist.

[Bored Lawyer]

Throwing them off bridges is just “overreacting,” right, while making someone in high school take a shirt that offends them off is a much larger concern?

The latter IS a much bigger concern. The former is just the bloviations of an anonymous poster on an obscure internet blog. (Sorry Professor EV). Which to my knowledge, has never actually been done.

The latter was actually done, with the full force and authority of the State of Massachusetts, and then blessed by a federal judge, on the specious theory that "someone might be offended" is an exception to the First Amendment.

So, yes, actual government censorship is a bigger concern than absurd comments on a blog.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Maybe deliberately so."
No "maybe" about it.

[Krychek_2]

"You’re confusing “hate” and “refuse to humor the delusions of”.

It strikes me that this line of argument applies with equal force to religion. In the case of both the religious and the transgendered, you've got people who fervently believe something to be true, and other people who believe just as fervently that it's a delusion. Also in both cases, the believers are convinced that the unbelievers hate them, whereas the unbelievers see themselves as simply refusing to cater to their delusions. And in both cases, the unbelievers see the believers as grooming children and doing things to them that cause lasting harm. It would be a complete analogy if the anti-religious were trying to pass laws forbidding religious parents to take their kids to church the same way the anti-trans are trying to pass laws criminalizing drag queen story hour.

So, although transgenderism isn't a religion (except to the extent that some of its most devoted adherents try to make it one), maybe the legal and social solution is to treat it the same way. People are free to believe and practice whatever they want, and parents are free to raise their kids (and take them to events) that they deem appropriate. The government stays out of it, and neither side gets to use the government to further their agenda.

[Nige]

“refuse to humor the delusions of”

It's not a confusion. That's pretty hateful in and of itself.

[Mr. Bumble]

Obfuscate and dissemble.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, obfuscating indeed.
Now do Suge Knight.
"Free my nigga Trump,"

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. Talk about strawmanning.

Throwing them off bridges is just “overreacting,” right, while making someone in high school take a shirt that offends them off is a much larger concern?

The government actually censoring students by making them remove shirts with messages that they disagree is a much larger concern than a dude on the internet speculating about people being thrown of bridges. This isn't even a close call.

Same anger about adoptive kids being seen as same as biological kids?

Of course not. What does that have to do with anything?

What other issues in this area have you posted on? You care about women’s shelters and prisons, can you point to your history here other than trans?

You are free to look through my commenting history as long as you want.

Can you point to your history of opposing circumcision?

Do you think people who don't understand the difference between piercing a girl's ears and cutting her ears off should be taken seriously?

[Mr. Bumble]

Gee, sorry I forgot my place, since only Negroes can refer to Negroes as niggers.
Trannie is a slur?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I mean, if you’re going to take the crazies around here and say they’re demonstrative of anything then there’s no discussion to be had. I’ve got them in ignore but it seems as if you need the ego boost if arguing with idiots.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's tempting.

Last night, being father's day, I got to pick the Sunday night family movie. I was thinking some old SF classic, like Robinson Caruso on Mars, or maybe Attack of the Flying Saucers.

But my wife informed me I really wanted to watch The Princess Bride. 😉 What the heck, it's a fun movie.

[Brett Bellmore]

“You’re on record here about trans being mentally diseased freaks.”

Well, mentally ill, anyway.

“So you’re just fired up about hormone therapy when it produces Andre the Giant like results?”

If by “fired up” you mean I’d consider it child abuse.

At this point it’s clear you don’t want a rational discussion, you just want to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Here’s a piece of advice, not that I expect you to take it:

If you can’t accurately describe your opponent’s views, you have no hope of winning a debate with them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, after the last round I realized it's deliberate. Queenie just is in a mood to insult us.

[Da5id]

Use the mute Luke...

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I reserve that for people who are basically devoid of anything interesting to say, and while I disagree with Queenie a lot, that's not the same thing. And my hide's thick enough to ride out the insults.

Only guy who's still around here that I have on the mute list is the Rev. Just got tired of his shtick.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Also in both cases, the believers are convinced that the unbelievers hate them,"

It's the firebombing and graffiti that convince me that some unbelievers hate us. Just some.

The current administration's attitude of indifference towards attacks on pro-life organizations, and tendency to sic armed feds on pro-life protesters has me worried. The left is never very far from violence, and it doesn't take a lot of tacit permission to make them go nuts, as the last few years have demonstrated.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Treat transgenderism like people treat religion"

That's an interesting option, that may actually work for people. Here's why.

1. It would ban schools from promoting transgenderism, and effectively remove most of the discussion of it, except in the most scientific way.

2. It would mean that others aren't forced into it. You may be Muslim for example, and believe that full body coverings for women are appropriate. But others don't have to do that, nor do they have to mandate their businesses allow it. Likewise, businesses which have men or women specific areas wouldn't need to allow those who believe they are a different gender in.

3. There are certain religions/cultures that believe in mutiliation of of the reproductive parts of their children, in a way that significantly damages them. We have no objection to restricting that. Likewise laws that restricted such options on transgenderism would be allowed, until they came of age

[Moderation4ever]

Donald Trump has not been treated any more unfairly that most politicians, he has simple whined more than most. A reading of our history show that political attacks have existed since the start of the country. Politicians are people with thick skins that learn to accept these attacks and move on. It is the head winds of politics.

The argument of selective prosecution is also false. Any number of Republicans, many served in the Trump administration, to point out that Trump's problems are self-inflicted.

[Super Scary]

"I personally wish he’d just retired, so I wouldn’t feel obligated to defend him from this onslaught."

It's fun to think that, but I seriously doubt they will stop trying to prosecute/persecute Trump after he "retires" from politics.

[not guilty]

There is no selective prosecution of Donald Trump. ¨In our system, so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion. Within the limits set by the legislature's constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, ´the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not, in itself, a federal constitutional violation´ so long as "the selection was not deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification." Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978), quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, 456 (1962).

"A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996). Defendants bear a "demanding" burden when seeking to establish that they are being selectively prosecuted in an unconstitutional manner. Ibid.

The Eleventh Circuit requires a defendant asserting a selective prosecution claim to prove by clear and convincing evidence, United States v. Smth, 231 F.3d 800, 808 (11th Cir. 2000), that persons similarly situated to the defendant were not prosecuted, and also that the difference in treatment, or selectivity of the prosecution, was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. Id., at 809.

The appellants in Smith asserted claims of selection based on race and political affiliation. The Eleventh Circuit expounded on whether a person who has not been prosecuted is ¨similarly situated¨ to the claimant:

[W]e define a "similarly situated" person for selective prosecution purposes as one who engaged in the same type of conduct, which means that the comparator committed the same basic crime in substantially the same manner as the defendant — so that any prosecution of that individual would have the same deterrence value and would be related in the same way to the Government's enforcement priorities and enforcement plan — and against whom the evidence was as strong or stronger than that against the defendant.

231 F.3d at 810.

Donald Trump´s criminal conduct with regard to the documents recovered at Mar-a-Lago is sui generis. There is no one similarly situated to him.

[Da5id]

Fair enough. I've lumped Queenie in with the Rev personally. I never find anything of value and they are both pretty predictable and rarely make substantive points.

[Life of Brian]

The Rev is just a boor; occasionally mildly amusing. In my view QA and Nige consistently, purposefully, and gleefully misrepresent your position -- not even Sarc manages to pulls off such consistently brazen bad faith. I can see that exact dynamic happening in y'all's replies to Queenie here. I put them on mute to save bandwidth and avoid the temptation of responding and getting dragged into that time-wasting, soul-sucking cycle.

[Krychek_2]

The extremist fringe of both right and left is never very far from violence. And while not excusing violence, you have to understand that if you're going to tell women that their reproductive choices are going to be made by your religious beliefs -- which they consider delusional -- that some people are going to fight back.

[Brett Bellmore]

That would be nice. "Mentally diseased" sure doesn't sound like a phrase I'd utter; Are you sure you're not confusing "literally" and "figuratively"?

Wish Reason hadn't rendered the comments here unindexable, used to be handy being able to search them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty sure he asked about actual throwing off bridges, not speaking of throwing off bridges.

You seem awfully determined to pretend that rare outliers represent whole groups, but only for groups you dislike. Like I said, I don't like Bernie bros, but I don't accuse them of all wanting to murder Congressmen.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Dr Ed is all hat and no cattle.

Remember, he wants to shoot all the Meskins as well. He’s not a real data point as to any prevailing opinion.

[Frank Drackman]

Kindler/Gentler Frank here,
Probably best to leave saying "Nigger" to the umm, Ni, I mean
"Afro-Amuricans."
And I've had a change of heart, if someone wants to have their Penis chopped off, go for it! that's why we beat the Germans at Pearl Harbor!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

@Queen:
tranny
noun

1.A transsexual, transgender or transvestite person, usually a transwoman.
2.Short form of transistor radio.
3.Short form of transmission in the automotive sense.

Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
More at Wordnik

trannie
noun

1,Alternative spelling of tranny.

Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
More at Wordnik

Where's the "slur"?

Aside from being a felon is Suge Knight a racist?

[Nelson]

tranny noun tran·​ny ˈtra-nē plural trannies 1 : TRANSMISSION sense 3 2 or less commonly trannie slang, disparaging + offensive a : a transgender person b : TRANSVESTITE

Disparaging and offensive, but what does “checks notes* Merriam-Webster know about language, right?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tranny

[Krychek_2]

It sounds like we're mostly in agreement. It's important to note, though, that gender surgery is not being done on minors and was not being done on minors even before it became an issue. This is a fiction perpetrated by those who are hostile to the transgendered. Such surgery has only been performed on adults, and then only after a significant amount of therapy.

[Nige]

‘that may actually work for people’

Great, Christians can class trans people as heretical and declare them anathema, as if the worst of them haven’t effectively done that anyway, but now you can codify it.

[Nelson]

"1. It would ban schools from promoting transgenderism"

That"s easy. Schools don't promote transgenderism. And no, talking about it isn't promoting it, any more than talking about Communism is promoting it.

"effectively remove most of the discussion of it, except in the most scientific way"

That would be ideal, but cultural.conservatives would lose their shit if it happened.

"2. It would mean that others aren’t forced into it."

Also easy, since no one is forcing anyone to be trans.

"3. There are certain religions/cultures that believe in mutiliation of of the reproductive parts of their children, in a way that significantly damages them. We have no objection to restricting that."

You're misattributing the reason such laws exist. It isn't because of religion, so your comparison is specious.

If you want to make a comparison, make an honest one.

[bevis the lumberjack]

But in real life trans people aren’t being thrown off bridges. Why make yourself mishanging out in his fantasy world?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but it's not remotely symmetrical, which, again, the last few years demonstrate. Massive riots in multiple cities, causing billions in property damage and dozens of deaths, vs, what? January 6th, where everybody was shocked to find that right-wingers would actually riot?

Even something like Charlottesville only got violent because the local government had the police channel the Antifa counter protesters, who'd come intending to get violent, into the right-wingers.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you need to avoid categorical statements like that.

Boston Children's Hospital Center for Gender Surgery

"As the first pediatric center in the country dedicated to the surgical care of transgender patients, we take an interdisciplinary approach from the start to ensure exceptional patient care. Our skilled team includes specialists in plastic surgery, urology, endocrinology, nursing, gender management, and social work, who collaborate to provide a full suite of surgical options for transgender teens and young adults. Our experienced anesthesia team works to provide culturally sensitive care to the gender-diverse community. By partnering with the hospital's nationally recognized Gender Management Service (GeMS), which provides a range of medical options for transgender youth, we help young people with gender identity concerns transfer seamlessly to surgical care if and when they are ready."

They currently only do genital surgery on patients who are at least 18. Currently. Lopping off breasts, OTOH? Yeah, they'll do that to minors, as well as breast implants, and facial surgery.

And, of course, they're doing hormonal treatments all over the place to minors, and despite the propaganda, that's not actually fully reversible.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Krychek,

So, unfortunately it is being done on minors. The case of Jazz Jennings pops up, who had gender reassignment surgery at 17, just to cite one case.

Hormone replacement therapy is actually problematic as well, because of its long term effects on fertility (basically it can make it impossible for one to have children). And again, we need to ask if this is an appropriate option for minors. Once people hit 18, they can make their own choices. But we need to question whether eliminating the fertility for individuals who are minors is an appropriate option, of if they should need to wait until they are 18.

"Religion" for all of its abuses ultimately isn't a chemical or physical procedure. (In general, yes there are specific practices that can be banned, discussed below). Especially not one that affects fertility.

To give an example, female genital mutilation on minors is banned, despite being promoted by some cultures/religions. If that was changed to "merely" a chemical procedure that eliminated the nerve endings in female genital organs, it should likewise be banned. Even its not "surgical".

Ultimately, I have severe concerns over procedures...surgical or chemical...that eliminate fertility in minors. On rare occasion, it is necessary to save the life of the patient. But HRT isn't that.

[Life of Brian]

Such surgery has only been performed on adults, and then only after a significant amount of therapy.

Maybe in the fake world painted by big box reporters that close their eyes and pretend unpleasant things inconvenient to the narrative don't happen.

In the real one, most recently this girl had a double mastectomy at age 13 after a single session with a psychologist.

And about five years ago, Jazz Jennings had genital surgery at 17. And however much therapy happened there, it clearly wasn't enough given the subsequent record of depression and a 100-pound binge eating swing

I'm sure with a bit of intellectual curiosity you can find more in between.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Such surgery has only been performed on adults, and then only after a significant amount of therapy.

Then why the gnashing of teeth when states try to ban it for minors?

[Martinned]

Very fine people in Charlottesville...

[Krychek_2]

The BLM riots were a spontaneous response to a brutal police murder. January 6 was planned, calculated and intentional. So no, they're not symmetrical, although not in the way you were thinking.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, Bullshit. Democrats were literally talking about impeaching him before he even got the nomination. Polls were showing a majority of Democrats favoring impeachment within a month of his taking office, before you could identify even a pretextual basis for doing it. Remember "the Resistance", a movement in the bureaucracy to obstruct his administration? People in the DOJ using burner phones to communicate their plans to go after him?

He didn't get remotely normal treatment. Though I strongly suspect the left plans to treat all Republican nominees the same way going forward. Trump might have moved up the schedule for refusing to treat Republican Presidents as legitimate by a few years, but it was already in the works.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No. I dislike Trump intensely. Always have.

But the coverage of the guy has been over the top ridiculous. The media destroyed their credibility for the foreseeable future with the way they’ve covered the guy. It’s awful.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I put people like that in mute. That’s all the discerning I need to do.

[Nige]

'I put people like that in mute.'

If Bevis can't see or hear then they don't exist.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look at the polls over at 538; Biden's basement level ratings have been remarkably steady since late '21; August '21 was the last time he wasn't underwater.

I don't think there's going to be any flipping for Biden, he's just been a dumpster fire of a President. Lately even people in his own administration are starting to complain that he's incoherent. I honestly doubt he'll be the Democratic nominee, because he's not just unpopular, he's obviously not all there, and he's gotten past the point of being able to render him fully functional for a few hours as necessary.

I'm not saying he's doing badly for a guy going on 80 with his medical history; I only hope I'm still above ground and that coherent by the time I reach that age. But he's not remotely up to being President, and everybody knows it, even if not everybody wants to admit it.

[Krychek_2]

And if they make plans to do genital surgery on minors then you'll have a point and the issue can be revisited. In the meantime, some treatments (not surgery) are only effective if done pre-puberty.

But let's go back to my analogy to religion. Any idea how much damage is done to children by their religious nutter parents, some of it not reversible? I've seen whole families destroyed by religious nuttery. Unfortunately, parents do in fact get to do things that screw up their children, although there are outer limits on it. Don't pretend this is only a problem for trans kids.

They fuck you up, your mum and dad
They may not mean to, but they do
They fill you up with all their faults
And add some extras, just for you.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's fruitless if you assume their goal is fruit. If you use the results to reason back to their goal, their policies seem pretty well adapted to reducing most of the human race to misery.

Since things like the 'voluntary extinction movement' are real, and people have seriously talked about reducing the human population by 90% or so in a time frame where that couldn't be accomplished without death camps, I think maybe they're just lying about what their goal is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, you're not allowed to complain about being headed to Hell on a handcart until you've already passed the "Abandon all hope" sign...

They're ALREADY lopping off breasts and carving up faces, and hormonal treatments have irreversible effects.

Yeah, if your goal is to PREVENT puberty from resolving gender dysphoria, as it does in almost all cases, you do have to start the hormone treatments before it happens.

[Bwaaah]

You said, "gender surgery is not being done on minors."

BB then showed that Boston Children's hospital "provides a full suite of surgical options for transgender teens and young adults."

You then dismissed his response by redefining "gender surgery" as, what, only including penis removal? Breast removal, for the purpose of transitioning, is not "gender surgery?"

A lot of people seem to think that argument, and cultural change, can be advanced by simply redefining words and not speaking about those language changes. Easy enough. But then you seem to imagine that people, bigots or otherwise, are so stupid as to adopt your position even though it hasn't even arrived into semantic existence?

Words, words, words. Nothing, nothing, nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and some nasty people too, on both sides. You guys always take a few words out of context, because you need to misrepresent what he said to make it seem unreasonable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe the 1st BLM/Antifa riot was spontaneous. Maybe. The subsequent ones weren't.

And I'll agree that January 6th was planned, calculated, and intentional, on the part of a small fraction of the participants. Maybe we should put a stop to the FBI pulling that kind of shit?

[bevis the lumberjack]

There’s been no evidence made public that January 6 was planned, except for a handful of goofy Oath Keepers who had no connection to the vast majority of the crowd. Or Trump.

As with the BLM/Antifa Floyd riots, the January 6 riot was a classic display of mob behavior by angry mobs.

Don’t be ridiculous.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you produce a link to the actual quote, I will likely stand by what I said, in the context I said it. I don't think I used those exact words, but, yes, I do think the transgender are mentally ill, and I don't mean them ill, I just don't want them in my face.

"and leave this site forever,"

Yeah, like you'd volunteer to do that over anything you've said. Screw that.

[Bwaaah]

If I understand this, you advance the anti-anti-trans argument by taking a few words, finding a technical deficiency unrelated to the debate, and feigning offense over such a trivial point. You then demand public admission of his shameful behavior and that he be silent forever?

Well, at least you faithfully represented the [more popular, weak] anti-anti-trans argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

I note the lack of a link. Produce one, and we'll have something to discuss.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One might think an antisocial, autistic, disaffected, delusional, roundly bigoted, right-wing culture war loser who chooses to live in the can't-keep-backwaters would be careful about criticizing others in this way.

Not our "Birther Brett" Bellmore, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

“I note the lack of a link. Produce one, and we’ll have something to discuss.”

That said, I stand vindicated. I didn't say "mentally diseased".

Now, produce a link, so I can see if there's any context that makes the remark look bad.

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS is too dumb to see how his very post here betrays his own bigotry.

Then again, AIDS is also too dumb to see that he's betrayed the fact (to all readers here) that he isn't actually opposed to bigotry at all! It's just a label he tries to weaponize, even though it backfires.

And when that's brought to his attention he just ignores it and persists with the same nonsense.

Which leads to a larger failing. AIDS, like many Americans, is a completely insincere, untrustworthy interlocutor -- even as a troll. But, more importantly, in the face of his own rhetoric about 'choosing reason', abandoning superstition, etc, he nevertheless regularly demonstrates failings in basic logic, hypocrisy and, best of all, the superficiality, falsity, and disingenuousness of his own dogmas. He's too dumb to see that his own values are cultish nonsense.

[Krychek_2]

OK, so you're capable of holding more than one delusional belief at a time.

[Nige]

'The subsequent ones weren’t.'

Almost like cops in some cities escalated their violent oppressive responses to the demonstrations. They probably did plan that. Love how all the libertarians sided with state violence.

[Krychek_2]

No they're not. You might find an exceptional circumstance here or there, but in general that kind of surgery isn't done on minors.

[Sarcastr0]

They’re ALREADY lopping off breasts and carving up faces, and hormonal treatments have irreversible effects.

Fucking nonsense.

I watched something yesterday that turned me around on thinking a ban on irreversible treatment for youth could be warranted to thinking such a one size fits all approach is too blunt an instrument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZkRgMKFg-4

[Randal]

Are you against all surgery on minors?

[Moderation4ever]

Take some time read some history.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump did some extraordinary crimes. Brett at this point seems committed to not reading the indictment because he's personally committed to the persecution of Trump.

Which is I think the real key - when Trump says they're not coming for me they're coming for you, that's why Brett is doing so much editing of reality.

[Nige]

So what? You're acting as if the 'grass-rootslol' Tea Party didn't exist. Explicitly revolutionary in its imagery and intent. How normal was that? The relentless campaign to get both Clintons? How normal was that? Trump didn't testify at a single hearing! He got off lightly! And he and his family used unsecured phones in the White House all the time, not for nothin'.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Democrats treated Trump as one would expect…the group that treated Trump differently were the Bush Republicans that orchestrated a coup to install Pence as president. Once again, Gingrich planned on removing both Clinton and Gore so that he would end up president as Gingrich has a PhD in European history in which monarchs come and go and prime ministers come and go and as long as the line of succession holds the proletariat doesn’t care. Remember that Gingrich lived through Watergate in which Republicans in Congress ousted a VP and forced Ford on Nixon and then Ford ended up as president.

[David Nieporent]

Democrats were literally talking about impeaching him before he even got the nomination.

How many times can you repeat this lie? You found one guy somewhere who said something, and you're going to pretend that "Democrats" were saying it. Democrats did not impeach him… until he did something worthy of impeachment.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's pretty ambiguous.

[Bwaaah]

Did you read the Durham report?

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of others where Ed came from. BCD laughs that they kill themselves.
Kaz wants to institutionalize parents of trans kids.

I do think there are issues to debate on the issue. But here? Here everything is hijacked by a howling mob hopped up on bullshit and hatred of expertise.

At the moment at least, this is just the thunderdome.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I never said I wanted to shoot all the Mexicans -- or all the bank robbers for that matter.

But what would happen if there were no consequences for robbing banks? What would happen if police officers couldn't resort to deadly force to stop bank robbers when all else failed?

That's my point on the border -- if people know that the legal authorities are impotent and unable to do anything to stop you, you will ignore them. Much like the impotent bank guards saying "please don't steal our money"...

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Being assigned”. LMAO.

[Frank Drackman]

now that's a wife! Mine likes "The Princess Diaries" which is only surpassed by "The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement" in banality.
Oops, that wasn't too "Kindler/Gentler"
both are great family movies!!!!!!!

Frank

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

"Robinson Caruso"? What did he sing?

[Nelson]

“But my wife informed me I really wanted to watch The Princess Bride."

Your wife is awesome.

[Sarcastr0]

The clear double standard is your own, Brett. You minimize Jan 06, apologize for every bit of bigotry that falls from a Republicans' mouth. Meanwhile, you conflate protests and riots, generalize every violent anecdote with a whiff of a liberal ideology into a rule about the left, and cry about liberal coverups of the real truth you've argued yourself into.

You yourself talk about judges hanging from lampposts, and an upcoming Civil War. Because that's the upshot of your bias - it rationalizes your own violent urges.

[Nige]

Yeah, the Nazis and the people standing up to the Nazis were equally bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, which is why I said above, "I think you need to avoid categorical statements like that.", and then provided a link to one of the exceptions, where they DO do that kind of surgery.

[Nige]

Are we actually all coming around to believing that they do occur simply because it's such an article of faith with the transphobes? Well done transphobes, lying works.

[Sarcastr0]

The existence of kids?

Seriously though, anyone who says they’re fighting for “objective truth” is way too overdetermined in their zealotry.

Plus all of these children have parents. The very fact you cut them out in this comment shows you're more into narratives than truth yourself.

[Nige]

'bringing trans to the children'

There are children that experience gender dysphoria. Denying that is denying reality. The only resistance will be to helping those chidren when they need it. It's like saying a child can't decide they're ADD, stop bringing ADD to children, don't provide treatment and support for children with ADD.

[Brett Bellmore]

The business model for the news media was broken by the internet. They're auditioning for a different business model, being the propaganda outlet for the Democratic party. They don't need public credibility for that business model.

[Moderation4ever]

Another "but" comment. Leave it at "I dislike Trump intensely".

Because the media crap is just that or maybe you missed FOX news during the Trump administration, they gave him pretty supportive coverage. BUT I guess you are complaining because every outlet did not do the same.

[Nige]

Apparently reporting the things he said and did and that he was under investigation was over the top. Who knew?

[Randal]

But the coverage of the guy has been over the top ridiculous.

This part is unfortunately true. I think it's worth pointing out the symbiotic relationship between Trump and the media. Trump has been in the top three news stories continuously since 2016, except perhaps in the latter half of 2021 when we had Afghanistan, covid, and DeSantis to talk about. But he was still top 5.

Trump knows how to keep the spotlight on him, and the media is happy to oblige, because he drives ratings. And of course, he does it by saying controversial things, essentially begging the media to take sides. So they do.

An "objective" take on Trump would be to mostly just ignore him. Why does every Tweet deserve a news cycle? Nobody else gets that kind of devotion. But of course, a news outlet with that policy would be out of business now.

So yeah, this is basically Trump's superpower. Baiting the media. He's a master baiter.

Sorry sorry, I'm so sorry for that! But it had to be done, like blowing the seeds off a dandelion.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're just bemused at your thinking your delusions are "conventional wisdom".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Assigned" suggests that before that initial act, a human being was in a state of being neither sex.

Which, of course, is delusional and absurd. It's these sorts of concepts foisted upon normal people which contributes to so much tranny hate.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Because “being assigned” makes it sound arbitrary.

Any assignment that’s done at birth is done by nature. I would think a member of the Party of Science like yourself would understand that.

[DaveM]

Actually, I think you’ve got that backwards. People who insist on there being objective truth do so on the basis of rational thought. People who insist there is no objective truth do so on the basis of their “zealous” emotional beliefs.

And regarding parents, they're the ones who are leading the push-back.

[Sarcastr0]

They’re auditioning for a different business model, being the propaganda outlet for the Democratic party

The News Media, just collectively.

Lets not explain how you can make money that way if ratings no longer matter - I'm sure Brett has a whole made up political thriller scenario for that bit.

[Nige]

The business model was destroyed by cost cutting and layoffs. You picked a clown to run for president then thinks that coverage of the clown is negative because he comes across as a clown.

[Ben_]

"…being the propaganda outlet for the Democratic party…"

The only reasons that’s still a business model at all are:
1. Funds from cable bundle, from the old people who still have cable.
2. Woke people in the advertising business who are intentionally misspending their clients' money running ads for extremely tiny audiences.

This will dry up over time. Expect to learn someday that these networks get a majority of their income (indirectly) from government and support from foundations.

[Sarcastr0]

Delusional is a tell. It's not about facts.

I mean, there's some neuroscience. But fuck that, your middle school-based intuition and feelings is enough, and all who disagree are delusional. Experts don't count before your angry certainty.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's why he is often referred to as GaslightO.

[Sarcastr0]

You'd think that if the actual surgery were going on, that would be the story. And yet it is not.

Weird.

So maybe worth doing a bit of actual digging. One fact check and link therein later:

https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program/eligibility-surgery

"To qualify for gender affirmation at Boston Children's Hospital, you must be at least 18 years old for phalloplasty or metoidioplasty and for vaginoplasty.

You must also have the following:

A letter from a medical doctor or nurse practitioner stating that you have "persistent, well documented, gender dysphoria" and specifying the length of hormone therapy.
A letter from your regular therapist stating that you have "persistent, well documented, gender dysphoria," that any significant mental health concerns are well controlled and that you have been living full time in your identified gender for at least 12 months.
A second letter, from a mental health professional familiar with the procedure you are seeking, stating you are ready for surgery. This should include your understanding of the surgery procedure and recovery needs, fertility implications of surgery, and risks of surgery. It should also state that you are able to consent for surgery and include an assessment of your support systems."

Libs of TikTok lies. Do not trust her as your sole source for this bullshit.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe the "but" is a bridge to include additional facts because they may also be seen as relevant? Maybe all the facts in a case don't necessarily support [or contradict] just one conclusion?

Maybe you can't tolerate conclusions different from your own, so you call those differences "circumvention?"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There's neuroscience that suggests our brains are wired to prefer a particular cultural role?

How on Earth is that even possible?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Here's why.

Adoptive kids are not biological kids. This is an immutable fact.

[Dr. Ed 2]

... throwing someone off a bridge is ...worse than making a kid change his shirt.

No, making the kid change his shirt is far worse because it is (a) state action, (b) under color of law, with (c) the perps glorified instead of punished.

Maine law at the time did not permit juveniles to be tried as adults, and hence the stiffest sanction they could get was DSS custody until age 21. No matter what a juvenile did, you couldn't sentence him to jail, and this was not the first time juveniles had murdered.

But this was the case that got the law changed. Not the other murders, but this murder. Society was pissed.

And the monument is to the victim. It's very clear to anyone with an IQ over 10 that society did not approve of what happened.

Now contrast that to the T shirt case where it is being done under full color of law, by paid public employees, and in violation of Massachusetts Law: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71/Section82

There is an Obama judge ignoring the precedent of her own circuit

This is worse because it is being done under color of law.

[Moderation4ever]

I have read parts of it, but I don't really think that it negates my assertion that Trump was really not treated any more unfairly than other people and especially other politicians. Ask yourself this question, if a similar investigation had been done for a host of attacks on other politicians through history would the results likely have been similar? I am guessing that the results would be the same. No laws were broken but rules were bent or not followed.

Daniel Ellsberg just recently died, his psychiatrist's office was burgled. Bush administration officials leaked a CIA agents name as payback for her husbands remarks. So, the Durham report is pretty small potatoes and Trump is a pretty big whiner.

[Sarcastr0]

Durham has lots of opinions. Those aren't facts. You shouldn't mix them up.

[Frank Drackman]

The Who What?

[Sarcastr0]

Jan 06 was absolutely planned. They had shitty opsec, so it's all over the charging documents and in the media.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/secret-service-emails-jan-6-committee-b2202387.html

[Nige]

There aren't many national hate campaigns against bottle blondes.

[Nige]

'Nobody hates trans people'

You must have LOADS of commenters here blocked.

1. Sure. But other people have a right to call out rude behaviour.

2. Tras women have always been in women's spaces with no reports of violent behaviour by them. It only became an issue recently.

3. The fears of trans women dominating women's sport have proved quite absurdly groundless.

4. It's the children telling others. Stop ignoring children when they tell people something's wrong, stop telling them they're wrong about what's going on in their own bodies. How many adolescents' lives were and are made miserable by people who did this to them?

5. Stop turning proven medical treatments into satanic-panic sensationalism.

[SimonP]

1. Don’t say I have to pretend he’s a woman.

The thing that's asinine about this is that, for most trans people who have transitioned, it makes no sense to adamantly refer to them by their given names or their birth gender. Do you refer to her as "Bruce Jenner" and insist on referring to her as "him"? No, I'm sure that you don't. Because that would be bizarre and counterintuitive.

2. Don’t say [I have to] accept him in women’s spaces, including battered women’s shelters and prisons where sexual violence is an issue.

I welcome your proposal for a better way to house a trans woman fleeing domestic violence or who needs to be incarcerated for some period of time.

3. Don’t let him play women’s sports and beat all the girls when he was only a mediocre boy’s athlete.

Yes, because this happens so often. I think people can (or should) acknowledge that trans women who have gone through male puberty may have an advantage over their cisgender competitors. But I think the best way to approach that is with evidence, sport-by-sport consideration, and sensible rules. Why is that not acceptable to you?

4. Stop telling children that they were born into the wrong body if they don’t feel comfortable with themselves. Adolescence is a confusing time when kids are discovering their bodies. Don’t make it worse.

Again, this seems like you're railing against a non-issue. Most parents and counselors are not actually eager for the children in their care to be, and come out as, trans. They understand their kids far better than you (or legislators and pundits) can, and in most cases they just want to do what will make their kids happy and develop as close to normally as possible. They are not somehow so self-deluded as to fail to understand, as you do, that "adolescence is a confusing time when kids are discovering their bodies."

5. Stop mutilating children.

Again, this is nowhere near as common as would seem to justify the space it is taking up in the conservative hive-mind.

Most kids aren't trans. But those who suspect that they may be might actually be, or they might just be going through a confusing time in their lives. Those kids need support, guidance, and care. In some cases that means working with therapists to figure out a course of action, which in most cases means a multiyear process where the child is given the opportunity to explore their identity, progressing to medical treatments only when necessary, and to permanent treatments only when they've had enough time living with their chosen identity to show that it's a committed, informed choice.

Is that always how it is done? Well, I've seen enough right-wing propaganda to understand it may not be. This appears to be an area where there aren't clear rules or established best practices, and where some counselors or therapists may not be providing the best care. But the answer to this is not to outlaw gender-affirming care for minors altogether. It's to study the issue, get a better grasp of best practices, and regulate appropriately.

[M L]

Right. Also don't ban a high schooler from graduation and rescind his offer of employment in the US Forest Service for saying 2+2=4.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/travis-lohr-banned-from-graduation-after-saying-there-are-only-two-genders

[Randal]

1. Don’t say I have to pretend he’s a woman. I may or may not choose to pretend he’s a woman to some degree, but that’s my choice.

Nobody says you have to pretend he's a woman, but likewise, nobody has to pretend you're not an asshole. That's the real problem here. The right is mostly mad because people don't take them seriously anymore. They think free speech means freedom from ridicule.

2. Don’t say women have to pretend he’s a woman, and accept him in women’s spaces, including battered women’s shelters and prisons where sexual violence is an issue.

Why don't we ask women whether they want trans women in their lockerrooms and prisons, or trans men, complete with their huge schlongs on display.

3. Don’t let him play women’s sports and beat all the girls when he was only a mediocre boy’s athlete.

I think you'll find general agreement here, especially in the context of competitive sports.

4. Stop telling children that they were born into the wrong body if they don’t feel comfortable with themselves. Adolescence is a confusing time when kids are discovering their bodies. Don’t make it worse.

The whole reason this is happening is because of your culture war. Shut up the trans hate campaign and the issue will fade back into the background. There just aren't that many trans people to get this worked up about.

5. Stop mutilating children.

As has been pointed out, your selective application of this principle proves that you don't actually care about the children, it's just another vector for your trans hate.

[Moderation4ever]

"But" can be a bridge and it can also be a denial mechanism, both are true. When I heard "I dislike Trump, but" I think denial.

[Nige]

What kind of colossal asshole would you have to be to build a national hate campaign around that?

[Sarcastr0]

The existence of an objective truth is not a partisan issue. The left and the right, the GOP and the Dems, all are pretty committed to facts and reality.

Postmodernism is a thing, but it's like a rarified ivory tower thing that is not really political.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People who insist on there being objective truth do so on the basis of rational thought.

Is belief in fairy tales and childish superstition part of that "rational thought?"

[Nige]

'So, what percentage of people who aren’t down with the trans agenda ever throw anybody off a bridge?'

Pretty sure someone saying that is a data point towards proving that there are people who do hate trans people, if only for the determinedly obtuse.

[Nelson]

"So, what percentage of people who aren’t down with the trans agenda ever throw anybody off a bridge?"

Probably about the same percentage of people who get bottom surgery as a minor: almost none. If you get to claim genital mutilation of children is a huge problem, you have to accept that the opposite extreme will claim that killing trans people is a huge problem.

Unless cultural conservatives aren't being honest, but what are the chances of that?

"Since you’re imagining that we hate the “trans”"

Well, the anger and distorted perception of what happens with trans minors kind of gives it away. Plus the frequent use of "tranny", of course.

"This totally misconceives the situation"

Not really. The phrase "born into the wrong body" is a similie that tries to explain how a trans person feels. Someone who has no idea how that feels claiming they know better is the height of arrogance and projection.

"I forget the name for this fallacy…"

I believe it's pointing out your concern isn't genuine. The fallacy is that you are concerned.

Your dislike of trans people is obvious. Denying it makes you look foolish.

[Nige]

'Expressing the opinion that biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports, regardless of how they identify, makes you a hater.'

Why not? People who think talking about wanting to throw trans people off bridges doesn't count as hate won't think anything counts as hate.

'Obviously you don’t put a perdon like Owen into a universe of captive women'

Death row in a women's prison is hardly likely to be any less confining than in a men's prison.

'They have to get in society’s face'

Ah, the usual 'keep it off the streets and don't scare the horses.' They need to be decently grateful for being allowed to exist and not exercise the same rights of self-expression and political activism of real people.

[bernard11]

It’s the playlist of the left these days – label your opponents to try to avoid discussion of certain complicated things.

The playlist of the left? No. A pretty widespread tactic.

[Life of Brian]

Responding to "nothing planned except the Oath Keepers" with an article that, other than the Oath Keepers, just throws around a bunch of fragmented murmurings about stuff that didn't actually happen is pretty amazing.

[Nige]

They weren't good plans, but I guess we have to wait till they acquire some effective planners and let it slide til then.

[Nige]

I lost my remaining respect for Brett (who used to be one of the more notably intelligent and personable conservative/libertarian commenters) the third or fourth time he posted a link that directly contradicted whatever it was he was claiming it showed, maybe that's misrepresentation, but it ain't mine.

[Nige]

'Once people hit 18, they can make their own choices.'

Yes, that's why younger children need parental consent. Oh, and red states are moving to ban healthcare for trans people who are over 18.

'despite being promoted by some cultures/religions.'

That's the difference between science-based medicine and religion/culture.

'I have severe concerns'

Utterly irrelevant to other people's medical treatments.

[Life of Brian]

Because the media crap is just that or maybe you missed FOX news during the Trump administration, they gave him pretty supportive coverage. BUT I guess you are complaining because every outlet did not do the same.

Fox News is routinely scorned and dismissed (including around here, probably even by you were I to go back and look) as being an unreliable, biased source of news. So not really sure why you would raise Fox as a counter to beavis' general and not really debatable observation about big-box media coverage of Trump.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s not a but comment. That’s crap.

I missed Fox News during the Trump Administration. And all of the other Administrations too.

Perhaps you missed time 90% of the media that isn’t Fox.

[Nige]

Taken at face value, your first link seems like bog standard malpractice. How many times have you called for the banning of entire surgical procedures and courses of treatment because of a single malpractice case?

As for Jazz Jennings, the sad reality is, succesful medical treaments can make you healthier, but not necessarily happier. How many surgical procedures and courses of treatment do you want to ban because patients subsequently went into a mental health decline?

[Mr. Bumble]

"She" is hardly healthier either medically or mentally.

[Gandydancer]

Why are you in favor of keeping malpractice legal?
Or is it your contention that lopping of healthy 13 y/o brests is EVER not malpractice?

[Brett Bellmore]

She's not too bad in picking movies, I hardly ever have to watch anything based on a Nickolas Spark book. I think in part due to my ability to predict the whole plot within the first five minutes without ever having read the book. He's just that formulaic.

Try her out on The Quiet Man; It's a John Wayne movie even wives can get into. Or if it has to be a chick flick, Return To Me is pretty tolerable.

[Nige]

'their policies seem pretty well adapted to reducing most of the human race to misery.'

The conspiracy mongering is internalised, completely.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy fuck, Brett found some people who have some stupid crazy ideas!

Only a man of his insight would realize these ideas must undergird most of liberal thought, but secretly.

[Frank Drackman]

I know one who's been impeached twice who'd beg to differ.

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't that what I said, that they were doing sex change surgery on minors, but weren't yet doing it to the genitals?

[Bwaaah]

I think that’s what he said (minus all of the reasons you disagree with him, none of which contradict his central statement).

WOW!!! YOU AGREE WITH BB!!!

[Gandydancer]

Gaslightr0: "You’d think that if the[?] actual surgery were going on, that would be the story. And yet it is not."

No, I'd think that if some exploitation mill like Boston Children's Center for Gender Surgery were unnecessarily hacking up kids they'd do their very best to obscure what they were doing. And yet... yeah, they do, but if you read their propaganda closely the truth seeps through: "Our skilled team... collaborate to provide a full suite of SURGICAL options for transgender TEENS and young adults." Gaslightr0 assures us that "a full suite" doesn't mean what it says, but the eagerness of these "doctors" to make a better living hacking bits off teens even more vigorously then they get away with at present is not really in doubt.

[Brett Bellmore]

And they did NOT give him pretty supportive coverage. They gave him coverage that was mixed, instead of uniformly hostile.

[Nige]

Bloody hell, that was almost friendly banter. Fair play.

[Nelson]

Frank that was, hands-down, the funniest things you've said since I got here a couple years ago. Literally made me laugh out loud.

[Nige]

Doesn't sound it, no.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure Brett is deeply hurt by the loss.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're not nearly as all in on the green nude eel as Germany, and,

These areas of the US at ‘elevated’ risk of blackouts this summer

Germany started out as a net power exporter, which gave them a bit of headroom, but they've about used it up, and are expected to rely on imports of power from surrounding countries to make up for the perfectly functional nuclear plants they shut down and then blew up parts of to make the shutdown irreversible.

It always says you know what you're doing is popular, when you spend extra money to make sure a newly elected government can't reverse your policies...

[Moderation4ever]

What would the final report be if AG Merrick Garland gave a DOJ prosecutor 4years and $6.5M to investigate Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation?

[Dr. Ed 2]

AND she did it in violation of state law and first circuit precedent.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71/Section82

[Noscitur a sociis]

2. Tras women have always been in women’s spaces with no reports of violent behaviour by them. It only became an issue recently.

3. The fears of trans women dominating women’s sport have proved quite absurdly groundless.

This kind of blindly ideological absolutism is about as silly as TwelveInchPianisr's claim that no one hates trans people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/423/423mass283.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, yes.

Look at the 1933 election -- a lot of people (some Jewish) voted for Hitler as the lesser of two evils -- they were more afraid of Stalin's goons.

[David Nieporent]

I see Dr. Ed is just in full-on making-shit-up phase.

[Nige]

An argument for not crediting scare campaigns by fascists, quasi-fascists, proto-facists or would-be fascists.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Your invented boogeyman kind?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They are doing it under the Doing The Right Thing clause which grants the people in government unbounded authority to Do The Right.

It's right next to the General Welfare clause which says the government can spend whatever monies it wants so long as their intent is to promote the general welfare.

[gVOR08]

True. And not just conservatives, although it seems way more prevalent and basic to conservatives. It’s why blood and soil has always been an effective way to keep the serfs in line. Sure works for Republicans, and it’s FOX’s business model.

[Theendoftheleft]

THAT MUST be why so many TERFS hate Trans. It couldn't instead be because they think it's just a bunch of men trivializing what they think is a form of oppression in the form of gender roles...

It MUST be due to hatred, or due to ignorance...

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're just a bootlicking version of the Reverend.

[Kazinski]

I don't want to institutionalize anyone that can't take care of themselves.

But some parents of trans kids should probably be evaluated for Munchausen by proxy syndrome.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That’s a lie. Fox News gave Bush and Trump 100% positive coverage when they were president and for a short period in 2008/09 Fox News covered the news fairly. Even in the famous Megyn Kelly debate Ailes gave Trump the first question and Trump hit it out of the ballpark.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Biden is doing a good job…2021 looked like 2005 when events overwhelmed the Bush presidency and he never recovered. Delta bar and Trump’s surrender to the Taliban and an awful hurricane in Louisiana and Putin and global inflation would have overwhelmed most presidencies but Biden met the challenge and stabilized the ship.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Science" and "Medicine" don't give you a free pass on ethics. The United States sterilized approximately 60,000 people between 1907 and 1960, for "scientific" and "medical" reasons.

In practice, these people had their human rights violated, and it was one of the great human rights violations of the 20th century in the United States.

We should be extremely cautious about medical procedures which sterilize individuals before they hit their majority.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Oh, and red states are moving to ban healthcare for trans people who are over 18."

Gee, that's harsh, you mean they can't even get an emergency appendectomy?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh, and red states are moving to ban healthcare for trans people who are over 18.

Which ones?

[Life of Brian]

Fox News gave Bush and Trump 100% positive coverage when they were president

Have a source for that just plain silly statement? The 2017 Pew Study put Fox coverage of Trump at 30% positive, 15% negative, and 55% neutral.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

First off—the paper states that right wing media outlets gave Trump much more favorable coverage than left wing outlets. So I remember Trump’s first 100 days and it was very chaotic before of things Trump was doing and not because of events out of his control…so they might have had no choice but to cover it negatively. All I know is that Fox News viewers believe Saddam had WMDs and Trump engaged in locker room talk and that 2.5% GDP growth is amazing economic growth.

[Life of Brian]

the paper states that right wing media outlets gave Trump much more favorable coverage than left wing outlets.

No shit, really? If only that had been your original proposition, rather than "Fox was 100% positive."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Fox News was 100% positive on things that could be spinned…but Trump’s first 100 days were very chaotic because he has always been his own worst enemy. Remember, Trumps machinations in 2021 are what led to his own appointee appointing a special counsel!?! Wtf??

[Ben_]

SBF comments here are 100% true and accurate except the (many) parts that are lies.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

2.5% GDP growth (as long as you don’t include 1 full year of Trump’s presidency) greatest economy in history!! Makes Reagan’s years look like Haiti…fucking loser!

[Gandydancer]

The disaster zone between your ears looks like fucking Haiti... right after the earthquake.

"Fox News gave Bush and Trump 100% positive coverage when they were president" is a self-own that you cannot salvage, clown.

[Bob from Ohio]

No doctor has ever seen a penis on a baby boy and wrote down "girl" on the birth certificate.

If sex was "assigned" that would happen. Yet it does not.

[Nige]

And lefties are supposed to be snowflakes, I swear.

[bernard11]

You seem awfully determined to pretend that rare outliers represent whole groups,

Show some fucking self-awareness, Brett.

That is SOP for you. Some Democrat somewhere says something silly and you’re all over it. “Now the left is trying to…..”

Oh. And shut up about the Steve Scalise shooting. I know you're obsessed with it, since you bring it up constantly, but it seems to concern you more than other shootings.

That’s a pretty common comment from you.

[ducksalad]

You state "there is no selective prosecution of Donald Trump" but the rest of your comment only proves that "a selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself".

Perhaps you've spent too long as a lawyer and have forgotten that:

(a) saying something is "not a defense" is not the same as "it didn't happen", and

(b) non-lawyers make a distinction between what is legal and what is right, and that applies to selective prosecution.

Your emphasis on prosecutors having discretion also cuts against you. You've now conceded that they had no legal obligation to pursue Trump and that it was totally their own decision. They've decided not to prosecute on document holdings discovered both before and after Trump. We're allowed to speculate on their motives.

I'm an LP voter for life and would get a good laugh out of Trump going to jail. And I hear the argument that the key difference is his obstruction.

If that's the sincere reason, shouldn't the charge be obstruction and ONLY obstruction? The charges related to merely taking and keeping the documents are something where other politicians did precisely the same thing.

[Life of Brian]

If that’s the sincere reason, shouldn’t the charge be obstruction and ONLY obstruction?

Those charges are likely harder to prove re Trump's mental state, but merits aside they're probably just not sexy enough. Without those charges it's a lot harder to raise the specter of stealing state secrets to peddle to the Ruskies or what have you.

[not guilty]

The typical yap and yammer about ¨selective prosecution¨ of Donald Trump is offered as a reason that he should not be or should not have been charged with crimes. Forgive me for bringing relevant legal authorities into the discussion of legal terms of art.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we go to court with the law we have, not with the law we wish we had.

FWIW, the line, “a selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself”, is not original to me. It was written in 1996 by Antonin Scalia. The quotation marks should have given you a clue.

[Randal]

The charges related to merely taking and keeping the documents are something where other politicians did precisely the same thing.

Not quite. The fact that Trump was attempting to obstruct efforts to retrieve the documents from him is also evidence of his intent to illegally possess the documents in the first place.

Whereas with Biden and Pence, no obstruction means no clear intent to illegally possess.

[David Nieporent]

If that’s the sincere reason, shouldn’t the charge be obstruction and ONLY obstruction? The charges related to merely taking and keeping the documents are something where other politicians did precisely the same thing.

100% false. There are no other politicians who refused to return documents when asked, and even provided a false affidavit claiming they had returned them all. Trump is not charged with "merely taking" the documents, or even merely keeping them.

If Trump had either (a) given everything back after NARA asked for it; (b) given everything back after NARA asked for it many more times; (c) given all of the classified documents back after being served with a subpoena for them; or (d) gone to court in the first place and argued that he had a right to retain the documents, then none of this would've happened.

[Bob from Ohio]

Two words for same thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What's on the birth certificate? Sex? Gender? or both?

[Bwaaah]

The Durham report very clearly and critically documented major differences between how the FBI initiated and handled its investigation of Donald Trump, in stark comparison with typical suspects or a similar one (like Hillary Clinton). The FBI inexplicably deviated from its own well-established practices in a manner that disadvantaged Trump and subverted the Bureau's own mechanisms of control. I don't know how you read any substantial part of Durham without seeing that as one of its major messages. I doubt you.

[Gandydancer]

"Bush administration officials leaked a CIA agents name as payback for her husbands remarks."

This allegation failed in court.

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

[ducksalad]

Are you unaware of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

[Gandydancer]

The rest of us noticed that ducksalad did not contest that "“a selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits", and your refusal to acknowledge his other points is telling about what you are about, you dishonest turd.

[Moderation4ever]

We will never know, will we.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they'd have found better things to do if he'd retired from politics altogether, and that if he weren't running they'd not have been so driven about it.

[Sarcastr0]

states are banning treatment, not just surgery.

[Moderation4ever]

Have you read the report because Mr. Durham does not clearly and critically report on the differences between the Trump and Clinton investigation.

On Page 79 the report says;

"particular nature of the allegations related to each campaign, attempting to view the FBI's investigative activity in an "apples to apples" approach is undoubtedly an imperfect method to analyze whether the FBI engaged in disparate treatment of the campaigns."

This is not clear and critical this is a major attempt at hedging.

[Nelson]

The Durham Report was empty of substance. If you think the Mueller Report was baseless, you shouldn't even be willing to wipe your ass with the Durham Report. People got convicted of crimes and went to prison based on Mueller's findings.

Whataboutism doesn't belong in a Justice Department document. It doesn't even belong in a junior high debate class. But for Durham and cultural conservatives, it's the gold standard.

[ducksalad]

It’s a reasonable point.

Although the timing of Biden and Pence’s cooperativeness is unlikely to be coincidental; it was most likely triggered by what was happening to Trump. Did they just then realize that their document holdings were illegal, or did they just then realize the risk of getting called on it?

We’re all driving down the road at 75 in a 60 zone. I see some other driver getting pulled over, and slow down to 60.

(1) Was I intentionally speeding? Hell yes.
(2) Am I better than the other guy who got stopped no? No.
(3) Is the cop legally obligated to stop to me too? No.
(4) Does that mean the other guy is entitled to resist the officer? No, he should accept the ticket and slow down, and be arrested if he resists instead.
(5) Does that mean the officer is doing something bad and divisive? Maybe, if he picked the other guy because he was black, or his ex-wife’s new boyfriend, or an orange-haired political enemy.

It's possible, although Not Guilty doesn't understand it, to simultaneously believe that Trump is guilty and the DoJ has political motivations.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whereas with Biden and Pence, no obstruction means no clear intent to illegally possess."

That's silly. If they had them, they possessed them illegally, and if they knew they had them, they intended to possess them illegally.

And it seems pretty clear given the timing that they both knew they had them. They are indeed Ducksalad's driver who only hits the brakes when he sees he's driving into a speed trap.

'Important' people retaining classified documents was routine, and normally went uninvestigated and unprosecuted when inadvertently discovered. Trump was targeted for political reasons, that he might be guilty doesn't change that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As has been pointed out, your selective application of this principle proves that you don’t actually care about the children, it’s just another vector for your trans hate."

People who see a difference between circumcision and castration don't care about children? Do you guys even listen to yourselves?

[Randal]

But there's no reason to think that DoJ has political motivations other than you want to.

Even if the Biden / Pence timing is suspicious, that's not enough to bring a case.

Trump's intent, in comparison, is blindingly obvious.

[Randal]

Circumcision is an obvious one, but there are tons of others. Parents do surgery on their kids all the time to fix real and percieved problems.

https://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions/polydactyly

Why don't you consider chopping off fingers to be unacceptable child mutilation? Trans hate, obviously, is why.

[Frank Drackman]

a Real "Reverend" once said
One of the most striking proofs of the personal existence of Satan, which our times afford us, is found in the fact, that he has so influenced the minds of multitudes in reference to his existence and doings, as to make them believe that he does not exist; and that the hosts of Demons or Evil Spirits, over whom Satan presides as Prince, are only the phantacies of the brain, some halucination of mind. Could we have a stronger proof of the existence of a mind so mighty as to produce such results?

[Theendoftheleft]

In the face of all the empirical evidence suggesting that free will is just a myth, is 'rational thought' a mere fairy tale?

[Randal]

Nige is right about “women’s spaces.” Trans women have occupied such spaces probably for all time. I don’t see the “idological absolutism” in pointing that out.

What’s likely to cause problems is forcing trans men into women’s spaces.

[Nige]

It's just facts, nothing to do with ideology.

[ducksalad]

"That's not enough to bring a case".

Do you mean legally insufficient, or just not in line with typical practice? I realize the law says "intentionally" but that same word, or perhaps "knowingly", appears in the laws preventing me from having boxes full of prescription painkillers, high explosives, state property, etc. If I brought them in voluntarily, I might get off the hook if I said I had no idea how they got in my garage. If I said I'd brought them into my garage 10 years ago and just now decided to fess up? I think there would be an issue.

[Randal]

I’m assuming Biden and Pence will say that it wasn’t even they who packed the boxes and/or brought them into their garages.

Anyway the DoJ has a really high bar. They don’t take cases they aren’t practically certain to win. Without more, boxes in a garage are just circumstantial.

[not guilty]

Legally insufficient, ducksalad. What facts evince probable cause to believe that Mike Pence´s or Joe Biden´s handling of documents violated any criminal statute(s)?

Please identify each statute by number and set forth the facts that you claim amount to probable cause as to each one.

[Ben_]

Shorter:

Some stuff is rare, so who cares if some children and others are unfairly harmed or killed. It’s a small number.

And also "a trans woman fleeing domestic violence" is so common that actual women need to be endangered.

[Sarcastr0]

'some children and others are unfairly harmed or killed'

Ben runs on anecdotes, that he'll stretch to 'some.' But trans people don't matter in this calculous - never mind their stories.

What an asshole.

[Nelson]

"And also “a trans woman fleeing domestic violence” is so common that actual women need to be endangered."

Why would a trans woman endanger cis women in a woman's shelter?

You should cover up. Your bigotry is showing.

[Sarcastr0]

He graduated, just couldn't go to the ceremony.

That may or may not be okay to do, but don't lie about it.

[David Nieporent]

That is, of course, not the first circuit.

[Ben_]

No one should acknowledge children killed or harmed or mistreated. Sarcastr0 disapproves of their lives being acknowledged and their stories told.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes there are literally millions of them out there. That’s why every day we see stories of trans people being thrown off of buildings and migrants being shot by patriots and parents of trans people being put in institutions. There’s so many stories that the media is running through two keyboards per day pre person just keeping up.

I’d demand links like y’all do of me but I won’t because I know you don’t have any. Y’all seem so certain that things that aren’t happening really are that I wonder if you’re clinically delusional.

[ducksalad]

Hey, ng, I’m not an opposition attorney. I’m not even making legal claims, it’s more like pointing out how this all sounds to a layman.

How about you pretend I’m a juror (one allowed to ask questions) and you’re trying to convince me?

[not guilty]

Convince you of what? The absence of probable cause to believe that Mike Pence´s or Joe Biden´s handling of documents violated any criminal statute(s)? If that is your inquiry, I decline your invitation to prove a negative.

[ducksalad]

"They don’t take cases they aren’t practically certain to win. "

OK, that is an argument that makes some sense. It's unlikely any fair minded person thinks Pence needs to be in jail. Biden, well maybe, but not because of the papers.

[Gandydancer]

Guess what? Trump didn't pack the his boxes, either.

And if Trump belongs in jail it's also not because of the boxes.

[David Nieporent]

And if Trump belongs in jail it’s also not because of the boxes.

Of course not. It's because of the stuff that he stole and put in the boxes. And then lied about and hid.

[David Nieporent]

There are children that experience gender dysphoria.

There are indeed. That does not mean that those children are transgender or that so-called "gender affirming treatment" is appropriate.

[Gandydancer]

Randal-brainlessness in action: If you're against "gender-affirming" "lopping off [of] breasts and carving up [of]faces[] and hormonal treatments" then "Are you against all surgery on minors?" is a reasonable question.

I am repulsed by trannys, but I despise Randal.

[Randal]

Typical Gandy, afraid of questions.

I'm trying to figure out why people are fixated on kids' surgeries, since it's not where anyone seems to want to draw the line.

[Gandydancer]

You're lying. It's tedious.

[Randal]

Why would I lie about that? Oh let me guess, I'm "gaslighting" you again. Hahaha yeah probably. I'm always gaslighting you, Gandy. Even when I don't post something, it's a calculated plot to fuck with your mind. Like that time when you

[Gandydancer]

The “ban healthcare” bit jumped out at me, too. But it’s Nige, so what distinctions does one expect from such a well-known dullard?

[Nige]

South Carolina, Texas and Oklahoma all considering bills that ban trans health care for over-18s.

[Nelson]

"But in real life trans people aren’t being thrown off bridges."

They are, at about the same rate as minors are getting bottom surgery. But the former shouldn't be discussed and the latter is a central talking point of cultural consevatives.

But I'm sure once cultural conservatives realize how vanishingly small the occurance of both are, they'll stop talking about either. After all, they're arguing in good faith. Right?

[Gandydancer]

So, slippery one, will you say in so many words that you're not opposed to bans of such surgery? Because you HAVEN'T said that, have you?.

[Nelson]

"What would happen if police officers couldn’t resort to deadly force to stop bank robbers when all else failed?"

I'm pretty sure that, "He robbed a bank" doesn't justify deadly force. The point is that you think that deadly force should be used against non-violent criminals like illegal immigrants. That's not justifiable.

[Gandydancer]

You are such a dishonest and stupid twat.

Fuller quote: "Armchair Lawyer
'Treat transgenderism like people treat religion'
That’s an interesting option, that may actually work for people."

Christians of whatever sort are of course ALREADY free to declare "trans people" anathema. Imagining that that could be affected by "Treat[ing] transgenderism like people treat religion" is a brain fart absolutely characteristic of you. Do you have any clue what an embarrassment you are to whatever side you plop down on?

[Gandydancer]

"The existence of an objective truth is not a partisan issue. The left and the right, the GOP and the Dems, all are pretty committed to facts and reality."

No. You're not. Your commitment to obscuring reality is exactly why "Gaslightr0" has such resonance.

[Theendoftheleft]

Depends on what you mean by ‘rarified’. If you just mean that it’s restricted to theoretical discourses, then that’s false. ‘Cause it’s how MANY faculty approach their (politicized) scholarship, faculty hiring processes, pedagogy and the propagandizing to students, etc. The sincerity of their belief in Foucauldian epistemes (not just a proper understanding of Kuhn’s theory’s implications), and in the knowledge-belief breakdown, has impacted a lot of social science and humanities scholarship and tertiary education. This works to subvert basic academic norms and is fucking up universities.

Regarding the trans issue, we don’t need to appeal to objective reality vs everything simply being narratives. We need at least two things.

First, credible, EMPIRICAL evidence about the relationship of gender to sex, which, to date, is still wanting. Second, the trans folk require ideological consistency. If you’re going to insist that gender (unlike sex) is wholly socially constructed, then HOW can it nevertheless be essential to trans people’s identities? HOW can the TERFs be wrong if that’s so (serious question)? WHY isn’t the gender’s-wholly-constructed-but–somehow-essential-to-trans a clear instance of Orwellian doublespeak? On the other hand, if gender is not wholly socially constructed, but has some biological basis instead, then how is it essential to TRANS’ people’s identities? Why should anyone believe it to be so absent clear SCIENTIFIC evidence? Why insist upon it till definitive evidence is presented?

What we get instead is war between politicized conceptions and definitions of gender and totalitarian efforts to police speech, academic inquiry, and politics. The TERFs and trans fight over their respective, preferred conceptions and definitions of gender. Those are based on their respective politics, normative priors, and identity-will-to-power, NOT upon credible scientific output. Labeling others as ‘phobic’, insisting that pronoun usage is simply a matter of basic respect (a neutral part of civilized discourse and universal manners and etiquette, and so NOT an instance of partisan political maneuvering), etc, is just an effort to silence genuine debate and real inquiry into such matters and to compel belief and conduct without reliable evidence.

Fortunately, the Trans vs Science conflict has already raised its head prominently. Certain countries have embarrassed themselves when their human rights laws (trans protection, discrimination) bashed up against genuine scientific inquiry into the mental health of trans people, such that the laws needed to be scaled back somewhat.

[Randal]

Do you think transgenderism doesn't exist?

[Nige]

Well, yes, they do go through a battery of tests, screening and therapy before treatment. Bellmore likes to post a study that shows exactly how few children who present at gender clinics actually get diagnosed, though he claims to think it proves something else.

[Randal]

This is one of the funniest things you've ever managed to type, Gandyfancier.

Why don't you keep going in this vein? I'm curious about your hierarchy of trans hatred. You've clearly given it a lot of thought!

[Nige]

'“Trans people” are gross and mentally ill, and you have not in fact recognized any difference between that observation and “straight up trans hate”'

Vroom vroom.

[Noscitur a sociis]

While the suggestion that for most of human history, trans women were casually accepted in women’s spaces, and that people have only just started to feel uncomfortable is risible in and of itself, it was the “ no reports of violent behaviour” that I was focused on.

[Randal]

I don't know that people "just started to feel uncomfortable," maybe it's always been uncomfortable.

I noticed you didn't respond to the idea of trans men flaunting their new dicks around the women's locker-room. Do you think that'll make women more or less uncomfortable?

This is a situation where some discomfort may just have to be tolerated.

[Nige]

'and that people have only just started to feel uncomfortable'

Well, a bunch of people are claiming that women OUGHT to be uncomfortable because of how dangerous trans women are, though mostly what they've ended up doing is challenging non-trans women who try to use women's spaces and demanding the inspection of children's genitals.

[Randal]

2015, I meant of course. Eight solid years. Oh my god I had so many better uses lined up for those brain cells.

[Gandydancer]

No, blondes do not become brunettes. They masquerade as brunettes.

Why is this banal distinction so hard for you to grasp?

[VinniUSMC]

A doctor notes the sex but the person can identify the gender.

So, sex is not assigned. Glad we’re all on the same page.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, find a cultural conservative and lecture them about it.

For what it’s worth, I googled “trans thrown bridge” and got three repeating hits. The one that came up the most was an episode of Law and Order SVU which is, you know, fiction. The other two were in 2020 and 1984.

Y’all are putting too much weight on the rants of three or four internet trolls. Put ‘em on ignore.

[Theendoftheleft]

If gender, as opposed to sex, is wholly socially constructed, then 'transgenderism' exists, but as a form of dysphoria and as a type of social-political identity.

If 10, 000 people decided tomorrow that they were all Napoleon Bonaparte reincarnated, then there would be an observable phenomena, but those peoples' say-so, alone, wouldn't make their identity claims true.

[David Nieporent]

That's sort of a question based on definitions. Obviously there are people out there who present as members of the opposite sex and who want to be treated as members of the opposite sex. So in that sense, of course it exists.

But I am skeptical that the concept of "gender identity" exists. (Nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction what an internal sense of one's gender even means.) To say "My gender identity is female" to me sounds like just a slightly more scientific-sounding way of saying "my soul is female" — an unfalsifiable statement that carries no real informational content.

[Randal]

I'm just trying to figure out if DN thinks treatment is ever "appropriate."

[Sarcastr0]

It seems pretty clear to you maybe.

While you make assumptions based in timing clear only to you, Trump lied and moved and refused and now afterwards talked about how he lied and moved.

The only way you can keep up your equivalence is to ignore some facts and make up others.

[Nige]

Important people using unsecured servers was pretty routine, too, and in the Trump White House unsecured cell phones were also pretty routine.

Of course, Biden and Pence are both under investigation for having those documents, but bear in mind, Trump was given every opportunity to return the documents he took, so as of now, Biden and Pence are at worst only guilty of sort-of the same thing Trump was being allowed to correct, but refused.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett waves over the absence of facts in any argument he makes with the idiotic phrase of "it seems pretty clear."

"Important" people retaining classified documents unlawfully is not in fact, routine. Feel free to cite whatever facts you want to - maybe ask ChatGPT to make some cases up for you.

As usual, you are full of shit Brett. One would think that your recent experience with embarrassing yourself by spouting easily disproven 'facts' would have shut you up for a bit.

[Randal]

It seems pretty clear is not enough for the DoJ to take a case.

Trump was targeted for political reasons, that he might be guilty doesn’t change that.

Well, he admitted guilt to Brit Hume, so now it's 100% certain.

What exactly do you think the standard should be? Ex-presidents can just go around doing blatantly illegal, practically treasonous stuff, then gloat about it on TV, and we just have to sit back and let it all happen?

[Nige]

If only.

[Brett Bellmore]

She certainly is.

[Nige]

You never acknowledge children harmed or mistreated by Christian pastors, preachers or youth workers. You say that's anti-Christian. Meanwhile you try to deny children the health care they need.

[Nige]

He's too far gone to care.

[Nige]

Quite true. But you need to have an ethical basis for any challenges, which you do not.

[Nige]

It's like if they banned appendectomies for people with appendicitis and you said 'Gee that's harsh, you mean they can't even get an emergency tonsillectomy?'

[Nige]

How much of a dullard do you need to be to think there's a distinction worth the difference there?

[Gandydancer]

How much of a dullard do you have to be to think you can get away with pretending there's no difference between "banning healthcare" and banning child mutilation?

A: On a scale where no normal person exceeds 9 you need to be a Nige-like 10.

[Nige]

Caloing treatments and procedures 'mutilations' is just sensatonalism because you hate the people who need the health care. People get 'mutilated' when they have their appendixes out.

[Nige]

Malpractice is by definition illegal. You're not qualified to declare an entire surgical treatment malpractice based on your ignorance and bigotry.

[Nige]

First you'd need to show a need for such a ban, which none of you have.

[Nige]

Vroom vroom, Gandy.

[Nige]

DN isn’t a bigot like some, he just expresses cautious reservation about some things from time to time.

[David Nieporent]

Well, to the extent someone is dysphoric, of course treatment of some sort is appropriate. I assume what you're really asking is whether I think 'transitioning' people, whether chemically or surgically, is appropriate.

For adults, as a libertarian I don't think it's any of my business what they do to themselves. For children, I do not think it would be appropriate, no. (Puberty blockers are being sold as a temporary, reversible measure that do not have any long term implications, but my understanding is that this is not at all clear.)

[Nige]

You've gone from 'trying to wipe out 90% of the world population' to 'trying to lock policies in place.'

[Randal]

True. No better way to make a child feel comfortable than by inspecting their genitals.

[Randal]

So your line is reversibility? If they made the surgeries reversible, including fertility, then no problem for kids?

[Nige]

Prioritising reversibility or efficacy seems like something that should be left up to the people directly involved.

[Sarcastr0]

Except a ton of neurobiological stuff is unfalsifiable feelings at our current level of scientific understanding of the brain. That kind of subjective pseudo-pheonominology is just largely where we are.

We treat a bunch of other sub-clinical stuff that's basically like 'my soul is sad but not that sad' and there are some studies indicating transgender identity is observable. Some neurobiological gender differentials that seem to back up what some transgender people report.

No, I can't relate to what trans folks talk about in the slightest, but I'm quite willing to countenance that sexuality is weird as hell, with orientation and gender identity and fetishes like crossdressing and what your biological systems look like and nature and nurture all being weakly linked separate bits of a whole to-do that we are nowhere near untangling.

[Randal]

Surely it carries some informational content.

Anyway... I'm not sure what more you want. You could say the same thing about gay people. Hell, you could say the same thing about Parkinson's. What more evidence do you need in order to think that gender identity "exists?"

Nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction what an internal sense of one’s gender even means.

Imagine you woke up one day as some other man, some coworker or something. Weird, huh!

Now imagine you woke up one day as a woman. Much more problematic, no?

Tootsie wouldn't have been a very good movie if Dustin Hoffman had been posing as just some other guy.

[Nige]

I'm sure trans people most of all would like a better understainding of the condition, but that doesn't seem like a reason to deny anyone treatments that have been proven effective.

[M L]

Yes, that's what banned from graduation means. No doubt that's okay to you, but stop lying about this.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it proved that the claim that they don't do the surgery on minors was wrong. And it did. This place didn't do genital surgery on minors, but they were perfectly willing to lop off breasts, stick in implants, shave Adam's apples, and things like that, in addition to using hormone treatments to prevent a normal puberty.

They just haven't worked their way up to chopping off dicks yet.

[David Nieporent]

I believe they actually closed the investigation on Pence already, but otherwise, yes.

[Nige]

The study said nothing about surgeries. Your personal, and entirely irrelevant, squeamishness is showing again, though obviously a squeamishness carefully directed solely at trans people rather than other treatments for other conditions that seem weird or gruesome to laypeople.

[Brett Bellmore]

Speaking of gloating about it on TV...

[Gandydancer]

"Well, he admitted guilt to Brit Hume, so now it’s 100% certain."

Randal, lying as usual.

[Randal]

Ah, when faced with a tough question, Brett beats a retreat into whataboutism. I think that says everything that needs to be said.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's somewhat meta, don't you think.

She was literally gloating about what she got away with.

[Randal]

She was literally gloating about what she got away with.

That's obviously not what she was doing, to anyone not blinded by partisan rage. But you're right, it's very meta, because what she is doing is making fun of the very thing you're doing right now! "But her emails!"

But it doesn't even matter. You dodged my question by bringing up Hillary. Even if Hillary's case were relevant, it's whataboutism if you're using it to distract rather than to engage. Failing to engage is proof of a losing argument in my book. But I'm willing to accept your guilty plea. The sentence is: "But her emails!"

[not guilty]

So much fixation on other people´s genitalia. I don´t have mental health training, so I´m not qualified to diagnose, but I wonder whether an obsessive pecker checker is mentally ill.

[Theendoftheleft]

Don't conflate sexuality and sex drives with the presentation of sex (gender). The empirical evidence, to date, including the neurobiological work, doesn't support gender claims as such.

[Gandydancer]

None of them are considering banning actual health care for anyone.

[Nige]

Liar!

[Gandydancer]

No, dumbass, no one except a cretin like you thinks anyone needs a credential to realize that unnecessarily lopping of healthy 13 y/o breasts is NEVER not malpractice. Keep denying that and keep clowning yourself, I don't mind.

[Nige]

You admit you have no credentials and a highly prejudicial and distorted view of the treatments, yes.

[Gandydancer]

Nobody asked the village idiot, and, no, the justification for my demand that Gaslightr0 elucidate his comment requires nothing other than that we note that he is being evasive and dishonest.

[Nige]

No justifcation whatsoever.

[Gandydancer]

Your horsepower is incapable of producing anything remotely like that sound.

[Gandydancer]

Not when the only people DIRECTLY involved are juveniles.

[Theendoftheleft]

Gandydander is just dead wrong about this.

The choice should definitely be protected -- especially if it turns out that the effects are irreversible: this is a great way for the American left to sterilize some of its own children. The decline and fall of their evolutionarily inferior meme should be reinforced with these modes of sterilization for their offspring.

Three generations of progressives imbeciles really is enough.

Maybe even mandate such surgeries for all children in American blue states? (That way we'll truly be able to overcome oppressive, patriarchal, capitalist-influenced gender roles once and for all.)

[Nige]

'Not when the only people DIRECTLY involved are juveniles.'

Except juveniles will have parents or guardians and health care professionals with them. Not you.

[Gandydancer]

As if drag queens checked peckers less than I do.

Of course being repulsed by trannys hardly ever requires any pecker checking at all. Indeed I can't recall ever feeling a need to check a pecker. But maybe not guilty does it.

[Gandydancer]

Durham had an abundance of facts to justify the cautious conclusions he officially adopted.

[Randal]

Gandydancer... "hardly ever" checking peckers.

[not guilty]

Gandydancer, why do you regard concern about transgendered folks as worthy of your time and attention? To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, do they pick your pocket or break your leg?

[Gandydancer]

"People got convicted of crimes and went to prison based on Mueller’s findings."

Manafort, Cohen and Papadopoulos, I believe. No collusion, no Trump wrongdoing. A total waste of everyone's time and attention. Mueller had dementia so severe he didn't even recognize "Fusion GPS", LOL!

[Gandydancer]

You don't "think" anything, you just yap yap brainless garbage.

“I dislike Trump, but” is a denial of what (other than not disliking Trump)?

[Gandydancer]

The ship is at a stable angle of 90 degrees, bow facing the bottom.
And the air is leaking out.

[Gandydancer]

It's Queenie. He pulls up his dress, says "don't spill my beer", and exchanges his bottle with the police officer for the billy club and joins in the fun.

[not guilty]

Really? Who was acquitted?

Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson brought an action for damages against four Bush II Administration officials, seeking relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and asserting a common law invasion of privacy claim. Their complaint was dismissed, but that dismissal was not a merits ruling that the plaintiffs´ claims were false. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52 Instead the district court ruled that Bivens liiability did not extend to the circumstances plead in the complaint, and the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

[Gandydancer]

No, lefties pretend to be snowflakes. But they’re tranny storm troopers at heart, always complaining while whacking you in the face.

[not guilty]

If selective prosecution is not a defense on the merits, and if it is not a basis for dismissal of the charges against Trump, it is merely a red herring.

Tu quoque is a rhetorical fallacy, not an argument worthy of respect.

[Randal]

You’re right for once! It was Bret Baier.

The general takeaway from Donald Trump’s ill-advised interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier is that Trump added to his legal peril by admitting he withheld subpoenaed documents while instructing his lawyers to deny he had them. This was, arguably, an admission of guilt to charges of both mishandling classified documents and obstruction of justice.

[Nige]

What 'model' are you driving?

[Nige]

Gandy got whacked in the face by a tranny stormtrooper.