Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

On my mind: The 1953 mini-film of James Thurber’s now-classic fairy tale The Thirteen Clocks, produced for, and shown on, “The Motorola Television Hour”. Basil Rathbone plays the evil Duke, but I think he makes an error: he plays him as a suffering, fussy man like Shylock. The Duke should be more intimidating, physically. One is supposed to feel that he might kill anyone with his sword at any moment, with or without a reason:

He was six feet four, and forty-six, and even colder than he thought he was. One eye wore a velvet patch; the other glittered through a monocle, which made half his body seem closer to you than the other half. He had lost one eye when he was twelve, for he was fond of peering into nests and lairs in search of birds and animals to maul. One afternoon, a mother shrike had mauled him first.

[…]

The Duke limped because his legs were of different lengths. The right one had outgrown the left because, when he was young, he had spent his morning place-kicking pups and punting kittens. He would say to a suitor, “What is the difference in the length of my legs?” and if the youth replied “Why, one is shorter than the other,” the Duke would run him through with the sword he carried in his swordcane and feed him to the geese. The suitor was supposed to say, “Why, one is longer than the other.” Many a prince had been run through for naming the wrong difference. Others had been slain for offenses equally trivial: trampling the Duke’s camellias, failing to praise his wines, staring too long at his gloves, gazing too long at his niece.

I think if it had been up to me I would have cast Raymond Massey instead of Basil Rathbone.

Other notables in the cast: Cedric Hardwicke as the Golux, and the great prima-donna of the Met, Roberta Peters, as Princess Saralinda.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for sharing but you forgot a link so we can all enjoy what sounds like something not to be missed.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Your wish is my command!

https://kaltura.uga.edu/media/t/1_l5hd6f7y/31261611

[Kazinski]

The anti-marketing campaign for The Sound of Freedom is pretty amusing. Evidently the wrong people like it, and its about saving children from Pedos.

The Guardian has a story about it: “Following that money leads back to a more unsavory network of astroturfed boosterism among the far-right fringe, a constellation of paranoids now attempting to spin a cause célèbre out of a movie with vaguely simpatico leanings. The uninitiated may not pick up on the red-yarn-and-corkboard subtext pinned onto a mostly straightforward extraction mission in South America, pretty much Taken with a faint whiff of something noxious in the air. Those tuned in to the eardrum-perforating frequency of QAnon, however, have heeded a clarion call that leads right to the multiplex.”Sound of Freedom: the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America

The idea that child sex rings are rife in some parts of the world, like South America, is of course absurd, who knows where people get ideas like this other than from QAnon.

Well maybe from the Guardian in 2018: Child sex trafficking rife in Colombia’s picturesque Cartagena

It used to be that saving children from paedophiles and sex traffickers was something we could all agree with, but now its political, and bringing attention to the problem or acknowledging it exists is "problematic".

[Nige]

'It used to be that saving children from paedophiles and sex traffickers was something we could all agree with, but now its political'

A creepy cult grew around Trump that accuses his opponents and critics of being Satanic pedophiles and has been laundered into the mainstream form of accusing trans people and anybody who defends them as groomers, so you tell me how that came about. Does the film include anything about harvesting adrenochrome?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This film was shot before QAnon became a thing.

[Nige]

When was that?

[Mr. Bumble]

Know nothing about QAnon but the script for the movie goes back to 2015 and filming to 2018. 29th Century Fox was to release the film but after Disney took over the film was shelved.

[Mr. Bumble]

20th not 29th.

[Nige]

Trump was elected in 2016. Pizzagate took off during the election and had well morphed into Qanon by 2018. In fact, it was arguably at its height at that point. Both Caviezel and Ballard, who the protagonist is based on, subscribe to Qanon.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So a movie written in 2015 was about future events in 2018.

Good one Nige.

[Nige]

I'm going to let you think about that for a while, see if anything occurs to you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm not going to spend time inventing your argument for you.

Maybe ask your handler instead?

[Nige]

Yeah, something so obvious would remain well out of your reach.

[defaultdotxbe]

I would be very surprised if there were no re-writes between 2015 and 2018.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Adrenochrome"; That's what they used before "Technicolor", right?

Seriously, the Satanic pedophile crap was an obsession of Janet Reno's, that's why she went nuclear the moment somebody cunningly suggested to her the Davidians might be abusing their children. Remember, she was the prosecutor in the McMartin Preschool case.

[Nige]

Yes, Janet Reno was behind Pizzagate and Qanon. Finger on the pulse there, Brett. Of Janet Reno.

The Branch Davidians were abusing their children, though, according to survivors. Also, they murdered their children.

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite a claim, got a cite?

[Nige]

Ask Brett, he hilariously jumped to Janet Reno at the mention of Qanon, not me.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, just another Nigeism.

[Nige]

Brettism.

[Bwaaah]

Seems fitting that you'd see a Nigeism as a Brettism. You are, indeed, the embodiment of that which you despise.

[Nige]

Seems fitting that you respond to Brett bringing up Janet Reno as something to do with me rather than Brett.

[Kazinski]

Poor poor Nige. There is no QAnon under the bed.

Janet Reno was the Grand Inquisitor of the Satanic child abuse moral panic of the 80's and 90's.

She was the originator of the Miami Method to get kids to accuse adults of child abuse:

"The so-called "Miami Method," developed in the 1980s by the office of Dade County State Attorney Janet Reno, became a national model for vigilantly pursuing day care sexual abuse cases. Reno set up a special children's unit inside the state attorney's office staffed with "child experts" who specialized in cases of child sexual abuse. The "Miami Method" utililized videotaped interviews with children and expert testimony assuring jurors that the children should be believed. A state law was changed to allow the children to testify from the judge's chambers. The method also required physical evidence and the testimony of an adult eyewitness.

The so-called "Miami Method" was first used in the case of Frank Fuster. It was also used to prosecute two other day care sexual abuse cases -- those involving Grant Snowden and Bobby Fijnje. Here are summaries of the Fijnje and Snowden cases and excerpts from an interview with former Florida prosecutor David Markus in which he describes the "Miami Method."

Obviously a right wing hit job on Reno by ... PBS.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fuster/etc/miami.html

[Nige]

You’re time travelling and arguing with yourselves. Try focusing on the here and now, where Qanon cultists think Trump is going to save the world from their Satanic pedophile enemies and you lot love the ‘respectable’ version where your enemies are all groomers.

[not guilty]

Janet Reno was the prosecutor in the McMartin Preschool case??

Are you sure about that? Arrests and the pretrial investigation took place from 1984 to 1987, and trials ran from 1987 to 1990. During that time, Janet Reno was State's Attorney in Miami-Dade County, Florida. What would she have been doing prosecuting cases in Los Angeles?

[Brett Bellmore]

Mea culpa; She had quite the reputation for prosecuting Satanic child abuse, but she wasn't guilty of that particular one. I had it confused with the Country Walk prosecution.

[Nige]

Yeah you're still in the wrong century for the current satanic-panic.

[Frank Drackman]

The power of God compels Nige to cry like a little girl

[Nige]

edgebot using the same bits over and over again

[bernard11]

WTF are we talking about Janet Reno?

Is there some lunatic claiming she is responsible for Qanon?

[Nige]

No Qanon! Only Reno!

[Kazinski]

Janet Reno was QAnon Central before there ever was a QAnon.

"Even worse, if that is possible, was Reno’s behavior in the case of Bobby Fijnje, a fourteen year old boy active in his church and the son of a Dutch diplomat. Bobby was accused of a litany of absolutely ridiculous Satanic crimes including delivering babies by Cesarian section and forcing the children at the church day care center to eat them while their parents were next door at prayer."
https://www.iwf.org/2000/04/27/janet-reno-and-her-record-as-a-so-called-champion-of-children/

That makes even pizza gate sound plausible.

[Sarcastr0]

Pathetic deflection.

[Nige]

They're mad about decades-old satanic child abuse scares, not current ones.

[Brett Bellmore]

FYI, as you requested.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Seriously, the Satanic pedophile crap was an obsession of Janet Reno…”

1. The satanic daycare craze was a national fixation that spanned over a decade and not the creation of Janet Reno.

2. The prosecutors in the McMartin Preschool case were Lael Rubin, Glenn Stevens and Ira Reiner – though Reiner’s role was to finally drop the charges.

3. This lunacy seems to sweep through the country at intervals of a few decades, dating all the way back to Salem’s witches.

4. Of course the Right’s current sicko obsession with empty charges of pedophilia isn’t part of that cycle, being the cheapest politics instead. Knowing the entire country has left them behind in accepting Gay rights, the Right tries to reclaim a place for their bigotry in the national discussion with the crude lie “Gay rights equals pedophilia”.

It’s remarkably similar to the abortion debate, another area where people have left America’s Taliban far behind. There they try to camouflage their deep unpopularity with lies about late-term abortion. It's the same tactic, but desperate and vey ugly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

[Kazinski]

I hope you aren't going to say Janet Reno wasn't one it's star players even though she didn't create it.

And her Miami Method became the blueprint for using teams of child "therapists" to use hours of sessions to get kids to make accusations.

See the PBS special. Just because she didn't start it doesn't exonerate her.

Same with Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.

[Sarcastr0]

Reno was before my time, weird argument though.

QAnon is now. And the right is into it. Or at least the fantasy a movie about it offers.
And the right seems happy to condone it or at least weaponize accusations of pedophilia.

Reno is an irrelevancy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, Reno was before your time? I was under the impression that you're about as much of a geezer as me.

[Sarcastr0]

I have old tastes, but I’m a millennial. Though not by much.

I was alive, but nowhere near voting when she was a thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, that explains a lot, in terms of all the stuff you're ignorant of, that I'd been assuming you MUST have lived through.

I'll try to keep that in mind in the future, and my apologies for thinking that you must have been living in a cave not to know this stuff that's common knowledge among boomers who have been paying attention.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “I was under the impression that you’re about as much of a geezer as me”

Whereas I once established off a stray post that Brett is exactly as much of a geezer as me. To the year, at least. I don’t think I got specificity down to month, day, or minute.

[grb]

Kazinski : “I hope you aren’t going to say Janet Reno wasn’t one it’s star players..”

I merely noted Brett’s entire premise was wrong. Reno did not “create” the phenomena. She had a small part in a nationwide bout of craziness (albeit in a different case than Brett’s cite).

Also : I linked the Wikipedia entry on “Day-Care Sex-Abuse Hysteria”. In a few decades they’ll be a Wiki entry on “Anti-Trans Hysteria” as well. Given the Right’s current witchhunt is bizarre and morally sick, that’s inevitable….

[bevis the lumberjack]

Reno and her obsession with child abuse was a huge driver behind the Satanic Panic. I believe she originated the “expert interview” technique that was responsible for so much injustice.

Her child abuse thing also led her to bbq a bunch of children in Waco.

As American AGs go, Reno deserves her own room in hell.

[Tom for equal rights]

grb 2 hours ago (edited)
"Also : I linked the Wikipedia entry on “Day-Care Sex-Abuse Hysteria”. In a few decades they’ll be a Wiki entry on “Anti-Trans Hysteria” as well. Given the Right’s current witchhunt is bizarre and morally sick, that’s inevitable…."

Hopefully in less than a few decades it will the the "pro-trans hysteria" will be looked at the same way the fake day care sex abuse scandals or the repressed memory syndrome will be looked at. Implanting false ideas into the minds of the vunerable.

[grb]

Tom for equal rights : ” …. “pro-trans hysteria” … ”

Pretty hilarious. What hysteria? For every one suggestion from the Left that trans people should just be allowed to live their lives in peace there are thousands of slurs, sneers and hate-filled invective from the Right. There’s no equivocacy here. The Right wasn’t “forced” to target this tiny group of people by any action of the Left. There are no hundreds of pro-trans laws to match the plus-five hundred recent laws proposed against trans people.

And trans folk didn’t suddenly appear to prompt this orgy of hate. They were around ten years ago, twenty years ago, a hundred years ago.

Nope; there’s one reason for the Right’s campaign: It feels so good indulging in open public bigotry without blowback again. Just like the good old days. And as the Nazis found, there’s excellent politics when you target a group most people hate.

[not guilty]

The hatred toward transgendered folks gained traction as overt bashing of gays and lesbians became less socially acceptable. I suspect that resulted from more same sex attracted people, who had been closeted, coming out, such that more of the hatemongers realized their bigotry was hurting someone near and dear to them.

The haters quickly found a new, less populous target, whose members are more likely to keep their identities private.

[Tom for equal rights]

You and nige are delusion with hate for anyone with basic sanity.

You and Nige are ideological zealots promoting cruelty upon those suffering from a mental illness.

neither of you have any grasp of the evil that you endorse

[Nige]

That's because you made it all up.

[not guilty]

Evil?? Where do you get that endorsing equal treatment is evil?

[Tom for equal rights]

not guilty 15 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Evil?? Where do you get that endorsing equal treatment is evil?

You and Nige are not promoting equal treatment - you two are promoting the evil cruelty of transitioning - removing male body parts and putting cosmetic female body parts on a male's body.

conservatives only want to reduce the cruelty that you relish.

[grb]

Tom for equal rights : ".... grasp of the evil that you endorse ...."

What evil? A small number of people don't feel they are the gender reflected in their physical traits at birth. The same thing happens in nature, where animals in multiple species sometime display the traits of their opposite gender. There are plenty of stories of people driven to despair due to this cross-wired identity.

So why not let them live the life they want? Not one person in ten thousand pursues such an disruption to their lives on a whim or prank. They are driven to it. So why not let them live the life they want? The number of real problems that result is microscopically small. I recall Renée Richards from the 70s. Guess what : The world survived her without any major conflict.

So why not let them live the life they want? What evil do you see in that?

[not guilty]

Tom for equal rights, you are a liar and the truth ain't in you.

Please identify where I have written a word or even a syllable about removing male body parts and putting cosmetic female body parts on a male’s body.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Tom.

Please identify where I have written about removing male body parts and putting cosmetic female body parts on a male’s body.

In the alternative, admit what a reckless liar you are.

[Tom for equal rights]

Not guilty -
Sorry if I included you in the evil endorsement of mutilation that Nige promotes. Though your accusing sane rational people of hating gays and individuals suffering from a mental illness because they oppose the evil that Nige promotes comes across as a silent endorsement.

If you are opposed to it, then say so,

[Nelson]

Tom, the point is that what someone chooses to do with their body is their decision, not yours. Your personal belief that they are menally ill is irrelevant to anyone but you.

If they choose to "[remove] [their] male body parts and [put] cosmetic female body parts on a male’s body", that's their choice. There is no justification for your opinion being imposed on them.

I think most people are baffled by transitioning. I know I am. But I'm not so self-righteous or deluded that I think my lack of understanding justifies constraining someone else's decisions.

People can choose to get boob jobs. They can choose to get vasectomies or hysterectomies. They can choose to get nose jobs or a forked tongue or webbed fingers or any other type of voluntary surgery they choose. Are they terrible decisions? Some of them probably are. But they don't need to get your permission.

It isn't your life, it's theirs. Butt out.

[not guilty]

I am opposed to minors undergoing surgical gender reassignment procedures. For adults who are fully advised of the risks and who can give informed consent, I favor individual choice as to whether or not to undergo such procedures.

[David Nieporent]

Tom, the point is that what someone chooses to do with their body is their decision, not yours. Your personal belief that they are menally ill is irrelevant to anyone but you.

If they choose to “[remove] [their] male body parts and [put] cosmetic female body parts on a male’s body”, that’s their choice. There is no justification for your opinion being imposed on them.

For adults, yes. For minors, no.

[Nige]

Personally I don't think either of you have any say in adult guardians and medical practitoners trying to make the best decisons for the health of child, with the child's own knowledge and consent.

[Nelson]

"I am opposed to minors undergoing surgical gender reassignment procedures."

I agree, Not Guilty. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Adults who wish to transition aren't mentally ill any more than people who are phobic of spiders are mentally ill. Or people who want boob jobs, for that matter.

[Nelson]

Of course I also don't think my opinion should matter to the decision-making of people that I don't know anything about. I'm not a medical professional nor the child's parent, so I shouldn't be part of their decision.

I'm also not so stupid as to think that any medical procedure, absent specific facts, can be categorically dismissed as wrong. Giving a hysterectomy to a 12-year-old seems like it would always be wrong, but if they have cancer? Not wrong.

Anyone who makes a claim that something is always wrong no matter what the circumstances is taking an emotional and illogical position, informed by their biases. When your two choices are bad and worse, bad wins.

[hobie]

Aaaand the first person today to lose his cool and get all sanctimonious is [checking notes] 'Tome for Equal Rights'. Congratulations, Tom.

[grb]

(remember : wrap-up the speech when the orchestra starts to play)

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Ameralt case was a travesty — amongst other things, that it would be possible to sodomize small children with the blade end of a butcher knife without either (a) leaving visible scars or (b) medical bills. A skillful surgical team, with no small amount of luck, might be able to save the child’s life, but there would be surgical scars, extensive medical bills, and everyone involved would have filed a CYA 51-a report with child protective.

Personally, I think Jane Swift’s involvement in this was most reprehensible and why Romney was able to get the nomination from her. (Remember she only was ACTING Governor because Cellucci had left.)

Keep a man in prison merely because he is proclaiming his innocence -- when there is a mass of evidence that he actually *is* innocent?!?

[bernard11]

Actually, I completely agree with Ed about this case. It was an absolutely revolting abuse of prosecutorial power and incredibly arrogant refusal to admit error.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nige, child sex trafficking is REAL and has been a problem since at least the '80s if not earlier. Well-intended persons of all political stripes have attempted to abate it and to rescue the victims, and it's probably the one thing that the radical right and the radical left agree on.

Yes, the radical right sometimes goes too far -- but the radical left doesn't? Look at the prosecution of Bob Kraft and all of the Constitutional violations there...

Jeffery Epstein was a real man, Orgy Island was a real place -- these are facts. "Truckers Against Trafficking" (https://truckersagainsttrafficking.org/) is a real outfit and from everything I've seen, apolitical.

This stuff happens.

[Nige]

Sex trafficking is real. Qanon is not, nor is the attendant trans panic, both obscure the reality of sex abuse and sex trafficking and grooming because they are about attacking political enemies and a vulnerable minority, not protecting real children. Valorising some dumb thriller based on an extremely dodgy individual isn't going to do anything to help sex abuse victims, it's just going to reinforce their beliefs that their eemies are Satanic pedophiles.

Nobody was talking about Epstein until a member of the reviled MSM did her expose on his sweetheart deal and the fact that the architect of that deal was working for Trump.

[hoppy025]

If you put the trans in concentration camps, then we don't have to worry about them grooming or shooting up schools.

[grb]

And if we put all right-wingers in camps we’ll stop many times more mass shootings, given they’re the ones most typically responsible for them.

As a side benefit, the world will become a much more calm and reasoning place. Just a respite from their endless victimhood whining would spread a serene quiet across the land.

As for “grooming”, there’s no way to avoid the hard choice : All priests and male family members have to go. For every one trans person who “grooms”, there are tens of thousands of others from the categories above. And that’s just the priests....

[David Nieporent]

Sex trafficking is real.

Well… not really. It's basically a dysphemism for prostitution.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"It’s basically a dysphemism for prostitution."

Often, perhaps mostly, but not always:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/article/Infamous-Houston-Brothel-in-the-national-spotlight-9136646.php

[M L]

"far-right fringe"

Opposing child sex slavery is "far-right fringe" now?

Wow ok.

[not guilty]

Who said anything in favor of child sex slavery? Please be specific.

[Nige]

God, no. The far right fringe don't oppose sex slavery. They oppose a power fantasy of sex slavery that only intersects with reality occasionally and accidentally.

[Brett Bellmore]

Interesting account about the movie, which we'll likely be seeing this weekend:

JDid Jim Caviezel lose his agents over the movie?

"“I want this to be so huge that they’re forced to look at this. I lost my agents over this. Yep, 17 years, 15 years. I lost my lawyer over this, and now I understand why all these actors didn’t want to do the movie because of this. Listen, you do ‘Schindler’s List’ 50 years later, you’re a hero. Try doing ‘Schindler’s List’ when the real Nazis are right there. Understand how that becomes more dangerous? I don’t understand why people are willing to let children be hurt, but in this time, Hollywood says, ‘No, no, let’s kick that down fifty years from now and then [see where we’re at]. That’s crap.”

[Nelson]

Of course. Cultural conservatives fight villains in politics who exploit children.

Oops. Wrong word order. Cultural conservatives are villains who exploit children in politics.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sympathies to Martinned on the collapse of the Dutch government and the selection of a trans(fill in proper term) as Miss Netherlands to represent the country in the Miss Universe contest.

Does "she" tuck or is "she" cut?

[Martinned]

I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with this lady's private parts.

[Mr. Bumble]

"She" is not a lady in any sense of the word.

[Martinned]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess we're not up to the face rats and genital electrodes stage, yet; You're just 'asking' us to see five fingers, at this point?

[Nige]

Brett: *strapping face rats to face and electrodes to genitals and and screaming THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS*: Look what these trans fascists aren’t doing to me but probably want to, probably!

[Krychek_2]

Or maybe Brett has the type of persecution complex in which he secretly wants that to be done to him. It would explain a lot.

[bernard11]

Poor Brett.

The most hypothetically persecuted person in history.

Martinned expresses disagreement, and you conclude he's planning torture to get you to agree with him. That's the kind of paranoia that leads to these bouts of insanity.

[Joe_dallas]

Martin wants to disagree with basic biological facts

Martin are going to help the CDC on how a male cosmetic female body parts can breast feed

[Reallynotbob]

Don't I recall you saying you're a doctor? If so, that means you already know XY and XX aren't the only options, and that sometimes even XX or XY persons' "parts" don't develop/express as expected when compared to the official diagrams in the Bible.

But hey, reductivist argument is in vogue here.

[Bob from Ohio]

Birth defects do not change basic human biology facts.

[Kleppe]

"Don’t I recall you saying you’re a doctor? If so, that means you already know XY and XX aren’t the only options"

This is part where the leftist substitutes the exception that is so rare it rounds to zero for every actual occurrence of the phenomenon. When conservatives object to untreated mentally ill people being encouraged to live out their delusions, we get presented strawmen about intersex people. When conservatives object to perfectly healthy and viable babies being aborted for no reason at all but a misapprehension of convenience, we get presented strawmen about rape and incest. It's so, so tiresome, and everyone can see it's nothing but bad faith, all the way down.

[Nelson]

"This is part where the leftist substitutes the exception that is so rare it rounds to zero for every actual occurrence of the phenomenon."

Like adolescent transition surgery? Both wingnut arguments use the same flawed logic, with roughly the same statistical value (zero).

So can we stop talking about both and just let people make their own medical decisions?

"When conservatives object to perfectly healthy and viable babies being aborted for no reason"

Viability occurs at 24-26 weeks. The earliest it has ever occurred is 21 weeks. Are those the abortions you are referring to? Because before 21 weeks there has never been a viable fetus. Also, there's a difference between a fetus and a baby. It's either one or the other, not both.

"It’s so, so tiresome, and everyone can see it’s nothing but bad faith, all the way down."

Agreed. Cultural conservatives haven't made good-faith arguments about abortion (or trans people, for that matter). It's a big part of why 2/3 of Americans find their arguments completely unconvincing.

[Krychek_2]

She may or may not be a lady but you sure are obsessed with her private parts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The premise in these types of accusations is utterly, and laughingly false.

The part you're assuming is that no one can tell a man from a woman without inspecting their genitals.

Most transgenders do not pass. In fact, they have a whole culture around "passing" and "passing privilege". That exists because you generally don't need to inspect genitials discriminate a man from a woman. It exists because not "passing" is the default and pervasive. Just like the gays with "chickenhawking".

[apedad]

BCD showing off his expertise again!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You people wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.

[hobie]

Indeed. Gay people eat. They go to the bathroom (you sure you want Chas Bono walking into a ladies restroom?). They drink beer. They get married. And, BCD, you are damned obsessed with them.

[Nige]

'Most transgenders do not pass.'

This is just utterly laughable, EVEN IF IT MATTERED. Everybody who says this claims Michelle Obama is a man, the misogynistic twerps, and ends up with calls for genital inspections of child athletes and horrible confrontations with cis women challenged by alarming weirdos when when using public restrooms.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the claims that Michelle is a man are some combination of insults and stupidity. Just partisans trying to one up each other and not caring if they make any sense in doing so, like the Democrats who insist that Trump isn't actually a billionaire.

But, yeah, most transgenders don't "pass", despite photoshopped efforts to make them look plausible. Men and women just look different, and we have a lot of hard wired capacity to identify somebody's sex at a glance or a sniff.

I mean, look at the assistant Secretary of Health. He doesn't look like a woman, even an ugly woman. He looks like a guy who's cross dressing. If he didn't wear a dress, you might not even notice that he was trying to look like a woman.

[Nige]

You can think that all you like. I'm sure it goves you comfort to think that the people on your side are horrifically misogynistic and abusive, rather than horrifically misogynistic, abusive and actually believe that shit.

'But, yeah, most transgenders don’t “pass'

New Brett article of faith just dropped. Goes hand in hand with adjacent assumption that women who are not conventionally attractive are also not 'real' women.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/03/why-passing-is-both-controversial-and-central-to-the-trans-community.html

Why do you think that article exists?

[Nige]

Because ‘passing’ has been a topic of discussion amongst trans people for a while now. Duh. FASCINATED to find out what you took from that article.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good ol' Rubberbrained Nige at it again.

You can sincerely contradict yourself within a span of 15 minutes or less.

I don't think you're a real person.

[Nige]

BCD thinks I contradicted myself, lol.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige has to accuse others of hate to justify his cruelty to individuals suffering a mental illness

[Nige]

Look, I'm mean to some of the right-wing commenters here, but I hope I'm not cruel. Except to one or two.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige your advocacy of cruelty to those suffering from a mental illness is pure evil.

There is a reason European countries are backing away from gender transitions. They understand the evils of mutilating the human body. You not only defend the indefensible , but seem to relish in the cruelty

[Nige]

'There is a reason European countries are backing away from gender transitions.'

Yes, massive funding of extreme right-wing minority groups.

[Tom for equal rights]

ige 40 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
‘There is a reason European countries are backing away from gender transitions.’

Yes, massive funding of extreme right-wing minority groups."

Nige - you are seriously delusional. Spend some time becoming educated on the actual facts. - get out of your ideology bubble.

[Nige]

Or to put it another way - you can't abide outside information penetrating your bubble

[hobie]

You telling gay people they have a mental illness is....compassionate? The balls on this guy.

[not guilty]

The claim of Michelle Obama being a man has a historical antecedent. https://www.abebooks.com/Spy-Magazine-October-1995-Hillary-Clinton/1232222108/bd

I suspect the pecker checkers just can't help it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It also has video and photographic supporting evidence.

Don't forget that important part.

[not guilty]

Really? Supporting video and photographic evidence? Do you have, you know, a link?

[Nige]

Oh yeah. Sure. Hey, remember all the photographic evidence that Hilary Clinton had been secretly arrested and was wearing an ankle monitor?

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought it was a powered exoskeleton to enable her to walk after a closed head injury from being tossed into a van like a side of beef.

Look, there are stupid beliefs all across the political spectrum. No side is free of it.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, that's true up to a point. But I don't see wild conspiracy theories gaining traction among the rank and file Democrats the way they do among the rank and file Republicans. Sure, you can find an occasional Democrat here or there who believes that Trump isn't actually a billionaire, but it's not half the Democratic Party the way half of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen. (Not sure it's exactly half; that's an off the top of my head estimate.) Or that believed Obama was born in Kenya.

The other thing is Democrats, like Republicans, have our lunatic fringe but in general we don't elect them to public office. Who is the Democratic Party's elected equivalent of Marjorie Taylor Greene, or Loren Boebbert, or Matt Gaetz? Sure, Al Sharpton and Farrakhan are Democrats, but I don't think either one of them would actually be electable, not even locally.

You can find individual Democrats who are crazy, but they don't define the party the way the GOP crazies are increasingly defining the GOP.

[Nige]

'Look, there are stupid beliefs all across the political spectrum.'

Hence Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You can find individual Democrats who are crazy, but they don’t define the party the way the GOP crazies are increasingly defining the GOP."

A fish says, "Water? What water?"

Your party is nominating cross dressers and kleptomaniacs to important positions. You nominate people to the highest court in the land, and they don't even dare admit to knowing the difference between a man and a woman! You insist that if a guy dons a women's bathing suit women have to let him use the women's changing room and compete as a woman in competitions.

And you've got the nerve to think you're the party of sanity?

[Krychek_2]

The kleptomaniac was fired once it was discovered he was a kleptomaniac. The GOP, on the other hand, appears poised to nominate Trump for another term.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The kleptomaniac was fired once it was discovered he was a kleptomaniac."

The cross dresser into simulated bestiality was fired when it was discovered he obtained his women's clothing by stealing luggage at airports, yeah. But the cross dressing and simulated bestiality? That was considered a plus. Never in a million years occurred to you guys that somebody like that might have other quirks.

Fish ignoring water, that's what you are. Can't even bring yourself to address the guys you're forcing women to let share their changing rooms, or going out of your way to hire cross dressers. It's water, beneath comment.

[not guilty]

Still waiting on your "video and photographic supporting evidence" as to Michelle Obama, BCD.

[Nige]

'Your party is nominating cross dressers and kleptomaniacs to important positions.'

Literally one person. Who was fired.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, really, just one cross dresser?

[M L]

No false conspiracy theory was ever as successfully popularized and politicized as the Trump-Russia hoax.

[Nige]

'Oh, really, just one cross dresser?'

No idea, but cross-dressing is perfectly harmless. 'Liking to wear women's clothing' and 'believing every Democrat is a Satanic pedophile' aren't even on the same planet, let alone ball-park. Women do it all the time, for one thing.

[Nige]

'Trump-Russia hoax.'

This of course, is a another 'crazy' right-wing construct completely independant of the actual investigation into Trump's Russian connections.

[Bob from Ohio]

" Who is the Democratic Party’s elected equivalent of Marjorie Taylor Greene, or Loren Boebbert, or Matt Gaetz?"

The "Squad".

[not guilty]

Still waiting on your “video and photographic supporting evidence,” BCD.

[Nige]

'The “Squad”.'

In your fever swamp bubble they are.

[grb]

ML : “No false conspiracy theory was ever as successfully popularized and politicized as the Trump-Russia hoax”

I’ve asked this before and never received a coherent answer back, but let’s try again: What is the “Trump-Russian Hoax” anyway?

1. The Justice Department Inspector General found the initial investigation of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign was warranted. So that’s not the T.R.H.

2. Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel came after Trump bragged about firing Comey to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” After that, a special counsel was inevitable. No T.R.H. can be found there either.

3. Mueller was actually one of the best special counsels in the whole sordid history of the species. He was quick, didn’t leak to the media, and proved excessively conservative in his findings. No T.R.H. can be found in his conduct.

4. And his investigation uncovered so much unsettling detail. You had Don Jr. saying (in writing) he’d welcome secret help from the Russian government for Daddy’s campaign, you had Trump’s campaign head giving secret briefings to a listed Russian spy, you had Trump’s fixer Cohen negotiating a massive secret business deal with Kremlin officials throughout the ’16 campaign, you had Trump associates discussing a bribe to Putin to sweeten that deal, you had Trump lies when asked about his Russian business dealings during the campaign, you had Trump’s son-in-law asking if he could use Russia’s secure communication lines to talk to Moscow – just so his own government couldn’t hear.

On and on and on. The complete list is much longer. There was never any lack of things discovered, which makes Mueller’s brisk investigation even more remarkable. No T.R.H. can be seen.

5. And that includes this : Trump asked Michael Cohen to suppress a sex tape circulating around Moscow. He used Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze as a go-between, who reported back : ‘Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know … .’ Both men testified before the grand jury. (For the record, everyone thinks the tape was faked by Russian criminals. Still: No T.R.H).

So you have a legitimate investigation conducted by legitimate appointees in a legitimate manner who uncovered scads of legitimate grounds to investigate after underway.

Where is the “Trump-Russia Hoax” in all this ?!?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump’s appointee appointed Mueller…RussiaGate was 100% a Republican deal and so there is no need for Democrats to weigh in on it one way or the other.

[Kleppe]

"This is just utterly laughable"

Imagine admitting to not being able to distinguish adult males from adult females. Humiliating.

[Sarcastr0]

I mostly rely on hair, clothing and breasts if the top is tight enough. Those are all quite fallible if someone takes a notion.

[Krychek_2]

No, BCD, whether someone can pass is not the point. The point is that there's no reason anyone else should care what someone's genitals are (unless one is a potential sex partner). If someone presents as female, I neither know nor care in any given case what she looks like naked. And unless I'm trying to pick her up, there's no reason why I should care.

It's people like you, who do obsess about other people's genitals, that the rest of us should be worried about.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you insist on boiling down transgenderism to being only about genitals?

[Krychek_2]

You (and Mr. Bumble) are the ones making the case that gender is about anatomy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you show your work as to how you're drawing that conclusion?

I'm not following where you're getting that from as I didn't mention the pageant winner's genitals at all.

[Krychek_2]

Not in this specific thread you didn't. But perhaps you can answer your own question by telling us what you believe distinguishes men from women.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So when you said I was affirmatively making the case that gender is about anatomy, you weren't talking about the existing conversation, but some other one from the past?

Do you think it's rational to say someone is making a particular case right now, but were secretly referring to something from the past?

But perhaps you can answer your own question by telling us what you believe distinguishes men from women.

Sure. Men are of the kind of human that produce small gametes. Women are of the kind of human that produces large gametes.

[Krychek_2]

And what about people who produce no gametes?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What does "of the kind of human" mean to you?

Is there a type of human that doesn't produce small gametes or a type of human that doesn't produce large gametes?

Or are the humans that don't produce gametes a defective version of one that would typically produce small gametes, or one that would typically produce large gametes?

Like how humans are of the kind of mammal with two hands and five fingers on each hand. While some humans do not have two hands, nor ten fingers, those are just defective or mutated versions of the kind that does.

Or do you believe there is another kind of human that only has one hand? And another kind of human that only has nine fingers, or that was eleven?

[Krychek_2]

OK, back up a minute. A valid definition must describe all members of the class, and only members of the class. And having five digits on the hand is not central to the definition of human in the way that you're trying to make gamete production central to the definition of sex. If a human were to be born with three hands, each of which had ten digits, we would not (at least without more) say that he's not human; that would be determined by his DNA.

And here's what I think is your issue: For almost all humans (probably about 98%) this is not an issue because their anatomy, gamete production, and gender identity all line up. But there are outliers, and your position seems to be that outliers are invalid. Well, nature is full of outliers. The platypus is considered a mammal even though it lays eggs. Human females don't have facial hair except for the ones that do. Hermaphrodites exist. So why shouldn't there be trans outliers, and what makes their experience any less valid than yours? Why is it so important to you that everyone else be like you?

Maybe just enjoy the diversity of nature and quit worrying about other people who are different.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hermaphrodites still either produce large gametes or small gametes.

Their secondary sex characteristics are munged.

When it comes to human sex, there are only two classes of humans.

Those that are capable of producing large gametes, women, and those that are capable of producing small gametes, men.

If someone is intersexed, they still either produce large or small gametes. If someone is defective and can’t produce gametes, they are still of the a kind that could have produced large ones, or could have produced small ones.

There is no spectrum between small and large gametes with a gradient of human types producing a gradient of gamete sizes. There is no third class of humans that are not of either kind.

This is just a simple fact.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Krycheck:

A valid definition must describe all members of the class, and only members of the class.....But there are outliers..., nature is full of outliers....So why shouldn’t there be trans outliers, and what makes their experience any less valid than yours? Why is it so important to you that everyone else be like you? Maybe just enjoy the diversity of nature and quit worrying about other people who are different.

+1000

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not like anybody could avoid knowing what Lia Thomas' genitals looked like, when he paraded them around in the women's dressing room.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Opposition to transsexualism couched as “obsession with private parts”.

You’re making a profound, persuasive argument here for sure. Actually, no, it’s intended to shame him into silence.

Look, the guy is who he is, and I’ve got him on mute. I had to temporarily unmute him to see what your snappy post was in response to. But if shaming people is the best you and Martin got, what’s the point in seeing your posts? Bullshit like that adds nothing.

[Krychek_2]

Bevis, you and I may not always agree on which views they are, but there are some views that are such that shaming the person espousing them is the only appropriate response. We have three or four regular contributors here who by any reasonable definition of the term are completely obsessed with gay buttsex, other people's anatomy, other people's IQs, and drag queen story hours.

I can talk to you, even when I disagree with you, because you make rational arguments and don't degenerate into, well, some of the things that other people obsess about. In other words, you're a grownup, and grownups can talk to each other even when they have differing opinions.

As for certain other commentators here, I'm not going to pretend that they deserve any better than scorn and ridicule. You're probably right that the better course of action would just be to ignore them, and not feed the trolls. I've chosen not to because sometimes their comments are necessary to understand further downstream comments. But, law of diminishing returns and all, maybe I should find another hobby.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No offense Krychek but listen. You have to rewrite reality and ignore so much facts and empiricism to make your arguments and to “shame me”.

You are deeply deeply deluded and you argue from this delusion.

Transgender ideology isn’t simply genitals.
Homosexuality isn’t simply about fecal sex.
Being Democrat simply isn’t about being pretty fucking stupid.

But you create a reality where the only reason people disagree with your beliefs is because they are only:

a.) Obsessed with genitals
b.) Disgusted by sex that involves human feces
c.) Rejects Leftism/Statism because they are too educated

You do this to create a safe mental space for yourself so you don’t have to ever consider the other sides views.

It’s fucking pathetic, cowardly, and weak.

[Krychek_2]

BCD, I'm announcing a contest to see who can find the greatest number of logical fallacies in what you just posted.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is that because you need someone else to help you refute my argument?

[Krychek_2]

You didn't make an argument to refute. You just waved a bloody shirt at the crowd.

For openers, I'm far from sold on the entirety of the trans movement's agenda. I don't think anatomical males belong in women's locker rooms or playing in women's sports, and I'm less than enthusiastic about homosexuality being erased, which is what happens when you claim that gender is only a social construct. And I think some of the tactics from the trans advocates have been unhelpful. So don't make assumptions about where I come down on any given issue.

But whenever you argue against gays, or trans, your arguments -- if they may charitably be called that -- don't focus on those issues, No, you repeatedly claim child grooming, and talk about "fecal sex", and talk about how trans women aren't real women because they have male genitals. That's not argumentation; that's attempting to rile up the mob.

There are non-mob-centric arguments to be made if you oppose the gay and trans agendas, but those aren't the arguments you make. You just wave bloody shirts at the mob. So, you don't deserve a serious response.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol now you’re creating a strawman version of me.

But whenever you argue against gays, or trans, your arguments — if they may charitably be called that — don’t focus on those issues

So my beliefs need to start from the same starting point as you or they aren’t valid? That’s the same bullshit Gaslightr0 does where everyone has to accept his premises or their beliefs and arguments are invalid.

No, you repeatedly claim child grooming, and talk about “fecal sex”, and talk about how trans women aren’t real women because they have male genitals.

So my beliefs are invalid because I don’t accept your premises about child grooming? Or I haven’t accepted your premises about sodomy?

And that last claim is just a pure delusional invention on your part.

What a stupid world you live in where people are only allowed to have beliefs in some safe little politically correct box and the only valid opposition is to argue around the edges of your accepted truths.

You’re absolutely right, I don’t make arguments about these things beginning from your politically correct and defined constraints.

You didn’t make an argument to refute. You just waved a bloody shirt at the crowd.

No, I absolutely did make an argument. I made the argument that you boil down any “unsafe” opposition about these topics to straw -manned single-focused arguments.

You do this because you can’t cognitively accept that there are valid, politically incorrect criticisms of your sacred cows. So whenever you see them, you get hysterical and conjure up realities where it’s just “bloody shirt waving” so you don’t have to let them inside your brain.

[Krychek_2]

Your beliefs are invalid because they are based on group slander ungrounded in reality. They are on par with black men raping white women, or Jews using the blood of Christian babies in their Passover rituals, or the Illuminati being a group of Satanists who run the world in secret. Or Hillary Clinton running a pedophile ring. Or, for that matter, Bigfoot carrying Elvis's love child.

I was raised by John Birchers. I know looney conspiracy theories when I hear them. I've spent too much time this morning on yours.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well, that's a neat little cognitive trick.

I wish the world were as safe as your fragile mind and emotions need it to be.

And you sure as shit can't tell me what my beliefs are based upon.

[Drewski]

"And you sure as shit can’t tell me what my beliefs are based upon"

You say it all the time, so I'm sure he can. You were raped as a child, and to you this justifies not only your terrible, hateful, and often delusional beliefs, but also your refusal to accept other points of view. After all, in your role as The Victim you are the protagonist, so nobody else's experiences or beliefs are valid, even to the extent they reflect measurably objective reality.

[Nelson]

"And you sure as shit can’t tell me what my beliefs are based upon."

Anyone who has read your posts can tell. Equal parts ignorance and impotent rage.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Drewski,

Kry said this about my beliefs “Your beliefs are invalid because they are based on group slander ungrounded in reality.”

I said that’s false.

Your rejoinder was ” You were raped as a child”, which means you acknowledge Krycheck is wrong and then you go on to say I’m at fault for Krycheck being wrong over this and that I think “so nobody else’s experiences or beliefs are valid, even to the extent they reflect measurably objective reality.” Like when I demonstrated to krycheck there were only two types of humans, male and female and he rejected it, even though that's objective reality? Or when I demonstrated to him that sexual orientation was mutable and he rejected measurably objective reality? But it was really me rejecting his beliefs even though my claims were based upon measured objective reality and his weren't?

No offense, but are you a fucking retard?

[grb]

Krychek_2 : “… you sure are obsessed with her private parts …”

It’s really not hard to understand the Right’s sicko obsession. You first have to remember their Glory Days now long past. It that era, it was socially acceptable to loathe Blacks, despise Jews, hate faggots, and sneer at women. You could do so openly and expect nothing but winks, nods, and smiles in response.

Now all that is tragically lost. Imagine then the Right’s joyous liberation when they hit upon the trans folk as the last group it was socially acceptable to publicly hate. From that comes their relentless (and sick) obsession with this tiny little number of people. From that comes the hundreds of laws targeting this small group. From that comes the competition and sport across all levels of government to harass trans people. Wherever the Right holds power, there’s a race to get in their shot at the target.

Of course as the National Socialists knew, there’s great political value when you find a group commonly hated…

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, it ain’t the right that is supporting the act of drag queens waggling their privates at 7 year olds.
The left seems to have phallic obsessions of its own. Get off your high horse.

[Krychek_2]

The idea that drag queens "waggl[e] their privates at 7 year olds" is a fiction invented by the likes of BCD. I've been to drag queen story hours, just to see what the fuss was about. They're hysterically funny, and everyone remains fully dressed.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Krychek, I posted a video of one just last week. A drag performer in front of a bunch of very small children lifting its skirt and waggling a covered but prominent dick at the kids then emphatically simulating sex with the performer being the one on top.

I saw it with my own eyes, as did others in here. As you would have had you bothered to look.

“It’s not happening it’s just made up right wing lies” is a lie in its own right. Don’t propagate if you want to come across as credible. Discuss things as they are.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He can't. He has to live in a fragile, constructed reality.

[Krychek_2]

I missed the link to the video. Please re-post and I'll take a look at it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Nah, sorry. I don’t want to scroll through videos back there to find it again. Don’t care about this enough. I saw it, I know I saw it, and I posted it as the beginning of a conversation on an open thread.

Believe it or don’t, but your “it doesn’t happen” statement just isn’t true. That sort of thing is the refuge of people who don’t want (or can’t) defend objective facts.

[Krychek_2]

I'm not saying that it couldn't happen or that it has never happened. Just that it is not typically what does happen.

Keep in mind that these children who attend drag queen story hour are being brought there by their parents, and I have a hard time imagining that many mothers of 7-year-olds would sit still for anyone wagging their genitalia in front of their child. They may think that drag queen story hour is good clean fun, but that doesn't mean that they want their children sexualized.

[Nelson]

Krychek, they are obsessed with claiming, "this one time" is the same as "every time". Plus those videos that keep making the rounds of the lunatic fringe eventually turn out to be labeled as something they aren't.

When it comes to legislating things based on individual behavior being applied to an entire group, cultural conservatives support it for things they don't like, but oppose it for things they do like. Drag queens behaving badly is symptomatic of all drag queens, but family annihilators or school massacres or shooting at black children who knock on your door or shooting people who came to the wrong address or shooting a neighbor through the door, etc., etc., etc. has nothing to do with gun owners.

They're hypocrites. If evil is done by those whose beliefs they hate, "they're all the same". But if evil is done by those whose beliefs they like, "it's an exception".

Live and let live is anathema to cultural conservatives. They can't allow that because most people don't want to live their way. Force is their only answer.

[Randal]

Every time a child goes to Catholic Sunday School, he's raped by the priest.

[Nelson]

Probably twice. Based on the standards created by cultural conservatives for teachers and LGBT people, the evidence proves Catholics are pedophiles.

[Nige]

‘Hey, it ain’t the right that is supporting the act of drag queens waggling their privates at 7 year olds.’

Nah, it's the right fomenting a fake moral panic to persecute a minority. But there’s a vid of of somebody being naughty for a laugh! Both sides! Maybe the right is right to ban all those fart books, after all!

[Nelson]

"Hey, it ain’t the right that is supporting the act of drag queens waggling their privates at 7 year olds."

It isn't the left, either. Or the moderates. In fact, I have yet to see anyone defend showing genitals to children.

[David Nieporent]

From that comes their relentless (and sick) obsession with this tiny little number of people.

I find this a bit disingenuous. When liberals are criticizing right wingers on the topic, they emphasize how irrational it is to get worked up about such a "tiny little number of people." But then the rest of the time, they're working on restructuring society for this tiny number of people. Complaining about insufficient 'representation' in the media (but why would a tiny number of people be represented?) to altering language in official documents ("birthing people" and other silly constructs) to changing the rules of sports to changing bathroom/locker room policies to trying to force everyone to announce their own preferred pronouns (and sometimes to punish for not using other people's, even though the whole concept is based on a misunderstanding of what a pronoun is), to a myriad of other things that aren't consistent with the idea that this is a tiny number of people.

[Randal]

changing bathroom/locker room policies

This one was really the right, not the left.

But other than that, I agree. I think you've probably noticed though that the left has backed off most (all, actually) of those when they turned out not to really work in practice. You think we're ideological but we're not. If something's not working we'll let it go.

[Nige]

'But then the rest of the time, they’re working on restructuring society for this tiny number of people.'

Restructuring is wildly overstating it. When a persecuted minority gains acceptance, it can seem like that, though, especially the caterwauling complaints.

[Frank Drackman]

That ain't no woman, that's a man, man!!!!!!!

[Jerry B.]

Liberals are always fascinated by gun owner's private parts, so why not?

[Bob from Ohio]

"so obsessed "

Why is a brief comment on an open thread an obsession?

[Kazinski]

I don’t think Martinned is going to be too upset about the ruling coalition collapsing. The biggest party is theoretically conservative, although they of course are all in on climate hysteria. And they fell because the PM wanted to tighten immigration for refugees, and his coalition partners wouldn’t go along. Martinned is probably glad to see it foundering.

It will be interesting in a few months if the Farmers Party does well enough to make themselves essential partners in a coalition, you’d hope so but, if we had a farmers only party here, I don’t think it would move the needle that much. But if they end up with even 5% of the States General the new government might decide that the miniscule Dutch contribution to the already miniscule global warming of .064c per century attributed to NO2 just isn’t worth the consequences of losing the government.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trying to imagine what the US would look like with a multi-party system.
Also, wonder if the situation in France will change minds on immigration policies.

[Martinned]

Trump, McConnell, and Schwarzenegger wouldn't all be in the same party.

[Mr. Bumble]

They aren't now.

[Bwaaah]

Good example of the disconnect between a political party and a political philosophy.

[David Nieporent]

And as was noted a few years ago, AOC and Biden wouldn't be, either. (I mean as each other; obviously they're not the same as Trump/McConnell/Arnold.)

[Martinned]

For sure, but that seemed like a less convenient example on this blog, given how many people seem to think that everyone to the left of Ron DeSantis is basically Trotsky.

[Randal]

The situation in France is because they treat Muslims horribly.

We don't... for the most part.

Let's not start, or any other minority population, and we'll be fine.

[Martinned]

I used to be a member of Mark Rutte's VVD party for many years, but quit my membership in 2019 over their incessant anti-immigrant rhetoric. (Which is what the coalition now collapsed over.)

The BBB won't be "essential", but the VVD will definitely want to make a coalition on the right, rather than in the centre again. That way they'll be in a better bargaining position. But it all depends how the votes turn out.

Otherwise, it's probably wise not to mix up CO2 and other greenhouse gases, whose effects are global, with NOx, which is what the farmers are angry about, which is a local thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think it's hard for most Americans to get a handle on parliamentary systems and the coalition building that is often required to form a government.

[Martinned]

I would recommend thinking about it in terms of whether you do your compromising and coalition building *within* a party or *between* parties. The difference is that an individual party, like the Republicans in the US or the Tories here in the UK, can get hijacked by groups that are minorities but loud minorities. In a coalition system that works for a while (see: Dutch farmers) but eventually everyone has to go to the polls and the loud minority is exposed for being the minority that they are. (Or not, as the case may be.)

[defaultdotxbe]

In a sense our two parties are pre-built coalitions, which the various factions all too afraid to leave their coalition for fear the other coalition will win.

[Martinned]

Indeed, but the relative strength of the various factions varies over time, which is how the Parties end up shifting ideologically. The compromise position within each Party moves in response to the factions campaigning and engaging in other political behaviour.

[Bob from Ohio]

"used to be a member of Mark Rutte’s VVD party"

Rutte is commonly referred to as "conservative" yet you were a member of his party. Um.

Big illustration that Euro "conservative" is far left wing in the US, Bernie before he became a millionaire and ran as a Democrat.

[Martinned]

Pre-Brexit I used to vote for the Tories here in the UK as well. (As an EU citizen I have the right to vote in local elections, e.g. for mayor of London.)

[Nige]

You voted BoJo for Mayor? For shame.

[Martinned]

I didn't. Both his runs were before I moved to the UK. And I didn't vote for Zac Goldsmith in 2016 either, because he decided to run against Sadiq Khan on a "nudge, nudge, he's a Muslim" platform. But I voted for Tory candidates at the borough level, and for the Greater London Assembly.

[Nige]

Fair 'nuff.

[Nige]

'the miniscule Dutch contribution to the already miniscule global warming of .064c per century attributed to NO2 just isn’t worth the consequences of losing the government.'

They might think the reduction of pollution to waterways might be worth some bit of an effort, though. Also, since farmers in Europe are heavily subsidised, countries have a right to change agricultural policy - way too much famrland is devoted to either cattle or food for cattle as it is. I think you'll find that the people actually objecting the most are the big agricultural corporations, not small farmers.

[Bwaaah]

Well, in coming up with your “agriculture policy,” you certainly wouldn’t want to take into account people’s food preferences, e.g. their want for meat. After all, the purpose of agriculture is to serve government interests…I mean people’s interests…I mean The People’s interests. (Help me out here, Master.)

[Martinned]

If only there was some kind of free market that allowed people to buy food produced in other countries!

[Bob from Ohio]

"people to buy food produced in other countries"

The transportation of that food is a big carbon producer. Seems you are just exporting your climate harms to other countries so you can bask in virtue.

[Martinned]

Again, the issue with the Dutch farming sector isn't climate change but NOx, which ruins national parks.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought it was NH3? from ammonia based fertilizer and manure.

[Kazinski]

NH3 as a fertilizer breaks down partially to N2O, which a greenhouse gas, and NOx which is not a greenhouse gas but a pollutant.

Kind of weird they are touting NH3 as a carbon free fuel, when its extremely dangerous before burning, and N2O is a pollutant as well as ammonia itself.

[Martinned]

Who is touting NH3 as a fuel? I've never heard of that before and I do occasionally follow the debate about net zero professionally.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Chinese. Story appeared about 10 days ago.
Maybe Bloomberg?

[Kazinski]

Here’s a startup for Trucks:
https://amogy.co/amogy-presents-worlds-first-ammonia-powered-zero-emission-semi-truck/
“ Ammonia is an optimal fuel to achieve rapid decarbonization of heavy transportations (sic) because it is available globally with existing infrastructure already in place. This achievement not only showcases Amogy’s technology as an accessible and scalable solution for trucking, it also highlights the capabilities and dedication of our outstanding team. First it was an ammonia-powered drone, then a tractor and now a truck. In the near future, we look forward to further scaling and tackling other hard-to-abate sectors, such as global shipping.”

But the big push is ammonia powered ships, because there is nothing else that can feasibly make them carbon neutral.

[Nige]

'because there is nothing else that can feasibly make them carbon neutral.'

Except wind.

We'll see if this ammonia as fuel is a genuine innovation or greenwashing. We've been burned before.

[Martinned]

Agriculture definitely produces greenhouse gases (most obviously methane), but that's not what any of this argument is about.

[Nige]

You should probably take their actual preferences into account rather than the advertising, 'studies' and claims of the beef industry, but also the costs and sustainability and negative affects of that style of farming.

[Bwaaah]

You can ignore all those voices, corporate and otherwise on all sides. The best place to look first is at what’s currently being produced. It represents a reconciliation of far more issues than you can intelligently consider, including climate, soil, transportation, labor, automation, [many other important issues], and all the regulators who, like you, tend to care less about people’s food wants.

You, like the corporations, want more or less of *this food* or *that food* to be produced *here* or *there*. But corporations are at least constrained by a need for economic sustainability, while your plans are boundless in any articulable sense.

In between your theories and reality is everything you don’t know, which you apparently presume to be small…small enough to make what you do know surely better. That alone suggests you don’t grasp the complexity of the problems you want to solve, and no amount of righteous intent will fill that hole of ignorance.

You might want to more fully reconsider the problem of complexity. You’d be a lot less sure of your position, but you might have some chance of articulating a viable, helpful approach to real problems out there. (Of course, that wouldn’t solve the problem of Nige getting what Nige wants.)

[Nige]

‘It represents a reconciliation of far more issues than you can intelligently consider,’

Uh, no, it represents the results of a massive push to turn tillage farms into beef and dairy by the big agicultural corporations, resulting in massive biodiversity loss, poisoned waterways and reduction in food productions and security.

‘But corporations are at least constrained by a need for economic sustainability,’

No, they are not, they are massively subsidised.

‘You might want to more fully reconsider the problem of complexity.’

The issue is quite simple: too much farmland devoted to beef and dairy.

[Kazinski]

Beef and dairy are what people want all over the world.

Sure get rid of the subsidies, prices might actually drop because corn is a major input to beef production and it won't be diverted to ethanol.

[Nige]

Beef and dairy are fine, but not at the massive all-devouring and polluting levels we currently have. Appeals to consumer demand are pointless - it's driven by corporations, not demand.

[Bwaaah]

“Beef and dairy are fine, but not at the massive all-devouring and polluting levels we currently have.”

So they’re not fine, but your position is clear.

“Appeals to consumer demand are pointless – it’s driven by corporations, not demand.”

Yes. I had vegetarian instincts until Tyson Foods, through chicken commercials, gave me my taste for meat. I’ve been deluded ever since. (Some day, I hope to be reunited with my genuine Nigeistic wants.)

[Kazinski]

See this graph of Chinese beef consumption per capita and tell me the demand is driven by corporations.
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/update102_uschinameat.PNG

[Nige]

Yes, we're all passive consumers in the face of corporate power, I know, while paying all their external costs through tax-payer subsidies. Still, though.

'and tell me the demand is driven by corporations.'

It's driven by coporations, subsidies and destructive farm practices. Chinese people have been hiding from the heat in underground shelters. That's one externalised cost right there.

[Kazinski]

Oh just ridiculous that it’s driven by corporations.

I spend at least one month a year in SE Asia and good beef is in very high demand, as well as dairy as disposable income increases.

[Nige]

So? Nowhere is it written that agricultural land and waterways have to be wrecked and the planet set burning just to satisfy some possible consumer demand. That's what corporations think is justified.

[David Nieporent]

No; that's what consumers think is justified.

[Nige]

Let them pay full price for it, so.

[John F. Carr]

A campaign has started to get rid of Cornel West for fear he might take enough votes away from Biden to give the election to Republicans. It is not clear to me whether this is a serious movement or a bunch of re-reporting of a single tweet by David Axelrod.

As I said in a previous thread, the debates need more people like West.

With a better voting system West would not be a concern. I would mark my ballot like "1. Satan. 2. Hitler. 3. Trump. 4. West. 5. Biden". My vote would trickle down to avoid being wasted if it turned out Satan did not win.

[Michael P]

Electron systems like that tend to favor centrist candidates, which is why the two-party system dislikes them. In the cases where they do implement something like that, it's one of the most fragile variants (STV) rather than one that satisfies more robust criteria.

[Reallynotbob]

Didn't Alaska adopt one?

[not guilty]

"A campaign has started to get rid of Cornel West for fear he might take enough votes away from Biden to give the election to Republicans."

Some of us remember Ralph Nader in 2000.

[Frank Drackman]

Ralph should be on Mount Rushmore. Saved us from having AlGore in the Oval Orifice on 9-11

[not guilty]

Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis might disagree.

[Frank Drackman]

Millions of Americans didn't

[Michael P]

Nader was only in a position to do that because Perot kept Bush père from being re-elected in 1992.

[not guilty]

How so? What do you posit is the nexus between the two elections?

[Michael P]

Without Gore being elected veep in '92, he probably would not have been nominated in 2000 -- it would have either been Clinton for re-election (and Nader would have been irrelevant) or someone other than Gore as the Dem nominee.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It’s so strange that people are still invested in the Bush family. Bushes despise you…but then again we all know the “ P” stands for pussy.

[Frank Drackman]

Bush kept Bush from being re-erected

[David Nieporent]

Perot did not keep GHWB from being reelected in 1992. Perot drew voters relatively equally from each major party.

[Ridgeway]

I have never bought that analysis. I always thought that the type of democrat that voted for Perot was more likely to hold his nose and vote for Bush than Clinton. Back in 1992, on the hierarchy of populist hatred, rich, elitist, squishy Republican was less bad than dope-smoking, draft-dodging crypto-hippy.

[David Nieporent]

Look, as Stephen Lathrop would say, one can never prove a historical counterfactual. But the available evidence does not support your position. It was not "analysis" so much as straightforward surveys, asking Perot voters who their second choice was. Maybe they're lying, but there's no reason to think so. A better argument would be that the dynamics of the campaign might have been totally different if Perot hadn't been there. Perhaps, but at that point you're just arguing based on vibes rather than any facts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Perot in 1992.

[Bwaaah]

I like Cornel West, and R.F.K. Jr, even though I vehemently disagree with their views (and probably would never vote for either). What I like about them is that they actually communicate what they believe, which distinguishes them from other Democrats, and Zombies.

[Reallynotbob]

Sick burn, brah!
Hey, do you think it's possible that people who don't believe crackpot nonsense might also be actually communicating what they believe? Or is nuttiness the only measure of honesty you accept?

[bernard11]

You can't think of a single Republican you prefer to Trump, or two you prefer to Biden.

Cornel West, IMO, is nothing but a bullshit artist. As to whether he, or anyone else, would add anything to the debates, that depends on the format. In their recent formats they have negative value.

[Commenter_XY]

Why do you say Cornel West is a bullshit artist?

Harvard professor, author, TV star. That is Cornel.

I mean, he is now on marriage #5 so maybe there is some bullshit there...still though, what is that line that divides sincere candidate from bullshit artist?

[bernard11]

So suddenly being a Harvard professor is a mark of distinction to conservatives? Good to know. It's my impression that the university was glad to se the back of him.

Lots of authors are bullshitters, and so are lots of TV stars

[Kazinski]

Well being a black Harvard professor that leftists all the sudden hate certainly piques my attention.

But hardly a new problem for West, he doesn't see being on the plantation as part of his identity, even when he was attacking Obama from the left. Was he supposed to ignore that Obama was serving Blacks a "Satan Sandwich"?

"How did Cornel West become the administration's No. 1 gadfly? The noted African-American scholar and radio host may have helped Barack Obama into the White House, but he has spent the better part of the president's term taking shots at him, calling him a "black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs," among other names. "These last few weeks have only proven my point about Brother Obama," West says in his signature "one love" voice as he talks about the debt-reduction debacle on Capitol Hill. "He simply caved in again."

Never mind the slings and arrows of Tea Partiers. The most politically problematic criticism of Obama these days is coming from his base. And there's no question that there is a deep reservoir of frustration, confusion, and even rage among many in the African-American community for West to tap into. With unemployment hovering near 17 percent for African-Americans (the national average rate is 9 percent) and 11 percent of black homeowners facing imminent foreclosure, African-Americans have ample reason for anxiety about the coming budget cuts that Obama reluctantly signed into law this month. The Congressional Black Caucus chairman called the recent debt deal "a sugar-coated satan sandwich" that will do little to help communities already struggling."

https://www.newsweek.com/cornel-west-and-black-war-over-obama-67285

But then again Black Unemployment not only reached historic lows under Trump, but the gap between Black and White unemployment reached a historic low.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/Trump-Econ_2.4-black-unemployment.png

[Nige]

'he doesn’t see being on the plantation'

That racism never goes away, does it?

'The most politically problematic criticism of Obama these days is coming from his base.'

Well, duh.

'the gap between Black and White unemployment reached a historic low.'

That's what happens when you inherit a strong economy that had to be rebuilt after the last Republican administration burned it down.

[David Nieporent]

EDITOR'S NOTE: In fact, Cornel West was never the Obama administration's No. 1 gadfly, and his criticisms of Obama were not the least bit politically problematic.

[Bwaaah]

“what is that line that divides sincere candidate from bullshit artist?”

Is there such a line? I’ve come to believe that you can’t have both a sincere candidate and a viable one. The issues that voters care about, and their opinions, don’t lay out neatly. You kind of have to speak with a forked tongue if you're going to capture two votes with one line.

[jb]

Agreed that it would be nice if we could roll out ranked choice voting more broadly. In theory, that would allow for an interesting US landscape with more parties as per the discussion above.

So far, though, I don't see much evidence of it working very well. None of Maine, Alaska or NYC seems to be producing viable third parties despite the presence of ranked choice voting. I wonder if people have had a chance to develop data or even thoughtful opinions on why.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ranked choice voting is designed to produce consensus, centrist candidates. Basically no third party is a centrist party.

In order for third parties to get any traction, you need proportional representation. Ranked choice voting is functionally the exact opposite of that.

[jb]

No Labels is explicitly styling themselves as a centrist party, and given the polarization of both parties (and particularly the evolution of the Republican party into the Trump party) it seems like there should be ample space for someone to emerge in the middle if we're not stuck with first past the post. But that doesn't seem to be happening at all. Sure, maybe we're electing relatively more centrist candidates (Alaska seems to be a good example of this), but still purely within the two party framework.

[Commenter_XY]

jb, I completely agree about ranked choice not working out so well. As for why, there is not a single reason; many things vitiate ranked choice voting, IMO. It (RC) has always made me very uneasy. I guess it comes down to: I want the actual enumeration of cast votes to decide any election.

The neat thing is some states have experimented with RC, proving yet again we are a 'laboratory of democracy'. We can all learn from it.

[Nige]

‘No Labels is explicitly styling themselves as a centrist party,’

It’s an hilariously transparent lie, but sure. Look at the name. 'We're the party for people who are mad that politics is hard and involves having opinions.'

[Brett Bellmore]

See, we can agree. No Labels isn't a centrist party, they're being promoted specifically to be a spoiler party. They're hardly even pretending otherwise!

That doesn't imply that it's OK to deny them ballot access, of course.

[John F. Carr]

In Brazil, Bolsonaro has been barred from running for office until 2030. As Reuters put it, "Five out of seven justices voted to convict the 68-year-old Bolsonaro for abuse of power and misuse of the media over his actions in July 2022, ahead of the election, when he summoned ambassadors to vent unfounded claims about Brazil's electronic voting system." Meanwhile in America, it's taking two and a half years to decide whether Trump and his advisors should be charged over the 2020 election. If they are charged it's not realistic to expect verdicts before the 2024 election.

Bolsonaro's ban follows Peru's quick removal of Pedro Castillo last year. He got the boot the same day he tried a power grab. Meanwhile in America, it took Democrats a week after January 6 to get an impeachment resolution passed and the Senate didn't start debating until the next month.

[Nige]

I think the main argument put forward for not barring Trump from political office after trying to overturn an election result is the clumsy ineptness of his efforts, because whoever heard of punishing anyone for an *attempted* coup? He's not a wannabe strongman dictator, he's a vewy naughty boy!

[Brett Bellmore]

The main argument against it is that he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and the only time they ever invoked Section 3 against anybody who wasn't from a state under military occupation, they'd been convicted of a relevant offense.

Convict him of insurrection, and you've got a case for barring him from being President again. Accuse him? That's no (legal) case at all.

[Nige]

Yes. I just gave you the main reason why he hasn't been charged, so far.

[Brett Bellmore]

The main reason he hasn't been charged with insurrection is that they've got squat in the way of evidence to back up the charge. Nothing they can actually prove he did qualifies, or they'd have prosecuted him for it in a heartbeat.

[Nige]

Apart from the way all his supporters responded to his calls and tried to overturn the election.

[Nelson]

That's not enough. Nor should it be. Trump is a scumbag and a grifter, but unless there's some hard evidence that Jan. 6 was planned by him, give it up.

He's a blowhard and says stupid things to act like a tough guy and a winner. That's pitiful, but not criminal.

[Nige]

It's great that there are exceptions to taking attempts to overturn elections seriously based on some indefinable assessment of the instigator's personality. I suppose the real question is, why is someone whose supporters tried to overturn an election and who has called for civil war three or four times still regarded as a viable candidate? Those things, and the fact that he was found guilty of sexual assault, should be all anyone talks about when discussing his candidacy or talks to him.

[Nelson]

I'm only referring to Jan. 6th. Other stuff, especially in Georgia, has legs. It was a concerted effort to overturn a lawful election, and should be prosecuted.

The hard left wants Trump so badly they have been jumping at any half-baked reason to prosecute (or impeach) him.

He's a criminal, lacks subtlety, and throws away co-conspirators as soon as they displease him. Finding a strong case (like the Georgia case) only required patience, but the Ds couldn't wait. They're idiots and have probably prevented a good case from sticking because they cried wolf so many times.

[Nige]

'The hard left'

The DOJ is the hard left now. Ok.

[Nelson]

The DOJ isn't the Stormy Daniels case in New York. The two impeachments were so stupid. If you don't have the evidence, don't try the case.

Don't get me wrong. I'm 100% certain he was guilty of abuse of power. But anyone with half a brain knew they couldn't get the evidence necessary without subpoenas and the Republicans could (and did) block any from being issued.

At that point the only way to gain anything would be to shame Republicans into supporting an honest investigation, and that was never going to happen. They made their choice when Trump won.

So, no. The DOJ isn't the hard left. But the attempts to call Trump to account have been either specious (like the SDNY case), doomed to fail through R obstruction (impeachments), or so tenuous (like direct action on Jan 6th) as to be worthless. And the hard left pushed all of those because they cluldn't be patient and wait until he overreached.

Now he has done some serious, terrible, criminal things, but the fact that the doomed, dumbass shit the Ds kept trying were so obviously futile, it undermines the credibility of the prosecution of real, actual, direct efforts to subvert the 2020 election. Democrats are fucking idiots.

[David Nieporent]

The DOJ isn’t the Stormy Daniels case in New York. The two impeachments were so stupid. If you don’t have the evidence, don’t try the case.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m 100% certain he was guilty of abuse of power. But anyone with half a brain knew they couldn’t get the evidence necessary without subpoenas and the Republicans could (and did) block any from being issued.

I'm not sure I'm interpreting you correctly, but if I am: the impeachments did not fail because of lack of evidence. The impeachments failed because the GOP — with a handful of honorable exceptions — said, "We don't care what the Dear Leader did. The Dear Leader cannot be questioned."

[Nelson]

David, I know that's the narrative, but do you really think there was enough hard, confirmed evidence to sustain an impeachment?

Granted I'm not a lawyer, but if I were on the jury I would think, "What? That's it?". Without subpoenas there was no way to compel truthful testimony from reluctant witnesses.

Yes, the Republicans were dying to acquit Trump, which everyone knew from the start. Which meant the Ds knew they needed a rock-solid case to create concerns for Senators who weren't in ruby red states (like Susan Collins or Corey Gardner) if they voted to acquit.

The Dems came through for the fence-sitters by making a case that only was open-and-shut if you started by wanting Trump removed from office. It was the Colorado 3.2 beer of prosecutions.

[David Nieporent]

David, I know that’s the narrative, but do you really think there was enough hard, confirmed evidence to sustain an impeachment?

Yes, absolutely. In both cases. Indeed, the facts were virtually undisputed. The GOP simply said "We don't care." (With the second impeachment, many also employed the fig leaf of "He is already out of office, so convicting him is unnecessary/improper.")

[Nelson]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think the overreach Ds engaged in before as well as now (the Stormy Daniels case) will cause the Georgia case and the documents case, which are serious, significant, and have a lot of evidence to support them, to get tarred by the same 'weak sauce' brush as the others.

[not guilty]

There is a decent argument that Donald Trump gave aid and comfort to an insurrection in regard to January 6, 2021, but charging him under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 would not be tactically smart. Other, more easily proven statutes carry more severe penalties, (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1512, subsections (c)(2) and (k),) and a savvy prosecutor should be wary of giving the clowns of the current SCOTUS an opportunity to rule that Trump's speech to the crowd on the ellipse was First Amendment protected according to Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969).

[Brett Bellmore]

You are aware that the Proud Boys were prosecuted on the basis of premediation, and the attack on the Capitol started partway through Trump's speech, precluding that speech having precipitated it, right? So he can't legally have incited the riot.

That leaves you with the task of demonstrating that he, in some legally relevant way, (Not just figuratively) ordered it.

You haven't been able to do that. You're stuck with claiming that Sam really did order the murders, essentially.

[not guilty]

Brett, giving aid and comfort doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. But unless and until Trump is charged with violating § 2383 -- which I don't foresee happening -- it is all academic.

[Nige]

It's amazing that Brett the Mindreader suddenly can't overcome the flimsiest of 'plausible' deniability.

[Bob from Ohio]

"barred from running for office "

Nothing says "democracy" like banning your opposition!

[Martinned]

Someone who wants to end democracy should be everyone's opposition.

[Bob from Ohio]

We had to burn the village to save it!

Either you have democracy or you ban political figures for speech ["vent unfounded claims"].

[Martinned]

Either you learn your lessons from the 1930s or you don't.

[defaultdotxbe]

July 14, 1933: Nazi government in Germany bans opposition parties.

Defending democracy by using the playbook of it's enemies. Sounds like a great idea.

[Nige]

Didn’t Germany allow Hitler back into power after his attempted Putsch? How well that worked out for freedom and democracy, eh?

[Allutz]

Except, given who was in charge of security on Jan 6, it was more like the Reichstag fire.

[Nige]

Why?

[Allutz]

Cui bono?

If Capitol Police had acted more responsibly no protest/rioter would have gotten within 20 feet of the Capitol and Jan 6, 2021 would have been remembered like the various days in June/July 2020 where mobs attempted to storm the White House. In other words, it wouldn't be.

[Ed Grinberg]

I've learned some lessons from 1930s. When the ruling party tries to outlaw its opponents, fight! Fight like hell!!!

[Martinned]

I'm still puzzled how you seem to be OK with being the anti-democratic opposition in this scenario. You'd have thought that someone would object to that party of the analogy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Either you learn your lessons from the 1930s or you don’t."

The Weimer Republic banned plenty of politicians/parties, including the Nazis/Hitler several times.

Using anti-democracy tactics reduces respect for democracy.

If Bolsonaro wins office post ban or his wife wins before that, what do you think is attitude towards democracy is going? Hint, its likely not going to be confined to "venting".

[Martinned]

If Bolsonaro wins office post ban or his wife wins before that, what do you think is attitude towards democracy is going? Hint, its likely not going to be confined to “venting”.

I agree. That seven year ban should have been much longer. One strike and you're out: lifelong ban. I don't see why a country ought to give enemies of democracy a second chance.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are as much an enemy of democracy as you think he is.

Gonna ban his wife? Everyone in his party?

[Nige]

You're supposed to just roll over and let wannabe strongmen like Bolsonaro and Trump do what they want, when you don't they whine like babies, as do their supporters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not even that -- even without speculating about votes eliminated by fraud, 70 million people voted for him in 2020 -- deny him the right to run in 2024 and you likely will have a civil war.

Imagine if Bill Clinton had been denied the Presidency in 1992 because he dodged the Vietnam Draft? (YES, others did too, but I'm picking Clinton because his base didn't consider it a problem.) Or -- worse -- Obama denied the Presidency because of the birth certificate issue.

If Obama had been tossed out of office on the basis of being born in Kenya (heck, he well may have been), we'd have had a civil war.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure how you got from draft dodging to being ineligible to run, but I promise you that there wouldn't have been a civil war if Obama had been ruled ineligible, just like there won't be a civil war in the unlikely event that Trump is declared ineligible. I know you have excited fever dreams from your parents' basement about a civil war in the US, but such a thing is not going to happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

"heck, he well may have been"

Oh, give me a break. The contemporary birth announcement in the papers is enough to establish that as unlikely. Sure, it would have been possible to fake, but why would anybody have bothered?

To be sure, Obama himself is largely responsible for the rumor, having that bio released that said he was born in Kenya. Then litigating to keep the long form birth certificate from being released, instead of just saying, "Sure, why not?".

Obama's birth certificate was a red herring, he fought its release to keep his foes laser focused on something he knew was harmless. Worked, too.

Sure, the people challenging his birth status should have gotten a day in court on the merits, where they would surely have lost. But nobody with any sense took the claim seriously.

[santamonica811]

Ed's comment is helpful, though, in reminding us that, however politely he's able to phrase arguments; he's just a shit-for-brains pathological liar. And, for as long as he remains a stain here at the VC, he is automatically shunted into the "Boy who cried wolf 137 times" category of people I immediately ignore.

Congrats, Ed, you have the least credibility of ANY. SINGLE. PERSON. who posts here. I guess that's a mark of honor, in your mind, as it's a goal you've worked relentlessly for since you were first shat into this community.

(This was the nice version...I sat on my first draft for 15 minutes, and then deleted the really mean bits.)

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Obama’s birth certificate was a red herring, he fought its release to keep his foes laser focused on something he knew was harmless. Worked, too.”

I have to believe this the quintessential Bellmore comment. Though I lack personal knowledge of the fact, we have it on the reliable authority of Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland that Brett was a Birther back in the day. Granted, Birtherism was discredited five minutes after the farrago arose, but apparently our Brett stuck it out much, much longer.

Now with that special Bellmore Conspiratorial Magic, we learn the Birther gibberish was secretly engineered by Obama himself. Thus, Brett finds good things all! Instead of being a gullible tool, he’s back in the comfortable position of being a victim, warm and snug in victimhood like a baby in swaddling clothes.

Instead of Obama being the target of a particularly crude piece of hackery, he’s the criminal mastermind behind the scene.

And our Brett is once again reassured that ANY inconvenient fact can be explained away by the Other Side’s mysterious forces - and these can only be sensed by the most rarefied of understanding (mainly his).

If that doesn’t count for a classic Brett post, I don’t know what does!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Though I lack personal knowledge of the fact, we have it on the reliable authority of Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland that Brett was a Birther back in the day. "

Dipshit. The Rev's basis for calling me a "birther" is that, as I said, I thought that the actual birthers should have gotten their day in court, a hearing on the merits, (Because that natural born clause IS in the Constitution, and I'm not keen on the idea of parts of the Constitution like that being rendered non-judiciable by the courts.) which I fully expected they would lose on the merits!

The idea that Obama wasn't born in the US was, just barely possible, but never at all likely, because as I said above, there was plenty of evidence he was born here, even without access to that long form birth certificate, and while it could have been faked, why would anyone have gone to all that trouble and risk?

A "birther" is somebody who thinks Obama wasn't born in the US, NOT somebody who thinks it's an idiotic idea, and that the idiots should have been conclusively proven wrong in a court of law, not just the court of public opinion.

I've also said, by the way, that the guy who REALLY failed the natural born citizen clause was McCain, not Obama. "Natural born citizen" means a citizen at the time of your birth, under the law in place at your birth. If you become a citizen at any point after that, you're a "naturalized" citizen, and not qualified to become President.

McCain wasn't a citizen for several months after he was born, and became one by an act of Congress. He was a naturalized, not natural born, citizen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My basis for referring to Mr. Bellmore as a birther:

Originally, I recalled vaguely that Mr. Bellmore had consistently sided with the birthers before "groomerism" replaced birtherism as a favorite subject among the Volokh Conspiracy's right-wing fanboys.

After a time, though, Mr. Bellmore denied (without qualification, as I recall) that he was a birther. Several commenters disputed that claim; Mr. Bellmore responded by allowing that he had 'merely expressed interest in getting to the bottom of it' but had never been a birther. At least one commenter responded with quotations from Mr. Bellmore than persuaded me Mr. Bellmore had been a birther before he concluded that claiming the opposite was more convenient.

Being a birther was not Mr. Bellmore's most deplorable attribute. Not nearly.

[David Nieporent]

Brett omits that even after all the evidence was out there, he still refused to admit that Obama was born in the U.S. because Brett wasn't in the hospital room when Obama was born.

[grb]

Bless his heart, Brett’s evidentiary standards tend to tighten and loosen at the most opportune moments. On the one hand, I remember him arguing for the possibility of child porn on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop, ignoring the objection that Biden’s bitterest enemies had the damn thing in hand and never produced any. That trifling little fact couldn’t spoil the infinite world of possibilities before him.

But there are counter-examples with Trump where he turns much more finicky & skeptical, notably the two phone calls with Raffensperger and Zelensky. In both cases Brett determinably can not see, hear or speak what was baldly there, transcripts be damned

It’s on that last basis that I image this scenario: Trump has finally shot a stranger on Fifth Avenue and Brett is the witness. In the precinct interrogation room, he gives this statement : Well, yes, I heard Trump scream “Die, you nobody”….. and yes, I saw him raise a handgun & pull the trigger ….. and yes, I heard the shot and saw the victim fall bleeding to the ground, but I can’t say Trump shot him. I didn’t actually see the bullet go from gun to the victim.

[David Nieporent]

To be sure, Obama himself is largely responsible for the rumor, having that bio released that said he was born in Kenya. Then litigating to keep the long form birth certificate from being released, instead of just saying, “Sure, why not?”.

1) Obama did not release any bio saying he was born in Kenya.
2) The crazy talk about ineligibility started long before anyone discovered something written by an intern working at a book publisher.
3) He did not litigate to keep the long form birth certificate from being released.
4) The "Why not?" is obvious: lying liars who lie — like Trump — lie. Showing them facts does nothing to change their statements. (Hell, Trump just this week said that he won Nevada twice.) If they didn't accept the so-called short form, they weren't going to accept the so-called long form. They didn't, and don't. Also, there was no legal method for Obama to force the state of Hawaii to release the document.

[not guilty]

The keyboard warriors who yap and yammer about an impending civil war are pathetic. Are they forgetting how the first one turned out?

Let's think this through. Who would raise, train, command, arm, supply and pay an insurrectionary force to take on the United States Armed Forces?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would they take on the US armed forces? I mean, I know Biden likes fantasizing about his foes forming up in convenient ranks to be subjected to high altitude bombing, but why would they cooperate that way?

There's scarcely a major city in America, all of them 'blue', that's a week away from food riots, or survivable if you took out power lines leading into them. An actual red/blue civil war would be a war of sabotage, not guys with hunting rifles lining up like Redcoats to be shot down by the Army.

[not guilty]

You don't think the Armed Forces would quickly put down any civil war style insurrection?

I have more faith in the abilities and professionalism of our military forces than you appear to have.

[Brett Bellmore]

What did I just say? It would be a war of sabotage, not set piece battles. We don't have enough troops to guard every power line and overpass. There's no freaking way the US military would be able to keep cities functioning in a large scale uprising.

Hell, we couldn't keep our cities functional against a significant level of infiltrated saboteurs! Our economy is TOAST the moment the Chinese decide they're invading Taiwan, every major transformer in the country will be taken out inside of a week.

I mean, think about how tiny a fraction of the Irish population were actually participating in the IRA.

A strong military is pretty useful in going after people in another country, because it doesn't need the other country to be functional and productive to maintain its fighting strength.

And it's pretty useful in going after invaders in your own country, because the native population are on your side.

But when you try to use your military on a distributed fraction of your own population? It's like trying to operate on a metastasized cancer with a machine gun. That heart is rebelling, gun it down!

I surely don't like the idea of civil war here, the US would be left in ruins by even a minor civil war. But the people who imagine the government could just sic the military on domestic enemies and survive are fantasizing. It doesn't work that way.

[not guilty]

So your concept of a red/blue "civil war" is no more than a euphemism for semi-organized domestic terrorism? What does it say about your party that a significant number of its adherents are okay with that?

But who would organize and coordinate those acts of terrorism? Are there Americans who aspire to be this hemisphere's Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

[Brett Bellmore]

My concept of a red/blue civil war is a civil war fought with both sides actually trying to win, rather than one side trying to arrange things most conveniently for the other side. IF we have a civil war, it's not going to be fought for the convenience of the US military, the other side is going to fight in the most effective way they can find, not the way that makes them easiest to gun down.

I'm not advocating for a civil war, I've already said having one would leave the country in ruins. I'm just trying to be realistic about how it would go.

Because, you know, people who are unrealistic about how easy it would be to win a civil war, and how anodyne the consequences of one would be, are the sort of people who aren't going to avoid starting one as much as they should!

That's what scares me when Biden starts into his "Those who say 'The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots,' a great line, well, guess what? The fact is, if you’re going to take on the government, you need an F-15 with Hellfire missiles," ... "There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you." rant. HE thinks a civil war would be easy for him to win!

Maybe that's why he doesn't mind pissing people off? He sees provoking them to violence as just a nice excuse to execute them, instead of leading to the country being ruined?

[Nige]

'Maybe that’s why he doesn’t mind pissing people off? He sees provoking them to violence as just a nice excuse to execute them, instead of leading to the country being ruined?'

Or maybe he's reassuring people because Trump keeps threatening civil war. So the only people he's pissing off are the people who want Trump to start a civil war or want to start one themselves. Or people like you who fantasise about civil wars without *wanting* a civil war but don't mind Trump and his supporters *threatening* civil wars and trying to overturn elections and denying the validity of election results, but somehow get 'scared' when Biden suggests Trump & co would have a hard time winning their civil war.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden forced me to do an insurrection!

No, Brett, violent fuckers are responsible for ether own actions. It’s this kind of apologia that creates a narrative making violent yahooery easier to justify.

Party of personal responsibility my ass.

[Nige]

‘It would be a war of sabotage,’

It would be a war of Trump shouting, again, for a civil war and nobody turning up. Maybe some poor sap will blow himself up outside an FBI office. Maybe a few incels will shoot up some schools. Maybe the Proud Boys will stand around in camo carrying big guns then claim they got hit by an antifa. Because when the biggest modern movement against abuse of state power hit the streets? You all sided with state power. You’re invested in *protecting* the state because the status quo has you comfortable and secure and priveleged. In any conflict with the state you’ll line up behind the cops. *Way* behind the cops.

‘I mean, think about how tiny a fraction of the Irish population were actually participating in the IRA.’

You’re not the IRA. You’re the UVF, nasty thugs beating up unarmed civilians, supported by the UVF and the Biritsh secret service.

[Nige]

Second UVF sb RUC

[Michael Ejercito]

What was their track record in Afghanistan?

[not guilty]

The military accomplished its initial objectives in Afghanistan — denying al-Qaeda its staging ground and removing the Taliban-led government from power — in short order. When the political objectives shifted to nation building, the Afghans were not equal to the task, but I don’t think that blame there can be laid on American military forces.

[Nige]

'the Afghans were not equal to the task'

I think it's more likely that US nation-building sucks.

[Nelson]

More like nation-building doesn't work because no one there wants to be exactly like us and almost no one on our side cares because they're mostly private companies looking to make a buck (or a billion) off the US government.

Plus nation-building has a ,000 batting average. It has never worked.

[Nige]

Yup. But let's blame the Afghans.

[Martinned]

@Nige: We should definitely blame the Afghans. If they won't/can't fight for their freedom, there's not much anyone else can do.

[Nige]

Pretty sure the problem isn't a lack of fighting.

[Martinned]

@Nige: I wouldn't be so sure. The Taliban pretty much just walked in there in 2021. https://www.vox.com/2021/8/15/22626082/kabul-capital-fall-afghanistan-government-taliban-forces-explained

[Sarcastr0]

Right wing insurrectionists had their height on Jan 06.

Turns out just as criminals are largely dumb, modern American insurrectionists are the same.

[Kazinski]

The Republicans won the civil war.

Who do you think won?

But I agree the civil war speculation is nonsense.

[Nige]

'Who do you think won?'

The woke mob.

[Nelson]

The United States won. Those who wanted to destroy the United States lost. Apparently after almost 170 years there are still Lost Cause fools looking for a rematch.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump has the shallowest American roots of any president in history—his paternal grandparents are German and his mother is Scottish. It’s why none of Trump’s ancestors owned slaves—they weren’t AMERICANS!!

[Nelson]

"deny him the right to run in 2024 and you likely will have a civil war."

No, you won't. The turnout would be worse than Jan. 6th. No one but the angry and the demented are going to fight a civil war for Donald Trump.

"Or — worse — Obama denied the Presidency because of the birth certificate issue."

There wasn't any issue with Obama's birthplace. There was no chance he would ever be banned in any legal proceeding, since there was no evidence he was born anywhere other than the US.

But even if such a thing would have happened, why would there be any need for a civil war? Biden, as VP, would become President.

Liberals aren't the "start a war" types. Look at Dobbs. Roe gets struck down and the most extreme elected liberals ... started discussing ways to legally change the composition of the court, within the laws and the Constitution.

The over/under on a federal law legalizing abortion as a personal medical decision for the pregnant woman is 15 years. I'll probably see legal abortion throughout the US before I see my first Social Security check, which I only plan to take when they make me (72, I think?).

There is no appetite outside of the far right fringe for a civil war. The only people who are panicked and enraged by the cultural changes in America are cultural conservatives, and even most of them aren't willing to kill over it.

The country is moving inexorably away from traditional conservative values, including organized religion. Liberals don't need to start a war. All they have to do is wait.

[Drewski]

Reminder: Republicans tried their damnedest to have Obama declared ineligible, despite the fact that the birth certificate "issue" was purely a fantasy on their part.

Also threatening civil war is boring. Not a day goes by here without someone claiming their current gripe will be the last straw. You, yourself claimed that indicting Trump would set off a civil war. It's vapid.

[David Nieporent]

Republicans tried their damnedest to have Obama declared ineligible

Kooks did. Not "Republicans." By that I don't mean that the kooks weren't Republicans. But they weren't mainstream and had no institutional support. Orly Taitz was not a GOP official.

[David Nieporent]

It’s not even that — even without speculating about votes eliminated by fraud, 70 million people voted for him in 2020 — deny him the right to run in 2024 and you likely will have a civil war.

Another one? Dr. Ed has predicted 20 of the last 0 civil wars.

[Nelson]

"Nothing says “democracy” like banning your opposition!"

Trump is a member of the Republican Party. The Republican Party isn't Trump. If he was banned, the GOP wouldn't be banned.

Wait, you know there are other Republican policians running for the nomination, right?

[Michael P]

A follow-up on the Nebraska solar farm destroyed by hail: the panels are probably going to get landfilled. https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/07/08/spent-solar-panels-likely-to-end-up-in-landfills-because-recycling-them-isnt-economical/

[John F. Carr]

I gather from reading the article that solar panels are less toxic than they used to be.

[Mr. Bumble]

Where in the article did you see that?

[John F. Carr]

I didn't see that and I expected to because solar panels have a reputation for containing nasty substances like cadmium.

[Brett Bellmore]

The traditional silicon solar panels aren't terribly toxic, they've got about as much lead from solder as your average electronics, and maybe enough precious metals to justify recycling them.

The thin film panels, though, often have a fair amount of cadmium in them, which is pretty toxic.

I'm hard put to say whether the trend is towards more or less toxic panels. There's no reason in theory that they have to be, but the easiest to manufacture ones certainly are.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But you aren't supposed to landfill electronics because the lead leaches out...

[Kazinski]

In a somewhat related story Siemens Energy lost over a third of its value on June 22, when it announced that it was having widespread failures in its wind turbines. They lost 6 billion in market cap, not quite Bud Light numbers but still a higher percentage of their market cap.

CNBC says it could be a industry wide issue.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/03/siemens-energy-wind-turbine-problems-could-be-an-industry-wide-issue.html

"Siemens Gamesa’s board is now due to conduct an “extended technical review” into the issue, which is expected to incur costs in excess of 1 billion euros ($1.09 billion). The company’s shares have recouped some losses, but remain down over 33% in the last month."

[Reallynotbob]

The article notes that the problem may be the fact that wind energy generation grew very quickly because prices started to challenge petroleum energy generation, and that this rapid rise in demand led to faster, less reliable construction. So... possibly a victim of its own success. And certainly remediable.

[Kazinski]

Wind energy challenged fossil fuels because of subsidies, and they allowed wind to get the highest rates with the lowest reliability.

I mean think of it, an energy source where mid day calms can cut power production precipitously when you need it most, and you constantly have to keep more traditional sources on standby.

As Germany and the UK have gone more to wind coal use has gone up too for standby baseload power.

[Reallynotbob]

That's not an argument for not adopting wind and other renewables. It's an argument for having a diversity of energy production capabilities. (Unless you're a petroleum or coal company.)

[Brett Bellmore]

The unreliability of wind and solar is an argument for including unreliable power sources with reliable ones? Have you actually thought that through?

Admittedly there's some argument for having a diversity of reliable, dispatchable power sources. But power sources so unreliable you have to have 100% conventional backup for them are just redundant.

[Sarcastr0]

you conflate develop with adopt.

We aren’t there yet but there is no good reason not to keep trying. The oil industry and GOP playing politics is not a good reason.

[Reallynotbob]

If 100% "unreliability" is your standard, no energy source meets it. Oil is/was wildly unreliable in terms of availability and price, and subject to foreign power shenanigans. Wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, even tidal and geothermal, are reliable sources of energy--each has different weaknesses and strengths. Oil and coal have their place, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Get real. Nuclear's got about 98, 99% availability, and essentially all down time is scheduled. Other conventional power sources are comparable. They're there when you need them, and you KNOW they'll be there.

Solar has about 40% availability, with random variations down to as little as 10% of nameplate output when it IS available.

Wind is randomly unavailable, in a good area (That's not most places!) it might be producing at least SOME power 95% of the time, it might on average be producing about 90% of rated power, but it's subject to just stopping for long periods of time.

The only 'renewable' sources that can be depended on in a way roughly comparable to conventional sources are geothermal and hydro power, and even hydro power is at the mercy of the weather, in a bad year will be substantially reduced. (But at least will be dispatchable.)

Relying on a power source that only shows up when it's in the mood to is no way to run a civilization!

[Nige]

'Relying on a power source that only shows up when it’s in the mood to is no way to run a civilization!'

There's the ol' can-do attitude.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason a can do attitude works, is because it doesn't insist on doing things in a "can't do" way.

[Nige]

No, a can do attitude works when you are presented with a problem and you find solutions, rather than complain that you can't keep doing the things causing the problems. You and the entire right have given up on finding solutions, and prefer to pretend there's no problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and the solution here is to not insist on using a crappy source of power, you moron!

A can-do attitude doesn't change the laws of physics. Sometimes what a can-do attitude demands is taking the people who insist you do something moronic, and kicking them to the curb.

[Randal]

Brett, you are stupid in such a lame way.

The whole earth works on solar. Your precious oil is just biological solar batteries. Hydropower is solar energy stored in water vapor. There are lots of known ways to store solar energy. All we're doing now is working on making the manmade versions efficient and scalable.

[Nige]

‘Yeah, and the solution here is to not insist on using a crappy source of power, you moron!’

We’re already insisting on a crappy source of power that’s pretty much wrecking the planet.

‘A can-do attitude doesn’t change the laws of physics’

Tattoo that on the inside of your eyelids.

‘Sometimes what a can-do attitude demands is taking the people who insist you do something moronic, and kicking them to the curb.’

We’re working on that.

So far your can-do attitude is: nope can't do it.

[Nelson]

I hate having to support Brett, even a little, but he isn't wrong about nuclear. Coal and oil should be marginalized as soon as possible because they are catastrophic to climate, but the only way to do that as soon as possible is with, as Brett points out, a 100% reliable source of power. One that doesn't release any greenhouse gasses.

As of now, the only tachnology that fits the bill is nuclear. If some of the over-the-top regulations, the ones that do nothing to add safety, but add a lot to the cost of producing power.

If you are serious about stopping the dirtiest sources of energy as quickly as possible, the only way is with nuclear. If you want to pretend to want carbon-zero energy as quickly as possible, keep fighting nuclear.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is Barbara McQuade writing a book on disinformation?

Is it because she's an expert at creating and distributing it?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Zuckerberg posted a graphic that asserts Threads was the fastest downloaded app in history with 1M downloads in the first hour. Surpassing even ChatGPT.

If Zuckerberg will spend $200M to create or influence 81M votes, wouldn't he also manipulate the downloads for this vanity metric?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Has anybody calculated how many times it would be possible to download copies before his servers choked?

1M downloads in an hour sounds like a LOT of network traffic to me.

[defaultdotxbe]

The app would have been downloaded from Google Play or Apple App Store, either of which I suspect are more than capable of handling a million downloads an hour.

[jb]

Indeed. Even if it came directly from Facebook, let's do some math:

- The Android App appears to be 72 MB; the iPhone app is 254 MB
- We'll pessimistically assume 100% iPhone downloads
- That means that in an hour they'd need to serve ~254 TB
- ...which is 70.6 GB per second; let's call it 700 Gbps (bits vs. bytes)
- That's a lot of data, but to put it in perspective Facebook globally serves something like ~100 Tbps, so this would be less than .1% of their overall network traffic. So not a problem at all.

[jb]

App data comes from the app stores so it's easily verifiable by people not associated with Meta.

Also, what is wrong with "creating or influencing votes" or downloads for that matter? That's called marketing. Turns out people from around the political spectrum do it and there's no obvious reason to jump from engaging in marketing to fabricating statistics.

[Nelson]

I think he means votes in the 2020 election. You know that Trump actually won, right? BCD does.

[jb]

I get what he means. I just don't get why he thinks there's some pathway from Zuckerberg paying for get out the vote efforts to making up numbers about Threads. I guess if you like Democrats instead of Russians that means you're inherently evil and dishonest in BCD's eyes.

[Nelson]

Well there's a non-zero chance he's paid by Russians. No chance with Democrats.

[Kazinski]

Nah, because he has an installed user base in Instagram, and they are pushing it there.

Number of downloads doesn't tell you anything about actual use and engagement, he's probably more likely to cannibalize his Instagram base as draw Twitter users.

[jb]

There's at least some evidence that Threads is taking traffic from Twitter:

https://www.threads.net/t/Cue0QR5LAV2/

[Nelson]

"If Zuckerberg will spend $200M to create or influence 81M votes"

When you start your argument with an easily-disproved lie, do you really think you are making a good-faith argument?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Was the $200M too low?

[Nelson]

The "create votes" part was the lie.

[David Nieporent]

Right. Zuckerberg's not-for-profit gave out roughly $400 million in grants to election boards and such that applied for the grants to improve election infrastructure and the like. Now, virulent racists like BCD think black people shouldn't be allowed to vote, so they think that's problematic; they know the only way Trump can win is to prevent people from voting. But nothing about that involved "creating or influencing votes."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why did Jay Bratt redact all the statements about Trump cooperating with the DOJ on multiple subpoenas from the publicly released warrant affidavits?

[David Nieporent]

First, it does not, of course, say that Trump cooperated with the DOJ on multiple subpoenas. You should probably not get your news from Julie Kelly, the most malicious bimbo on the right. (Not the stupidest; that's Emerald Robinson.) Second, why would that be relevant to anything?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1677488960812056576

There are actual receipts, but that won't change your beliefs. Your beliefs are disconnected from reality.

[David Nieporent]

I've read the stuff already. Why on earth would you listen to Paul Sperry? Both of you are too stupid to understand that the entire reason for the indictment is that Trump only pretended to comply with the document subpoena, but actually hid large numbers of responsive documents. That's why the search warrant was issued!

[Martinned]

Since someone mentioned climate change, let me just do a comment for the statistically inclined.

Last Friday average global temperature was 4.28 standard deviations above the (already elevated) 1979-2020 mean. https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1677792085234319360

[Nige]

I believe the current denialist approach is to scoff at the very concept of scientists taking temperatures and working out averages. Also, denying people working in the open in intense heat the right to take water breaks, in Texas at any rate, because, I dunno, that would suggest there's some sort of problem?

[Frank Drackman]

So what was the Temperature in Filthy-delphia on July 4, 1776? only 247 years ago, not that long ago compared to a 5,000 year old Earth. Please show your primary sources.
I'll save you the work, I've searched AlGores Interwebs and can't find a weather summary from that day, and you're gonna tell me it's hotter than it was 2 billion years ago (impossible, as J-hey invented everything 5,000 years ago)

Frank

[Nige]

edgebot thinks its old enough to remember 5,000 years ago

[Bwaaah]

Show me one published peer reviewed study, a primary source, that describes a methodology for coming up with an "average global temperature" (and global temperature history). Then give me a brief critique of the methodology. (If it's a legitimate study, you'll probably find a basis for that critique in the conclusion.) I don't believe you can tell the difference between data and propaganda; you're a repeater. (If you provide the source, I'll read it and try to learn, as I do.) I've gotten tired of researching the claims behind scientistic repeaters like yourself, only to find that there's no "there" there.

[Nige]

Really digging in with the idea that measuring temperatures and calculating averages is god-like science beyond the ken of mere mortals.

[Martinned]

It's called Sealioning, according to the experts. Just ignore him and he'll go away.

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

[Bwaaah]

Primary source. Actual published explanation of global average temperature methodology. Anybody? And no, I'm not a troll. I'm just looking to see if any of you climate catastrophists can teach me something, other than a pejorative name for somebody with a real question.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

More carbon in the atmosphere would result in lower temperatures because of cloud cover.

[Nige]

Well, there goes the greenhouse effect.

[Reallynotbob]

Yup, that's exactly why the coldest day of the winter is the sunny, bright one after the clouds disappear. Definitely that.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I wonder why Phoenix is hotter than Dallas and Dallas is hotter than Houston?? I guess we will never know!?! 😉

[Nige]

You could always just ask a meteorologist or climatologist.

[Brett Bellmore]

The effects of clouds actually depend on their altitude, and the time of day they occur at. They can go either way, depending.

[Reallynotbob]

This may be the most nuanced reply you've posted. Bravo. And I agree.

[Nige]

'I’m just looking to see if any of you climate catastrophists can teach me something,'

Total sealion.

[Reallynotbob]

TIL the word "sealioning." I owe you a beer.

[Bwaaah]

Hello? Primary source. Actual explanation? Anybody? Anybody?

[Reallynotbob]

Gambit accepted.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v4/gistemp.html

NASA explains its GISTEMP methodological approach here, with multiple referenced studies.

Your turn. On what original dataset are you able to conclude that the global average temperature has NOT behaved as claimed above?

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for the link. (seriously) I’m reading now.

Since you at least tried to answer the question, I’ll try to learn here.

It appears that the recent claims of “hottest day on record” are indeed based on GISTMEMP data. The fact that the temperature was 4.8 standard deviations above a 1991-2020 mean looks quite correct. If you look at the graph of the data on which it is based (https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1677792085234319360/photo/1), if you go back only a couple of weeks, the temperature was a few standard deviations BELOW that same comparative measure. In fact, July 4th was one of only a few days this year that the temperature exceeded that measure, and if you consider the graph, it clearly indicates that the temperatures this year have been many standard deviations below their reference measure.

It’s silly that they use standard deviation as a measure in this context. They are comparing this year’s daily numbers to an average of 30 year’s numbers, which is comparing a naturally volatile number to a calculated smoothed average. So that explains the WILD assertion that our temperatures have been off by 4.8 standard deviations. That's the Numerology of Climate Catastrophism (of which I have been speaking).

I am also suspicious as to why they used GISSTEMP data only since 1990 when that data goes back to 1979. That is unexplained.

Anyway, I now see that that which was described as “the hottest day in recorded history” was in fact based on a subset of history since 1979, with the day’s actual temperature not compared to actual historical temperature, but to a statistical mean of a temperatures from a selected subset of the GISTEMP data.

“On what original dataset are you able to conclude that the global average temperature has NOT behaved as claimed above?”

I made no such assertion or conclusion. I merely questioned the basis of the assertion. Now I see it. And I see that it’s been a relatively cool year.

[Reallynotbob]

"...And I see that it's been a relatively cool year."

I don't think that's what your linked Twitter graph shows. That graph shows that on exactly one day this year, the global surface temp was at the 1991-2020 mean. Every other day this year was above the 1991-2020 mean. Yesterday appears to be a particularly hot spike, relative to the mean.

If one were to include the 1970-1991 data, for example, one would expect the 2023 levels to consistently exceed the mean, because the 1970-1991 mean was lower than 1991-2020 mean.

[Bwaaah]

Ahhh...yes, sorry. I read that wrong. Thanks for that correction. Though I did misread the graph as indicating the year was cooler, I considered that to be a false indication (due to the methodology). The graph now makes much more sense to me, and actually looks like a helpful depiction of recent (~30 year) trends. And though I question the basis of the [often poorly sourced] assertions made here, I don't dispute the warming trend at all (nor the compelling case for human CO2 drivers).

That said, I don't find the climate trends as alarming as the rush to deal with the issue through highly counter-economic strategies. I see that as the will of ideological intellectuals and their fears for "our children's children" pitted against the needs and wants of more typical people for today (especially in economically underdeveloped areas of the world). The weather's just not that bad, the benefits of continued economic development are great, and our ability to tackle even a huge problem such as this will come with the kind of resolve that appears when things get really bad, like much worse than the weather today. The major weather events we see, such as periodic flooding, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, all appear within the normal range of severity of my 64 year lifetime. Two degrees F just isn't a big deal (although substantially more change may be).

[Nelson]

Look up the tragedy of the commons. What group would have the ability counter the various entities that profit from releasing CO2 into the atmosphere for free? It’s in each individual company’s interest to use it until it is destroyed, since any alternative would be disadvantage to them and an advantage to their competition.

It’s a rather bleak version of the socialization of risk and privatization of profit. The reason the increases will never stop is because those who are causing it have no vested interest in stopping.

[Nige]

'The weather’s just not that bad, the benefits of continued economic development are great,'

It's like you're posturing as a reasonable person who isn;t a climate change denier and then come out with this.

'and our ability to tackle even a huge problem such as this will come with the kind of resolve that appears when things get really bad,'

What if we didn't have to let things get really bad? Because we don't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, of course you could objectively derive an average global temperature. It would be several thousand degrees, considering that most of the mass of the planet is molten rock.

Once you've given up on that approach, you find you're making a lot of arbitrary choices.

[Bwaaah]

“Once you’ve given up on that approach, you find you’re making a lot of arbitrary choices.”

Yes, such as which data points I will use as proxies for prehistoric temperature (and with what certainty).

I don’t [much] dispute the notion of anthropogenic global warning, and actually have a pretty high degree of confidence in that general theory. But as an aside, we’ve had some unusually moderate weather here around New York for the past few years, and that seems to have no effect on the hyperbole used to describe that weather. IT’S SWELTERING OUT HERE. WE’RE BURNING UP! It is what Ruy Teixeira calls “climate catastrophism,” and it generates outsized reactions to life on earth (and policy preferences that are worse than the weather problems).

Hey, Climate Catastrophists…wait until you see the next worst-in-100-years weather event. It’s going to be the worst weather you’ve ever seen in your life, and it will prove [to you] that all your fears were well-founded.

[Nige]

'But as an aside, we’ve had some unusually moderate weather here around New York for the past few years, and that seems to have no effect on the hyperbole used to describe that weather.'

SOMEONE doesn't even understand averages.

'the next worst-in-100-years weather event'

Yeah 100 year events becoming annual isn't indicative of anything. You aren't very bright.

[Reallynotbob]

Arbitrary choices like metric or imperial units? Like "how much lead should make up a kilogram?" Like should we use base 10 or base 12?

Oh... you mean like "should we measure at the surface or 100 feet above it?" and "Should we measure at noon local time in each time zone or simultaneously in all time zones?" Yeah, lots of decisions to make.

The magic is, follow me here, if you do it basically the same way each time, you get a very reliable relative measurement regardless of how you made all the arbitrary choices.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Oh… you mean like “should we measure at the surface or 100 feet above it?” and “Should we measure at noon local time in each time zone or simultaneously in all time zones?”"

Yeah, like that. Arbitrary choices. And, yes, you can do it the same way each time, and get a very reliable measurement, but you're be kind of stuck for comparing those measurements to any taken before you established how you were going to measure things.

And you're going to have a bit of trouble if your measurement grid is a lot coarser than you'd really like, and conditions around your fixed measurement points change. You know, you put a measurement point in the middle of a farm field, and twenty years later some joker built a subdivision there and your temperature station is right next to somebody's air conditioner unit. I mean, it is an objectively measured temperature, what's your excuse for not counting it?

So, that global temperature of several thousand degrees is very well defined, but the one we care about is a product of a lot of arbitrary choices, which, yes, do in fact have implications for the stability of that measurement.

[Nige]

The Zeno’s Paradox of right-wing objections – they can be reduced infinitely to tinier and tinier arguments and never arrive at an ending, and the tinier they become the louder and more entrenched they get because they have to bear greater and greater weight. Saint Sebastian, they say, died of fright, but it was more likely boredom.

[Randal]

lol

[hobie]

Here you go dipshit:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

[Nige]

Also, in the last few days, massive sudden floods all over the world.

[Mr. Bumble]

Really? Cite?

[Nige]

Go to news source. Go to world news. Look at headlines. See: India, Spain, Russia, New York, Denver, Sheffield, Japan.

[Mr. Bumble]

Another Nigeism.

[Nige]

There’s the lively intellectual curiosity and hunger for knowledge conservatives are so famous for.

[Nige]

https://apnews.com/hub/floods

[Nige]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/07/10/flash-floods-trigger-evacuations-on-russias-black-sea-coast-a81782

[Nige]

https://news.sky.com/video/uk-weather-cars-plough-through-flooded-roads-in-sheffield-as-region-is-hit-by-thunderstorms-12917927

[Nige]

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-india-66151375

[Nige]

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/heavy-rains-cause-flooding-mudslides-southwest-japan-6-100993481

[Nige]

https://floodlist.com/

[Mr. Bumble]

Filling in today for the VC weather girl, Pat Pontoons, is Nige with all the latest on never before seen flooding.

[Nige]

You seemed to be having difficulty. Glad to help.

[hobie]

You wanted proof, Bumble and he gave it to you. Then rather than admit your shame, you revert to infantile pejoratives. Loser.

[StellaLink_the dog]

[Nige]

At the same time:

https://www.aboutpakistan.com/news/june-2023-goes-down-in-flames-as-hottest-month-on-record-searing-heatwaves-gripping-the-globe/

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/health-ministry-attributes-8-deaths-to-nationwide-heat-wave/

[Nige]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/10/us-swelters-arizona-braces-record-breaking-heatwave

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/heatwave

[Nige]

https://www.africanews.com/2023/07/09/niger-in-the-grip-of-a-blistering-heatwave-with-high-temperatures/

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3227078/china-alert-crop-and-power-grid-damage-heat-and-flood-risks-rise

[Frank Drackman]

Nigebot has discovered weather.

[Nige]

edgebot has scraped denialist website from circa 1999

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So? Weather isn't climate.

[Nige]

so has BCDbot

[Bwaaah]

This is what they call the "End Times." Catastrophism? No, not a scientistic repeater like yourself.

[Nige]

So, now not only can scientists not measure temperatures and calculate averages, the very act of talking about their findings is to be dismissed as 'scientific repeating.' Innovations in playing dumb, if nothing esle.

[Bwaaah]

Please, just show me how they do that. Science isn't magic. It's published, in wonderful detail with due consideration of error (if it's the serious stuff and not the faux stuff). For "global average temperature" to be worth considering, it should have a documented basis. (It's evident that you don't care about the basis of your claims.) And your characterization of my position is all nonsense strawman arguments; I never said or meant any of those things (other than that *you* are a *scientistic repeater*).

[Nige]

Sealion. If you thought as hard as you claim, you already looked at the sources. But if *you* talk about them *you're* a scientist repeater. Sorry. those are your rules.

[Michael P]

Since someone mentioned global warmening, here's a useful manual for further analyses.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51291.How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

In particular, recent temperature measurements are increasingly contaminated. For example, https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/28/exclusive-three-typhoon-jets-landed-next-to-measuring-device-when-britains-record-temperature-of-40-3c-was-recorded/

[Nige]

There we go. Scientists don't know how to take temperatures or work out means and averages. Climate change: pwnd! The US South West: fucked.

[Brett Bellmore]

Knowing best practices, and following them, are hardly the same thing. It's simply a fact, which they even acknowledge, that most of the nation's monitoring stations are now compromised by changes to local conditions.

They've been 'adjusting' the stations to compensate, but there's something of a scandal, in that the adjustments have been bringing the pristine stations into agreement with the compromised ones, rather than the other way around.

[Nige]

'It’s simply a fact, which they even acknowledge, that most of the nation’s monitoring stations are now compromised by changes to local conditions.'

Yes this is a newly-discovered, created and promulgated 'fact.' Phew, you almost had to worry about something real for a second there.

'but there’s something of a scandal,'

Something of a scandal, you guys haven't quite worked out the details yet.

[Bwaaah]

"Yes this is a newly-discovered, created and promulgated ‘fact.’ Phew, you almost had to worry about something real for a second there."

No, Nige. The problems of temperature monitoring have been extensively documented for decades in the scientific literature. (Methods of mitigating errors are a significant area of study and change in the field.) That critical view of temperature monitoring includes studies that support *your side* (although the authors would probably regret that characterization).

Your understanding is evidently disconnected from the scientific basis for theories about climate change. You are a Scientistic Climate Catastrophist, and the actual science is reflected nowhere in your thinking or your sources; it appears that any intersection between the underlying science and your beliefs is incidental. (Do you even know what propaganda is?)

[Nige]

'The problems of temperature monitoring have been extensively documented for decades in the scientific literature'

Now you're being a science repeater. But that just proves that scientists do know how to take temperatures - as you repeat, it's a significant area of study in the field.

'Your understanding is evidently disconnected from the scientific basis for theories about climate change.'

Wouldn't want to be a science repeater, would I? But, generally, the sorts of people who, eg, think 100 year events happening every year doesn't mean anything are the ones who don't understand climate change.

[John F. Carr]

When I was in college, after global cooling was a fear but before global warming was so political, one of my professors talked about sea temperature measurements from the 19th century. There was a lot of data... but what sort of systematic bias might it have?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Sprawl and heat island effect—that’s what is causing “climate change”. Three of the cities most at risk of climate change have huge parts that are manmade—Miami and Charleston and New Orleans.

[Nige]

CO2 is causing climate change. The only people who think this is up for debate are cranks or hacks.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

They should have built Miami Beach higher when they made it 100 years ago. Btw, even with sea level rise Venice doesn’t flood anymore…too bad we didn’t spend $100 trillion getting off fossil fuels. 🙁

[Nige]

Yeah, too bad we gave those trillions to the guys wrecking the planet instead.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment-and-conservation/2022/07/saving-venice-from-flooding-may-destroy-the-ecosystem-that-sustains-it

[Don Nico]

" ‘adjusting’ the stations to compensate,
In most fields of experimental science, that practice is generally considered gross research misconduct.

[Sarcastr0]

You are replying to a Brett Belmore post as if it’s truth.

[Kazinski]

Its a reanalysis, which means it isn't real data.

Really the only dependable temperature sets are the satellite data. Most of the ground stations are airports or other sites that are contaminated by Urban Heat Island effects or other Human activity.

For instance last year an all-time temperature record was set for the UK at Coningsby, which is an RAF airport. Measuring temperatures on an already hot day when jets are taking off and landing is not measuring climate.

And sure enough there were 4 RAF typhoons that were landing at just the time the temperature record was broken.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/28/exclusive-three-typhoon-jets-landed-next-to-thermometer-when-britains-record-temperature-of-40-3c-was-recorded/

[Nige]

Yeah, once again people who never once wondered where temperatures are measured Have Opinions that have nothing to do with expertise.

[VinniUSMC]

If there's one thing Nige knows, it's that "if I read it on the internet, it must be true, if and only if I also agree with it."

Polly want a cracker?

[Nige]

Some people believe scientists can't take temperatures or calculate averages. Wonder where they read that?

[Mr. Bumble]

Just another Nigeism. He's full of them and full of it.

[Nige]

Yes, and there were no sudden floods around the world in the last few days.

[Don Nico]

"Polly want a cracker?"
did you mean, "Polly want a wanker?"

[Reallynotbob]

How far from the jet engines were the thermometers? Trick question: the article doesn't say.

It also doesn't say how close a thermometer would need to be to pick up a temperature variation from a jet that was landing. Nor what the net temp effect at X, Y, and Z ranges from the landing (non-afterburning) jet usually are.

It also doesn't say what the wind direction was relative to the jets, nor its speed. Could that have an effect on thermometers upwind? Seems like something worth knowing.

It also doesn't say what the usual variation in measured temperatures are when Typhoons land. Is there a measurable variance when those events occur? Or was this the first and only time a half-degree C happened when jets are landing? Does that seem relevant to you?

But "landed next to thermometer" sounds good in a headline so go with that.

[Nige]

Plus the alarming spike in surface sea temperatures are also down to all the airports and the jets landing. In the sea.

[Reallynotbob]

Don't be silly. It's whale farts.

[Kazinski]

Actually it wouldn't be that hard for even a slight breeze to spread 4 jets wash over a square kilometer.

First of all jet exhaust is about 600c, and clearly its going to lay down a trail at least a kilometer long while landing, then we have 4 jets landing within 5 minutes.

So lets assume that as it spreads out from the nozzle a plume of air laid down 10m high and 10m wide at 200c by each jet, 160c higher than ambient, and spread over 1000 meters, then that's going to raise the average temperature over that sq km by 1.6c, assuming its evenly distributed and stays near ground level, plenty enough to set a record on an already hot day.

It certainly raises a why a busy airport is an official weather station is used for measuring climate, and why thousands of airports around the world are official climate weather stations.

We already know there is an effect on rain at airports where the turbulence and particulate matter from exhaust cause higher rainfall totals than in nearby weather stations.

Lets follow the science.

[Kazinski]

One other thing the question raised was weather 4 jets landing at an airport within the 5 minute span raised the temperature 0.6 degrees, enough to set a new UK all-time temperature.

I think the calculation above at least raises some doubt. 0.6 isn't much and it wouldn't take a lot of human activity to affect it. But 0.6c rings a bell. Isn't that the entire range of average global temperature that Dr. Michael Mann's hockey stick claimed? It certainly was, over a thousand years average global temperatures changed 0.6c. Not only is the false precision breathtaking, its the same amount the temperature can change in 10 minutes on a normal day.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-800px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

[Nige]

I would also point there’s a weird assumption here that temperatures affected by buildings, runways and machinery don’t count. Most people in the world live in cities whose temperatures are affected by those very things, and more, making them, if anything, the most relevant measurements of all. If the highest temperatures are experienced in places with massive heat-sinks and even more heat radiated from thousands of engines, then that’s bad, because those temperatures affect people directly. It’s a major reason for making cities less car-friendly and greener.

[Nige]

Airports have weather stations because knowing what the weather conditions at airports are is important for flights. Luckily for your concerns, well-founded or not, there are one or two more weather stations outside of airports.

https://databasin.org/datasets/15a31dec689b4c958ee491ff30fcce75/

[Reallynotbob]

This seems intuitive. That said, I think the proof would be in the pudding. A data scientist would want to compile the history of temperature readings during Typhoon landings and look for a consistent temporary spike of, say, half a degree C. If that doesn't appear in the data when other jets land, then our best laid intuitions don't matter much. (Nor any intuitions the other way.)

This is a nicely empirical question to which we do not have the answers at hand.

[Bob from Ohio]

"1979-2020"

Wow, 40 whole years.

[Nige]

Go back to sleep.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-Bot with witty rejoinder
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nige]

edgebot jealous

[Martinned]

So I'll put you down as "not interested in statistics"? That's fine, you do you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"“not interested in statistics”? "

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. [Disraeli, maybe]

You are using a ridiculously short period of time.

[Ridgeway]

Mark Twain definitely said it, although he likely stole it from Disraeli or someone else. Jury is out on that one, and not expected to return.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Put me down as not interested in statistics manipulated to prove a preconceived idea.

[Nige]

Put you down as preconceiving that conclusion must be wrong, dismissing proof.

[Reallynotbob]

Assumes: manipulated, preconceived, and prove.
One must certainly guard against all of these, but you can't just declare statistics manipulated because they exist.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Wonder why he selected the arbitrary time period he selected?

[Nige]

You could probably check.

[Martinned]

Because that's when they started measuring.

[hobie]

That's a bold statement, Bevis. Be careful that I don't use it on you in the future

[Dr. Ed 2]

And a massive solar storm is going to cause Northern Lights to be visible from some 17 states this week: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/northern-lights-visible-17-states-rcna93390

If you expose water to magnetic radiation in a microwave oven, what happens. Hint: it gets warmer. So if you microwave the bleep out of the atmosphere, which is what did/is happening, shouldn't it also get warmer?

Isn't this basic science?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but who cares if the air far enough up that your blood would boil warms up a bit? You'll never notice it, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea not withstanding.

[not guilty]

The Washington Post yesterday ran a piece wondering about who Donald Trump may select as his running mate if he is nominated for president next year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/08/who-might-be-trumps-pick-vice-president/

Any thoughts here?

I don't have an opinion, but I hope that by the time of the Republican National Convention Trump will be convicted and denied bail pending appeal.

[Nige]

Some random red-pilled celebrity.

[Frank Drackman]

as much as the Marxist Stream Media hates him, he's a smart guy, and wants to win, so I'm thinking RFK Jr.

[ThePublius]

We need RJK Jr. to run as a Dem to dilute Biden's support.

[Sarcastr0]

When you have faith in your side’s ideas.

[Nige]

I know, right? He's more likely to dilute DeSantis or Trump's.

[Brett Bellmore]

Which would not actually stop him from getting the nomination if he got the votes in the primaries. Honestly, I’m a bit annoyed at how badly DeSantis is doing that this point; I understand the impulse to rally behind somebody who’s being persecuted, but that’s not a good basis on which to pick a Presidential candidate.

Hm. Can’t be DeSantis, obviously; They’d need Florida’s EC votes, and Trump is getting kind of vicious with him.

He’s not going to want somebody who’d tick off his supporters. (RFK) Or who’d compete with him for the spotlight. (Haley)

Last time he went for the safe choice, somebody who was guaranteed not to bring any surprises or scandals. I think he’d do that again. Doug Bergum.

[not guilty]

I confess I had to google Doug Burgum. Do you really think he would be a good fit for Trump? https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/09/republican-candidate-doug-burgum-interview-meet-the-press-culture-issues-china.html

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think he'd be the sort of guy Trump would pick. Remember, in 2016 he went with Pence, whose defining characteristic was that he was dead certain not to bring any scandals or divert the spotlight from Trump. That he was boring. Burgum is boring, and has no positions that are objectionable to Trump's base.

The sort of guy Trump "needs" is a different matter. He needs somebody his own base likes, and who obviously could hit the ground running if Trump were to stroke out, a regrettably likely scenario at Trump's age. Really, if they weren't from the same state, and Trump didn't dislike him so much, DeSantis would be ideal. But Trump isn't going to share the spotlight with somebody who would compete with him for it.

Possibly he'd go with Haley or Scott, if he actually thinks he needs a VP who's a PR asset. But I doubt he thinks that.

[gVOR08]

Trunk picked Pence to bring in the Evangelical votes. Trump now has that demo locked in. Also, the Kochtopus guys were pushing to get their man Pence inside the admin. Scott might switch a few Black votes. Haley, like Palin, probably can't attract many women. DeSantis would lock in FL, which Trump probably gets anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

You wouldn't be picking DeSantis to bring in many votes, because his appeal largely overlaps Trump's. And you can't pick him anyway, because constitutionally you'd lose Florida's EC votes, which isn't sustainable.

You'd do it to have a VP who could actually take over if Trump stroked out. Which is kind of the actual point of having a VP, come to think of it.

[defaultdotxbe]

Even if Trump were to relocate back to NY to allow for FL's electoral votes, a Trump/DeSantis ticket would still pose the same problem you point out with a Trump/Haley ticket, likely to an even greater degree.

Honestly I think it will be a problem with any running mate he chooses. Knowing Trump only has 1 term left anyone taking the Veep slot will definitely have a eye towards the big desk in 2028.

Personally I liked DeSantis for president until he actually started running for president. Now he's just trying to out-Trump Trump and its a turn off.

[hobie]

"Honestly, I’m a bit annoyed at how badly DeSantis is doing that this point"

What's not to hate? He's gone after business, women, parents and gays. If you think about it, Trump has done none of those things.

[John F. Carr]

I was about to start by writing "If Trump is smart..." That's the wrong way to think. Trump is instinctive. Who knows who he would pick.

Two names that caught my eye are Governor Sanders, who strikes me as the most normal person on the Trump-aligned list, and Tulsi Gabbard, who is... different from most of the other choices. Like Cornel West is different from plausible candidates for the Democratic nomination. Not saying she is better or worse. She is different.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anybody really care about who the VP is anymore? If they do, is it enough to make a difference?

[John F. Carr]

Cheney and Pence were intended to be the reassuring partners for their less responsible bosses. The 2000 and 2016 elections were so close that the VP choice may have mattered.

[not guilty]

John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin mattered, although I don't think it was outcome determinative. Not many folks want a blithering idiot a heartbeat away from becoming president.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Not many folks want a blithering idiot a heartbeat away from becoming president."

We have Kamala Harris there so your thesis needs work.

[Nige]

Nobody wants opinions on who's a blithering idiot from Palin/Trump voters.

[defaultdotxbe]

I didn't vote for Trump or McCain/Palin. Harris is still a blithering idiot.

[Nige]

Nah, she's doing fine.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nigeism: a statement without any basis in reality.
Although, in this case given what an idiot Nige is Harris might seem OK.

[Nige]

On no Bumble doesn't have a high opinion of someone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Palin was a victim of the DC RINOs -- I don't think she was stupid as much as an outsider (kinda like Eisenhower) -- and Tina Fey was ruthless.

Palin brought energy into McCain's campaign and if they'd used that, they could have won. Heck, if they'd had the courage to remind people that Obama's middle name was Hussain, they'd have won.

[Martinned]

Ah, yes, "courage", that's one word for it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrnRU3ocIH4

[John F. Carr]

After the economy went downhill Obama was going to win no matter what McCain said.

[hobie]

It's weird about W and me. I judge presidents on three factors:

Is he a good politician?
Does he speak well?
Is he a good man?

With Bill Clinton he was the first two and a lousy man.
With W he was a good man but lousy at the others.
With Obama he was a great speaker but he was a terrible politician. He got nothing done.
I leave it to the rest of you to assess Trump

[santamonica811]

Obamacare = nothing.

Love it or hate it; the first and only major change in healthcare in a generation or two, and it was nothing, in your opinion???

It's like saying about Trump, after he got 3 anti-choice Justices into the Sup. Ct and got Roe overturned, "Well, he didn't accomplish anything as president." You might not like the results. But it seems crazy to conclude that "bad" = 'inconsequential.'

[hobie]

Apart from Obama Care (which, in my opinion, all he did was sign his name to it) he really did nothing else. I don't recall him even pushing much for any one thing. He only, finally, went after ISIS when it became too big of a horror show.

Now then, Biden, I've been surprised. Whether you like it or not, he goes for things. Big things

[Jmaie]

The Democrats could’ve run a coat rack and beaten John McCain. Not because of who he was, but because no Republican was going to win after eight years of W. I remember thinking that the winner would likely envy the loser, at least a bit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, how about someone in bed with the Soviets -- Henry Wallace...

Fortunately, FDR replaced him with Truman for the 1944 election.

"In October of 1945, while he was still secretary of Commerce, Wallace secretly met in Washington, D.C. with Anatoly Gorsky, the station chief of the NKGB (forerunner of the KGB). KGB files show that Wallace told Gorsky that he wanted to share the secrets of the a-bomb with the Soviets, complained that Truman was being influenced by an “anti-Soviet group” in government that wanted the Anglo-Saxon bloc to have dominance in the world, and that he hoped that the Soviet Union could help Wallace’s “smaller group significantly.”

[Sarcastr0]

The very fact that he didn’t share atomic secrets show he stayed loyal.

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately, McCain did not go with his first choice: Joe Lieberman. The ultimate result was the Orange Clown

[santamonica811]

I'd forgotten about that. It certainly would have been a fascinating race to watch. (Somewhere, in an alternate universe . . . .)

[David Nieporent]

McCain was prepared to announce his pick Lieberman, but then there was an open revolt in the GOP. They forced his hand.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Get real -- Cheney and Pence AND Quayle were picked to reassure the conservative base of the party that we wouldn't get another RINO. For some reason, Trump wasn't one.

[Nige]

Trump was an outsider - a literal RINO.

[Michael P]

Our current veep suggests some people do care, at least to the point of tokenism.

[Mr. Bumble]

I suppose anything is possible. Maybe we should have some real fun and separate the ticket and have the president and vice president run independently.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That was initally done, didnt work.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually what they initially did was award the VP slot to the runner up in the Presidential race, which meant their opponent. Not at all the same as having people run separately for President and VP.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gabbard is easy on the eyes, and for a Democrats she's sane, which is refreshing. But she's a sane left-winger, and Trump doesn't need the internal party conflict picking a left-wing VP would cause.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

VP has to get through the convention—we go through this every 4 years. Presidents don’t have as much power as people believe because of things like political parties and the Senate…like all of the people pretending this is Trump’s Supreme Court—it’s McConnell’s Supreme Court!

[John F. Carr]

It is unlikely that Trump will be locked up during the RNC. He is not a flight risk and the legal issues to raise on appeal from a conviction in New York are not the usual Hail Mary from somebody caught with a backpack full of cocaine and a dead hooker. I don't think he can be convicted on federal counts by then. I don't think he can be convicted in Georgia by then. Federal criminal cases will take precedence over state criminal cases when schedules conflict.

There is a good chance, less than 50-50 but still a good chance, that the next president will terminate the still-unresolved federal prosecution(s) of Trump.

[Martinned]

He is not a flight risk

Rich guy with assets overseas, why wouldn't he be a flight risk?

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure, he'll go to his good buddy Putin.
Give us a break.

[Martinned]

I think there are more comfortable places with no extradition treaty that a person with sufficient money could go to. And yes, I fully expect that Trump dislikes the prospect of prison enough that he would run off to some tropical beach paradise if he thought the probability of prison time was high enough. Delusional egomaniacs can become surprisingly lucent when the heat is coming.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's not a flight risk because he's got the Secret Service following him around everywhere, for one thing.

[Martinned]

I very much doubt that the Secret Service would prevent him from going somewhere unless there was a security issue. Their whole deal is that their protectee should trust them.

[Brett Bellmore]

They might help an actual President escape an arrest warrant. No way are they going to help a candidate do that.

[Martinned]

Who said anything about "help"? In this scenario Trump doesn't need their help, he just needs for them not to arrest him at the airport.

[Nige]

It could be fun finding out!

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot has discovered fantasy

[Nige]

edgebot can't manage anything as wholesome

[John F. Carr]

He has to flee somewhere that won't extradite him.

If he successfully flees the country while his case is on appeal he will lose the appeal thanks to the "fugitive disentitlement doctrine". If he unsuccessfully attempts to flee, or is promptly returned before the court notices he is gone, he will get locked up to start serving his sentence.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the literal difficulty of getting out of the country undetected, there is no place on the planet he can go.

[not guilty]

Bail pending appeal where a defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment is the exception rather than the rule in federal court. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b):

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds—

(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c) of this title; and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in—

(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.

For most felony offenses in Georgia, bail pending appeal appears to be in the discretion of the convicting court. GA Code § 17-6-1(g) (2020).

[Martinned]

Yeah, that seems like the most obvious outcome: take all three of his passports away, but otherwise let him out on bail.

[John F. Carr]

Since I don't believe he will be convicted on federal or Georgia charges, I looked up New York law. Release on bail pending appeal is in the discretion of the judge of the appellate division who decides the application. I don't know the precedents governing such decisions in New York.

Generally there is no right to remain free pending appeal. Staying out of jail depends on having a judge willing to exercise discretion in the defendant's favor. Trump's habit of attacking judges could cost him the good will he needs.

[John F. Carr]

Missing phrase in there: "convicted on federal or Georgia charges before the RNC". I think there is a fair chance he will end up convicted on federal charges eventually, but also a fair chance the 2024 election will cause charges to be dropped.

[not guilty]

The latest from Ron DeSantis: https://twitter.com/ampol_moment/status/1674937319218987013?s=20

WTF?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol that's awesome. Opposition to radical LGBTQ ideology is becoming mainstream.

[not guilty]

As I've said before, I think Ron DeSantis aspires to be this century's George Wallace.

Each was/is a southern governor with overweening presidential ambition. Each found political relevance by playing unvarnished hatemonger with regard to a despised political minority. Each was/is smart enough to know better -- Wallace began his career as a respected state court judge, while DeSantis was educated at Yale and Harvard Law School. Each was/is doomed to failure.

History shows that to his credit, Governor Wallace in later life repented of his demagoguery. Time will tell if Governor DeSantis will do so.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I think he's tapping into a groundswell of real emotions by a lot, and I mean a lot, of people.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : “I think he’s tapping into a groundswell of real emotions by a lot, and I mean a lot, of people”

So why is he losing so badly to Trump? The answer’s pretty simple. His woke shtick is the purest bullshit and everyone knows that, including MAGA-types. But Trump sells the crap as entertainment, which is all your average Right-type (like you, BCD) wants.

Right-types (like you) want WWE-style spectacle, cartoon theatrics, and meaningless fireworks. Right-types (like you) don’t care if it's disconnected from reality, refuted by facts, or detached from serious purpose. They just want their show to cheer or hiss in turn.

So why go for a poser like DeSantis, when Trump offers so much more bang for the buck, entertainment-wise?

[Brett Bellmore]

He's losing to Trump because,

1. Trump started with a LOT more name recognition.

and,

2. Democrats' persecution of Trump causes Republicans to rally to him. Heck, a lot of Republicans who don't want Trump suspect that's WHY Democrats are persecuting him, to make sure he'll be the nominee. Too 4-D chess for my taste, they're persecuting him because they hate his guts, and they've gone too far in going after him already to stop.

I think DeSantis would have had a decent chance in the primaries if Democrats had just refrained from the lawfare. As it is, he's playing Bernie Sanders to Trump's Hillary: The plan B candidate in case a truck runs over the obvious leader.

[Martinned]

DeSantis also has the problem that voters might like him, but not if they've actually met him and/or seen him speak. He has a distinct "used car salesman who spends all his free time on Tinder" vibe.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on! Have you actually met him? I have, and that's not true at all. He actually comes across as an ordinary guy.

I do think he doesn't have enough direct exposure to overcome the media portraying him that way, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Not quite Martinned’s thesis, but I I know professors who are fine in the classroom and shit on camera.

Plus his PR team doesn’t seem in sync with itself.

[Nige]

His state’s a fucking mess and his legislation is scary, which ought to be a problem at every level, they might even highlight the destructive nature of Maga policies if DeSantis loses the nom and anybody bothers to have a look at them in reference to Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

"His state’s a fucking mess "

LOL that's why it has the highest population growth in the US!

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot still mad about getting hustled by old jewish women in Miami

[Martinned]

I don't think DeSants invented air conditioning or the baby boom.

[Nige]

Bob and edgebot think Florida is doing fine. One data point to me.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don’t think DeSants invented air conditioning or the baby boom."

Current growth, not 1950s growth, dummy.

"After decades of rapid population increase, Florida now is the nation’s fastest-growing state for the first time since 1957, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Vintage 2022 population estimates released today."
"In the 1950s, as air conditioning became more prevalent in warmer parts of the United States, Florida's annual population growth averaged 6.1% (Table 1). It hit 8% in both 1956 and 1957, near the peak of the baby boom, marking the last time Florida was the fastest-growing state — until now."

[Martinned]

In the 1950s baby boomers weren't really in any position to retire now, were they?

[hobie]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/10/economy/florida-inflation-hotspot-regional/index.html

[Nelson]

"LOL that’s why it has the highest population growth in the US!"

Of senior citizens. Which already comprise 20% of the state's population. States like Texas and Georgia are where the young and middle-aged (aka working) adults are moving. Florida is the trailer-park version of California and they know it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Oh, come on! Have you actually met him? I have, and that’s not true at all.

To a disaffected, antisocial, bigoted, autistic culture war casualty who chooses to live in a desolate backwater, Ron DeSantis seems like the life o the party!

You are not operating from the best perspective from which to judge normality, Mr. Bellmore.

[Theendoftheleft]

Ha! Says the American living in America...

Let alone one hell-bent on foisting his ideology upon the world, despite literally the whole world, including we, America's allies, not being on board and rejecting it...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Says the American living in America…

Guilty as charged.

You seem to have assembled an international following of un-American right-wing jerks, Prof. Volokh. Congratulations!

[Theendoftheleft]

I’m more pro-America than you, AIDS: your whole agenda is to culturally genocide your country, using authoritarian means. And to do so to the whole world too. (No shining city on the hill for you.) Too bad you’re all rhetoric and ideology, and no science or real skills to back up your evil schemes.

Every one of the American Framers would kill you.

[Frank Drackman]

DeSantis is Low Energy Jeb! without the "!"

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “…Democrats’ persecution of Trump….”

Ya know, I’ll start with a tiny bit of agreement: The NY prosecution over Stormy Daniels is an exceptionally aggressive act of prosecutorial discretion. In most cases, that degree of law-breaking wouldn’t have resulted in those charges. You can make a case that Trump has skated on his transgressions in New York for decades and his time has finally come, but that’s not entirely persuasive.

Aside from that, there is no “persecution”. In the documents case, Trump did everything except demand criminal charges with a megaphone. There were a dozen points where he could have bailed-out of the mess he created prior to “persecution”, and he snubbed every one. It’s not persecution when the criminal himself demands jail time.

And the inquires in Georgia and by the Special Counsel are because Trump tried to steal a U.S. presidential election he lost. Fake electors, calls to states demanding bonus votes, trying to strongarm DOJ to make claims there were voting fraud investigations that didn’t exist, pressuring Pence to perform unconstitutional acts, and – yes – his ugly spectacle on January 06. If someone running for municipal dogcatcher tried half the shit Trump did, he’d long ago been indicted on criminal conspiracy charges.

There’s no “persecution” here, just the ethical bankruptcy of today’s Right, who won’t hold Trump accountable for anything. And it’s not just DJT. Down in Texas, Paxton also has a perpetual Get Out Of Jail Free card from the Right because of his entertainment value as a culture warrior.

[Michael Ejercito]

Aside from that, there is no “persecution”. In the documents case, Trump did everything except demand criminal charges with a megaphone. There were a dozen points where he could have bailed-out of the mess he created prior to “persecution”, and he snubbed every one. It’s not persecution when the criminal himself demands jail time.

There was nothing criminal about what he did.

He had the right to take the documents in question.

[grb]

Michael Ejercito : “There was nothing criminal about what he did”

Three Points :

First, you’re wrong at the level of an ignorant child. The law says presidential papers belong to the National Archives after a presidency ends. This is above & beyond the separate issue of classified documents. So right away you show yourself full of shit.

Secondly, let’s say Trump thought he could contest that for one paper or two. He hasn’t in all his rambling vacuous excuses so far, but let’s say he thought he could. There is a legal process for that which he never pursued.

Third, you reach the point where Trump is ignoring subpoenas, having his lawyers lie in sworn statements, moving boxes of documents before government representatives arrive for meetings. You start with Trump brazening ignoring clear law and end with him engaging in conspiracy and coverup on multiple occasions over months.

There’s no way that can be ignored or excused. Certainly not by someone peddling lame shit like you, Michael Ejercito.

[Michael Ejercito]

When was he held in contempt?

[not guilty]

Being held in contempt is not an element of any offense with which Donald Trump is charged.

But I suspect you know that, and you are feigning obtuseness.

[bernard11]

Democrats’ persecution of Trump

Lay off it, Brett. He's not being "persecuted." He arguably has committed serious felonies (Cue: "But the emails!!!"). DOJ laid off him far too long.

Jack Smith is not part of some Democratic conspiracy. He's a prosecutor.

[Nige]

'Democrats’ persecution of Trump causes Republicans to rally to him'

grb's points stand.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You have the cause and effect reversed.

He's taking an anti-establishment risk by tapping into this politically incorrect groundswell precisely because he's losing so badly to Trump.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : “You have the cause and effect reversed”

You really do live in an unfactual world of fantasy, don’t you? DeSantis started trying to out-Trump Trump years ago, long before his presidential ambition were anything more than hypothetical. Being such a sleazy little turd, his calculated actions were always blazingly obvious.

There are many individual acts of pandering to the MAGA crowd to chose from, but one that stands out is the DeSantis decision to turn anti-vaxx in the blink on an eye. Suddenly he won’t say whether he got a booster shot. He appoints a conspiracy-mongering flake as Florida Surgeon General (soon caught doctoring vaccine trial reports). He appears in public with anti-vaxx loons and looks on smiling while they lie. He rages his usual empty bullshit about using government power against vaccine manufacturers.

All long before any meaningful poll projections. DeSantis isn’t a pathetic whore because of the polls. That’s just baked into his character (or lack thereof).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Those things maybe true, but "out-Trumping Trump" isn't turning on the homo's, since Trump is pro-homo.

That's were DeSantis got all that material from to begin with.

How could you not see that obvious point?

[Nige]

'since Trump is pro-homo.'

It's not the nineties any more. Most straight people know gay people and don't apreciate this hateful bullshit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Most straight people know gay people and don’t apreciate this hateful bullshit.

The Volokh Conspiracy, however, loves the hateful bullshit. See also: The never-ending slurry of lesbian-transgender-Muslim-transgender-gay-drag queen-transgender-racial slur content from Volokh Conspiracy management.

[Theendoftheleft]

Have you told a Muslim today how you are trying to subvert and destroy her religion today, AIDS?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I prefer reason to superstition, science to dogma, education to sacred ignorance, inclusiveness to dogmatic intolerance.

This seems to bother many right-wingers.

[Theendoftheleft]

Well, yes, your claim is bothersome because it’s belied by your own policy preferences and beliefs. If the claim were true, and you were actually sincere (which is almost an unimaginable hypothetical), then you’d recognize that (a) you’re yourself demonstrably intolerant and (b) your own claims of DOGMATIC intolerance are simply circular reasoning.

Just SOME of the evidence thereof: you yourself don’t actually respect that faith and wish to dismiss its adherents as believers in harmful superstition, and you don’t even tolerate half of your own countrymen (believing their values to be inferior and harmful).

But somehow 'inclusivity' will make America a better place? Inclusive of what? Which norms? All of them? All peoples' values, cultures, and practices? Based on your credible, reliable empirically-grounded assessments of their normative systems and your testing their congruence with American (or blue state or Western) values and practices? Fuck right off.

You’re a mindless hypocritical idiot, AIDS. If you insist upon cloaking yourself in such language, can’t you at least TRY not to regularly and fundamentally contradict it? Choose reason. Ground your claims to inclusivity, and the cogency and utility of such inclusivity in REASON, not just a priori normative (dogmatic liberal-progressive) commitments (or clear ulterior agendas to socially re-engineer such people).

Choose reason, AIDS; don’t just falsely claim that you do so.

Not that you’re smart or educated enough for reason to do you much good.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : "Those things maybe true..."

Nope, BCD, you miss the point. Please go back and note the signature example I gave, DeSantis turning from pro-vaxx to anti-vaxx over a day, week or month.

Now, put your little mind to work and remember: Trump's record with covid was cheap politicization from top to bottom EXCEPT for vaccines. DeSantis chose to go anti-vaxx years ago because his sleazy mind saw that as one area where he could out-Trump Trump.

Likewise with his anti-gay bigotry. Here's the thing about DeSantis: He's not really a person at all. Mix up a glob of stunts, gimmicks, and pandering theatrics. Add petty malice as a bonding agent. Press into a human-shaped mold and - voila! - you have Ron DeSantis.

(You probably need a bolt of lightening like in the Frankenstein movies, but that's just a detail)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So your argument about the way to "out-Trump Trump" is to take the opposite stance of his?

Sounds like you have Long TDS.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : “Sounds like you have Long TDS”

You should try harder to keep up, BCD. As I’ve pointed out on multiple occasions, peddling anti-vaxx ignorance was the logical conclusion of the Trump playbook on covid. After all, it fits perfectly with Trump promoting quack cures like hydroxychloroquine. It fits perfectly with Trump demonizing medical officials and telling his dupe followers to distrust covid statistics. It fits perfectly with Trump treating covid briefings as comedy theater. It fits perfectly with Trump downplaying the seriousness of the pandemic and suggesting people ignore precautions.

With vaccines, there was only one reason why Trump didn’t follow the sleazy logic of his other covid pranks: He had a share in their development and wanted to reap the laurels. But all the little trumpettes like DeSantis didn’t have that motivation. They saw selling anti-vaxx ignorance to their dumbass base would work as well as – say – peddling horse dewormer as a miracle cure. (Vaccines are a wonderful thing, but there’s no cure for stupid)

So yeah, an amoral sleazeball like DeSantis would see the anti-vaxx ticket as a cheap way to peel MAGA votes off of Trump. Remember, the latter was actually booed in public by his dog-like followers when praising vaccines.

Likewise, anti-gay bigotry. Trump almost never saw a pandering low road he wouldn’t travel, but apparently something in his socialite past makes him treat gays like human beings. For a hollowed-out weasel like DeSantis, that’s pure opportunity to snatch more MAGA votes.

And that desperate attempt to find ways to go lower than Trump led to the humiliating fiasco of his anti-gay ad. You see, DeSantis isn’t just a whore without scruples, he’s a clumsy whore without scruples. And how pathetic is that?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The obvious conclusion from someone who strongly supports the vaxx is to peddle anti-vaxx to be more like that someone!

Long TDS dude, that just insane

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Uh, Bush got re-elected by slaughtering innocent Muslims to appease his base. DeSantis aspires to be the next Bush and go with the flow of the right wing echo chamber. Trump actually promoted the booster, DeSantis didn’t.

[hobie]

Hilarious. He's comparing himself to Patrick Bateman

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There's what looks like an interesting Atlantic article on proportional representation, but it's paywalled, and if I *could* recommend it, that wouldn't mean I agreed with it.

Speaking of articles I might not agree with, here is a tongue-bath for the two-party system which has served this country *so effectively* ("with the notable and bloody exception of the Civil War").

"In sum, our view (one of us a Democrat, the other a Republican) is that while the two-party system is not perfect, it has worked pretty damned well....

"...The 2024 presidential election is one in which we will benefit by having two major party candidates who firmly embrace our democratic traditions and norms.

"Not only do we need to elect someone to lead our country in 2024, but we must build on the traditions and practices that have made the U.S. the oldest formal democracy in the world. 2026 will mark the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence..." [remainder of peroration omitted]

"Frank Donatelli was political director in the Reagan White House and a former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee.

"Les Francis was deputy assistant and deputy chief of staff to President Jimmy Carter, and later executive director of the DNC and DCCC."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/07/08/the_threat_to_our_two-party_democracy_149467.html

[Moderation4ever]

Got a title and author on the Atlantic piece you mentioned?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Links to the Atlantic and WaPo articles by the guy - paywalls for both.

https://ballot-access.org/2023/07/08/lee-drutman-for-proportional-representation-more-political-parties/

[Michael P]

Let's clarify the barn door after the horse has galloped away: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-ketanji-jacksons-faulty-claim-affirmative-action-case-takes-another-hit-lawyers-clarify-brief

[Martinned]

Fortunately the US Supreme Court doesn't really decide based on facts...

[Michael P]

The false claim was echoed in a dissent, not the controlling opinion.

[Martinned]

I know. I'm the one who first brought up this mess in the previous open thread.

[Michael P]

"A dissent said something wrong" is not evidence about how the SC generally does things, except perhaps as to cases where the justices who signed on to that dissent are a decisive part of the majority.

[Martinned]

Good thing then that I didn't claim otherwise.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Justice Jackson apparently doesn’t.

[bernard11]

Gorsuch and his majority in the Bremerton case don't either.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bothsidesism, bernard? I thought that was beneath you. 🙂

[Bwaaah]

Which is it? Does Judge Jackson actually believe that "Black" newborns are more than twice as likely to die in the hands of a "white" doctor as they are in the hands of a "Black" doctor, or is she unwilling to admit/correct a WHOPPER OF A FALSE ASSERTION? Either way, it indicates that her seat of the high court reflects intellectual cowardice, at best. We'll have decades of pronouncements from that seat. (Cue the Clarence Thomas smears.)

[Michael Ejercito]

What are the exact odds of dying?

[Frank Drackman]

pretty much 100% (eventually)

[Bwaaah]

Hell yeah! LOL

[bernard11]

Does Judge Jackson actually believe that “Black” newborns are more than twice as likely to die in the hands of a “white” doctor as they are in the hands of a “Black” doctor, or is she unwilling to admit/correct a WHOPPER OF A FALSE ASSERTION?

Bwaah, hah,hah. (Not your name, my reaction.)

I see you don't understand the numbers either, despite numerous discussions here. so what are you yelling about? The study did in fact purport to show that the mortality rate for Black infants in the care of a white doctor is twice that of those in the care of a Black doctor.

I, and a number of other commenters, have suggested that this is implausible and the result has little to do with the racial match, and more to do with other factors - specialists, etc. who work on difficult cases. Maybe you could review that, if you think you might understand it.

[Bored Lawyer]

This statement:

“Black” newborns are more than twice as likely to die in the hands of a “white” doctor as they are in the hands of a “Black” doctor

Is not the same as this statement:

The study did in fact purport to show that the mortality rate for Black infants in the care of a white doctor is twice that of those in the care of a Black doctor.

Likelihood of dying IS NOT EQUAL to Mortality Rate.

Hypothetically, if the chance of a black baby surviving with a white doctor were 98% and with a black doctor 99%, then the mortality rate would be double, but the chances of survival would only be marginally greater. (In fact, the actual numbers were even closer than this.)

Yep, numbers are hard to understand. But easy to manipulate.

Bernard is correct that you have to adjust for other factors, like high-risk births, low birth-weight, etc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can we admit maternal lifestyle?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the real quibble is that the white doctor and black doctor cases weren't interchangeable, a larger percentage of the white doctor cases were in the care of emergency room doctors and the like, rather than pediatricians.

[Bwaaah]

Here's Jackson's claim: "For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die."

The study, as published, falsely suggested in a preamble (leading section entitled "Significance") that assertion without qualification, but then properly qualified that assertion in its actual conclusion. It states in its conclusion, "First, we are unable to observe the mechanism that is driving the observed result, or the selection process of the physician."

The study ONLY shows correlation, and explicitly says so there in the conclusion. But it FALSELY implied causation in its executive summary. And the Association of American Medical Colleges manipulatively grabbed onto the unqualified opening remark and issued it as their conclusion in an amicus brief used by Judge Jackson. They wrote:

"And for high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug: it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live."

Miracle drug, indeed.

Anyway, I don't see that we are in disagreement. I'm not sure what you want me to read/learn. (I studied the underlying study, and don't disagree with anything you said there.)

[bernard11]

Bwaah,

Here is what you wrote in your comment above:

Does Judge Jackson actually believe that “Black” newborns are more than twice as likely to die in the hands of a “white” doctor as they are in the hands of a “Black” doctor,

Then you wrote:

Here’s Jackson’s claim: “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”

My point is, these are not the same.

[Martinned]

Does anyone want to join David Allen Green in making fun of Twitter's litigation letter to Meta? https://davidallengreen.com/2023/07/a-close-reading-of-twitters-legal-letter-to-meta-a-guided-tour-of-a-weak-litigation-letter/

[bevis the lumberjack]

Fuck Meta. The first day of their new venture and already obvious censorship happening.

Y’all really believe if you support the government taking this that they’re ever gonna give it back? You really think somehow you’re exempt because of the purity of your beliefs?

[Aunt Teefah]

And that has what exactly to do with Twitter's borderline-frivolous litigation threat?

Elon fangirls getting desperate.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Elan fangirls. Fuck off.

I ain’t the pathetic pussy begging the government to suppress speech because I might hear something I don’t like.

Has that happened to you today? You heard something you didn’t like? Poor baby. I hope you’re not too scarred by the experience.

[Nige]

'because I might hear something I don’t like. '

Does this include threats? Nobody likes hearing threats. Does this include abuse of a sexual or racial nature? Nobody likes to hear those.

[Aunt Teefah]

Very rational and level-headed response from our favorite "sensible conservative." Lmao.

You can pretend that Elon Musk is some sort of free speech warrior if you want, but I'm under no obligation to entertain your delusions. The litigation threat is an act of desperation trying to save an investment that is hemorrhaging money. Nothing more. Claiming that it has anything at all to do with "free speech" just marks you as a dupe.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Where did Elan touch you, pobrecita? You seem obsessed (the word of the day) with the guy.

I don’t know about Musk with certainty, and if he loses every penny he put into Twitter it’s no sweat off my ass. It does you no good either, except for your unfortunate tendency to enjoy the troubles of other people.

But I do know about you. You’re a fascist-leaning asshole when it comes to civil rights of people you don’t like. Completely unprincipled.

[Nige]

One of your most rightward traits is making the biggest, loudest and angriest claims based on the tiniest evidence.

[Theendoftheleft]

Ha! What??? This is a ‘rightward’ trait? Have you been inside any university in the last ten years??? Do you watch American corporate news? Do you talk to Americans under the age of 35?

That’s a leftist trait, with the caveat that they offer no evidence because they cannot. It’s to, as a default move, assert that one’s has suffered — an unquantifiable, normative -- ‘harm’, and to have additionally been ‘erased’. This, based solely upon an emotion response to ideas and words (standard ones, often), based on uninformed perception and/or irrational hostility to them. Their claims of harm and erasure are based upon NO real evidence (let alone flimsy evidence) because they are entirely spurious.

This is standardly followed by yelling, walk-outs, protests, efforts to get people fired — including ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ faculty, etc.

Temper tantrums. The American left has normalized, and idealized, temper tantrums.

There’s a massive disconnect between the way American ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ perceive themselves, compared to how the rest of the world perceives them. This is in part due to the fact (for it is a fact) that the former are narcissistic, self-absorbed, parochial imbeciles DESPITE their pretenses about themselves being knowledgeable, worldly, progressive, informed-about-and-by-science, etc.

[Nige]

And when the evidence disappears entirely, just froth, like this dude.

[Theendoftheleft]

Did you think your reply even remotely hit the mark?

How sad for you that you can't even try to respond on the merits. You should be ashamed of your unis' turn towards infantilization and totalitarianism. It's entirely your fault, too, not that of your political opponents, for empowering these New Left monsters and never holding them to account, never defending basic academic norms.

[Nige]

You ARE the mark.

[Theendoftheleft]

Can’t even be consistent, can you? Did you think your latest reply was on point, biting, relevant? And god forbid you address substance.

You’re a pathetic loser and your country's in decline because of idiots like you. Don't worry, your American betters will Breivik you soon enough. They have enough firearms for it, to be sure.

[Nige]

As remarks go, it was above even the level apropriate to you.

[Theendoftheleft]

Thanks for validating my point, loser.

[Nige]

Your pretty desperate for validation.

[Theendoftheleft]

I always seek validation from people who don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'. That way, one is assured of quality.

[Nige]

You takes your validation where you gets it.

[Aunt Teefah]

Legal genius Beavis thinks a billionaire facing a bit of market competition is an affront to "civil rights." Supports every act of government hostility toward trans people the GOP comes up with though, naturally. What a "principled" defender of civil rights Beavis is!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are just disaffected, disillusioned, dispirited right-wingers lashing about against the modern world, with all of its damnable progress, science, inclusiveness, modernity, reason, education, and persecution of white males. They see Elon Musk as a fellow bigoted misfit and obsolete culture war casualty.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘…persecution of white males’.

Interesting how you slipped that in there, Breiviked-to-be…

Meanwhile, in the real world, no one outside the West is multiculting, no one is becoming American-ideology-style ‘inclusive’, and there’s nary a hint of empirical evidence that they will.

Just look at the rising global powers: there’s absolutely no empirical evidence, and no reason to assume, that they will multicult within the next 50-100 years. On the contrary, they reject that ideology as imperialism and can see it clearly as a weak, decadent, evolutionarily inferior meme.

Choose reason, AIDS. Try confronting reality for once in your pathetic life.

[Theendoftheleft]

Oh, and the following is now making its way around academic circles globally.

Your 'side' in the culture war just managed this victory for authoritarianism and the undermining of American universities. This won't merely 'chill' academic speech; it will deter people from working in a great many American unis.

https://www.thefire.org/news/hit-academic-freedom-fourth-circuit-holds-public-universities-can-punish-faculty-lack

Now, AIDS, desperately try to rationalize this as being something your 'better' institutions do.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I never said a single thing that you attribute to me. You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with a fictional character you made up.

You and he can argue away, I’m stepping away from you arguing in bad faith.

[bernard11]

Taking what, Bevis?

[bevis the lumberjack]

You know, bernard. But you’d rather pretend that our government wasted millions of dollars of manhours sending communications that they intended to have no impact than deal with the truth. Cause that’s why they sent thousands of communications. They did it so that nothing would happen.

Nobody wants to work for Trump. Maybe I’ll take advantage of the opportunity to get a job in his next administration and sic the misinformation police on you and other people minimizing/justifying it. No big deal, right?

[Nige]

'sending communications that they intended to have no impact than deal with the truth.'

The communications were intended to acheive the affect of whatever was requested in the communications. They had no power to enforce those requests, no threats, no bribes to encourage them. They were requests. Most of them were not acted on. I think you really would join some notional repressive Trump initiative just to prove yourself right.

[jb]

I'm confused. Is the argument that Threads is taking down content down in response to government requests? Or is that just a random aside about whatever censorship Twitter was or was not doing?

[Sarcastr0]

No impact or suborning Twitter into a government agent.

No middle ground!

You want to believe so much you are trafficking in the most broad of fallacies.

[Michael P]

What's the good-faith basis for claiming that affirmative action is a "constitutional right"? Or did KJP just go off-script on MSNBC?

[ThePublius]

I don't know why KJP seems to think she interprets or even makes policy for the White House. She's supposed to just be a representative to the press.

The idea that abortion on demand and affirmative action are constitutional rights is absurd, but, believe it or not, many progressives, liberals, and Democrats think this is the case.

[Brett Bellmore]

She's there to be the face people can punch when they're ticked at Biden, making stupid claims contributes to that role.

[Michael Ejercito]

There was this argument that there was this right to bodily autonomy. See here for this kind of argument.

http://www.instagram.com/p/CZPQ4hlLFCl/?hl=en

Of course, how does one square this idea with Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Buck v. Bell?

[jb]

Very little context to go on, so I assume she meant that Harvard and North Carolina had the Constitutionally protected right to their admissions policy. Or that she mis-spoke.

The general set of arguments that Affirmative Action is Constitutionally permissible (as opposed to a right), which is different from abortion which people do argue is a right. I know nuance is sometimes hard, though...

[Michael P]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/karine-jean-pierre-accuses-scotus-of-taking-away-important-constitutional-rights-in-affirmative-action-case

"This is really, really important and I know the American people are really tracking this, as they should be. Dobbs decision, that was something that was decided on a year ago. Really took away the freedoms from women. I think about abortion, I think about reproductive rights. And that was unprecedented. Now you fast-forward to what we saw last week, affirmative action. Again, taking away important constitutional rights that have been in place for a long time," Jean-Pierre said.

She implicitly drew a parallel between AA and abortion in terms of SCOTUS decisions.

[jb]

Yeah, I think the she's trying to draw attention to Supreme Court decisions of a certain political valence, but agreed that the way she is expressing it is fairly clumsy and not that accurate.

[SRG]

Martinned: a very satisfying end to an exciting Test 🙂

[Martinned]

Cricket is more fun when the English lose. But otherwise, yes. It's always nice to see that it's perfectly possible to wrap up a 5-day test in (effectively) 3 days.

[SRG]

When both teams score quickly and are out for 250 give or take, 4 days is all you need! As a fan of Ben Foakes, I can say that the difference between the two teams is Bairstow 😉

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.agdaily.com/livestock/irish-government-looks-to-cull-200000-cattle-over-climate-concerns/

According to reports, Irish government officials are discussing plans to cull about 200,000 cows because they believe it will help them meet climate targets

These Climate Fascists need to be stopped.

[Longtobefree]

How much greenhouse gas does 200,000 dead cows emit?

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on whether you cook them over a gas or electric stove, I guess.

[Nige]

How do you think the steaks and burgers reach your plate, by asking nicely?

[Nige]

This lie again. There is no such proposal. Also, it's weird to get mad about slaughtering cattle given that the entire industry slaughters loads of cattle all the time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, talk to British farmers who had their herds wiped out going after mad cow disease. Or my brother in law in the Philippines who had all his breeding stock killed by the government to stop a swine epidemic. There's a huge difference between sending steers to market, and having the government decide to wipe out your breeding stock.

[Nige]

1) There is no proposal.
2) Those were diseased or potentially diseased cows, you eat as much of them as you like, but I doubt many others will partake.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in United States v. Zackey Rahimi, as case in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order, is facially unconstitutional and vacated the defendant’s conviction. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-11001-CR2.pdf

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 595 (2008), the Supreme Court opined, “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited . . . Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation[.]” The Court there declined to undertake an exhaustive historical analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment. Id., at 626.

SCOTUS broadly expanded the scope of the Second Amendment in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022). There the Court opined that “[w]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” 142 S. Ct. at 2129–30. In that context, the Government bears the burden of “justify[ing] its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2130. Put another way, “the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” Id. at 2127.

Subsequent to Heller but prior to Bruen, the Fifth Circuit ruled that § 922(g)(8) is not facially unconstitutional. United States v. McGinnis, 956 F.3d 747 (5th Cir. 2020). In Rahimi the Court of Appeals agreed with the appellant that Bruen overrules McGinnis and that under Bruen, § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional.

It appears that the Fifth Circuit’s Rahimi opinion is a straightforward application of the Second Amendment analysis which Bruen requires. Domestic violence was not a significant concern when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, nor when nor in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Unless it intends to modify or clarify Bruen, SCOTUS would in all likelihood have merely denied review in Rahimi.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think your reasoning is valid. At least 4 of the Justices don't like consistent application of Bruen's reasoning, and think a hard case can aid them in making bad law.

I think they're aiming for a less literal division of crimes into "serious" and "minor", rather than "were crimes at the time" and "weren't crimes at the time". After all, drug laws weren't a think during the relevant historical period, either, and "But, drugs!" is still a pretty effective argument with the Supreme court.

[Sarcastr0]

The law as it stands is not clear. I’m for anything that provides more guidance and predictability for lower courts, no matter which way it shakes out.

[not guilty]

Ramini is not a vehicle for doing that, Brett. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is not the felon in possession subsection.

Federal courts are reaching inconsistent results on whether § 922(g)(1), the felon in possession subsection, is or is not unconstitutional as applied to a particular defendant in light of Bruen, including a circuit split in the Courts of Appeals. Maybe SCOTUS will address that at some point.

[not guilty]

That should be Rahimi. Sorry for the spelling error.

[SRG]

Domestic violence was not a significant concern when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791

Because women - particularly married women - had far fewer recognised or protected rights then, not because domestic violence wasn't a thing.

Any judge who rules that because it wasn't a concern, therefore no restrictions on people with ROs, should rightly be reviled. It does demonstrate that the "history/tradition" approach leads to abominations when the history or tradition is itself abominable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, women in 1791 had fathers and brothers -- and a church congregation -- behind them.

It's 15 miles to the courthouse from where I sit -- a short drive today, but in 1791, that'd be an all-day trip. There were no police cars, let alone police officers and no telephones with which to call them.

It was fathers and brothers who dealt with domestic violence.

[Martinned]

women in 1791 had fathers and brothers — and a church congregation — behind them.

Sure, and in front of them, and any other side from which it was convenient to beat them if they didn't know their place.

[SRG]

I am willing to bet that Dr Ed pulled the argument out of his arse not willing to accept my point but ignorant of any evidence in support of his.

[Frank Drackman]

it's where the "Rule of Thumb" came from supposedly

[Brett Bellmore]

Supposedly, according to some feminists, but not actually.

[grb]

Yep. It's a modern myth the phase “Rule of Thumb” had any legal meaning associated with wife beating.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well not exactly. It is attributed to a ruling by 18th-century English judge, Sir Francis Buller. Searches couldn't find no written evidence of such a ruling but nevertheless, the theory against Buller was given credence by a 1782 cartoon by James Gillray. The illustration depicts Buller as ‘Judge Thumb’, carrying a couple of bundles of sticks, while a man chases a woman across the background wielding a rod above his head.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem being that workers have been using thumbs to measure since, roughly, we became bipedal.

[Nige]

That's not sufficent to account for the coinage of a particular term. Not saying you're wrong, just that, as usual, you're reasoning backwards.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “It was fathers and brothers who dealt with domestic violence”

More likely it was fathers and brothers who ignored domestic violence. And good luck finding a church willing to denounce wife beating as wrong. They were too busy preaching wifely submission to her husband. Your 15miles notwithstanding, there were public laws against the whole gamut of crimes and legal enforcement of those laws.

So your 15miles doesn’t explain why wife-beating was legally sanctioned and publicly accepted. But a society that saw women as having less human value than men? That explains it perfectly well.

[bernard11]

Domestic violence was not a significant concern when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, nor when nor in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Well, it was not a significant concern to male lawmakers elected by male voters, at a time when public opinion was mostly influenced by males, anyway.

That looks like a gaping hole in the "history and tradition" argument, at least as applied in this case, and probably others as well.

[ReaderY]

After thinking about the Jewish plaintiffs who are claiming their religion gives them an exemption from abortion laws, I have reached the conclusion that, while it’s not such an easy or obvious case, the ultimately shouldn’t get one.

I think a baseline condition is that a claimant has to argue their religion REQUIRES them to do something that the state forbid, that it doesn’t leave it optional. If it’s optional, doing what the state wants doesn’t actually violate the religion.

I don’t think this religious rule, on close examination, doesn’t meet that haseline condition. The basic religious rule, which appears in the Talmud, is that a pregnancy craving has to be satisfied. The underlying example the Talmud gives is a pregnant woman who craves forbidden food – on a fast day, food that is not kosher. If a pregnant woman craves pork on Yom Kippur, she gets it, on grounds that pregnancy is a life-threatening condition.

The opinion extends this “if a pregnant woman craves something, she gets it” to a woman who craves an abortion.

But the basic problem here is that the religious requirement is conditioned on the woman first wanting the thing. If the woman doesn’t want it, she doesn’t get it. Only if she wants it does she get it.

This means the religion imposes no actual obligation that’s independent of the woman’s own personal wishes and choice. So far as the woman is concerned, it’s completely optional. The “life threatening” condition overrides the ordinary religious prohibition. But it doesn’t override the state’s.

If a woman doesn’t want an abortion, she is under no religious obligation can get one. That fact, I think, is critical, decisive, to the First Amendment analysis. It means the state law can work at the level of the woman’s will, before her personal decision reaches the religion and leads to religious consequences. So far as the religion is concerned, whether she wants an abortion or not is completely up to her. Accordingly secular law, by making it illegal for her to have an abortion, is entitled to change the calculaus of what she personally wants. This means that there is no actual religious conflict, and hence no Free Exercise claim.

[not guilty]

The case in Indiana where Jewish plaintiffs and others sued is not a Free Exercise case. The suit is brought under Indiana's RFRA, which imposes a lower threshold than the Free Exercise clause.

[Michael Ejercito]

This does raise a question.

What did rabbis in Nazareth in the 10's teach about abortion?

[SRG]

Abortion was not a sin then. A fetus was a "limb" of the mother until the greater part of the head had emerged. So rabbis wouldn't have bothered saying anything.

[Michael Ejercito]

So where did the Catholic church get its teachings about abortion, if not from the rabbis in the Nazareth synagogue?

[SRG]

I don't know - but note that nowhere in the NT is abortion prohibited. Indeed, it is not even mentioned. People occasionally say, "ah, but Jesus said 'do not murder'" but that is begging the question. You have to show that when Jesus talked of murder, he included abortion - and at the time abortion was not murder. That which is not mentioned is evidently not important.

This abstract is interesting: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178868/

I'm assuming arguendo that the biblical Jesus was historical and that the NT contains a reasonably accurate account of his teachings. Whether he was ever formally a rabbi is unclear. You go into any boxing gym and people are commonly greeted as "champ" even though they never won anything.

[Nige]

The Catholic Church got its teachings from misogyny.

[grb]

Nige : "The Catholic Church got its teachings from misogyny"

I'd suggest it's more rudimentary that that. Take almost any religion that has tribal roots and you usually find a compulsion to control the tribe's womenfolk hardwired into the religion's DNA.

This is particularly true of the woman's sexuality. Even more so when child bearing is involved. Tribes tend to take that stuff very seriously. You can launder the tribal roots of a religion over two thousand years, yet some trace of that old compulsion remains.

[Nige]

I'm not even sure it's about controlling the women, as such. It's about controlling the children. Women are just... tools.

[grb]

Michael Ejercito : So where did the Catholic church get its teachings about abortion, if not from the rabbis in the Nazareth synagogue?

You act like there's been one Catholic position on abortion throughout history. Abortion after ensoulment was typically wrong, but there were a million definitions at which point a soul enters the fetus. For the first sixteen centuries of the church, the common Catholic position was much like our abandoned Roe: There was a point were the fetus acquires human standing (usually at "quickening") and ending a pregnancy after was "abortion" (therefore wrong) - but before wasn't.

That was the reasoning that had abortion commonly legal in the colonies and young states before & after the Revolutionary War.

[JasonT20]

That was the reasoning that had abortion commonly legal in the colonies and young states before & after the Revolutionary War.

This exposes the flawed reasoning in Dobbs even further.

The majority looked to history and tradition about whether a right to an abortion was understood, but didn't consider it being generally legal to be worth noting. The first laws against abortion seem to be decades after adoption of the Constitution, with it really starting to happen after the formation of the AMA in 1847, when male doctors wanted to make sure that they had the power to determine everything surrounding pregnancy and birth rather than female nurses and midwives.

[ReaderY]

The situation is a bit like that of Chaucer’s Chanticleer, or more precisely, like the omnipotent king in The Little Prince. The king commands the sun to rise and set at the time it wants to rise and set, and commands the Little Prince to do what he otherwise wants to do. He robes a decision made elsewhere in an aura of majesty. But he doesn’t actually have any affect on it.

There is nothing wrong with a religious rule that works this way. People are entitled to have what they were going to do anyway enthroned in robes of majesty and authority if they so believe. But a religious rule that has no actual affect on the relevant decision should also have no actual effect on the secular legal principles that apply to that decision.

[SRG]

If a woman doesn’t want an abortion, she is under no religious obligation can get one.

Except in Judaism that's not really true. If a Jew is ill and is told by their doctor that they need to eat or drink on Yom Kippur, it is a sin to fast.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/528963/jewish/What-is-the-procedure-for-one-who-must-eat-on-Yom-Kippur.htm

Likewise, if a woman's condition is such that her health would be impaired by not having an abortion, she is required to have one.

[ReaderY]

If I were the lawyer for the state, I would ask this question of whatever doctors and rabbis are called as expert witnesses:

“Suppose a woman came before you who had exactly the same symptoms, same nausea, depression, etc., but who nonetheless clearly expressed that she definitely and firmly wanted to have the child. Would you insist that she must nonetheless have an abortion under these circumstances?”

They may try to avoid answering the question. But if they are pressed, and they should be pressed, their answer will have to be “no.”

That’s the difference. Unless they answer “yes,” it’s simply not medical science driving the decision to have an abortion. And the cases where they would say “yes” are cases where the state already gives an exemption. They aren’t the cases the plaintiffs are suing over.

[ReaderY]

And I would ask the same thing of the plaintiffs themselves. If you had the identical symptoms but were certain in your heart that you definitely and firmly wanted to keep this child, do you beleive that your religion would nonetheless require you to abort it?

[SRG]

Any rabbi worth his salt would reply that he can advise the woman that Jewish law requires an abortion but he cannot compel her to have one.

[ReaderY]

The religious position these women are presenting is about normal pregnancies. They say that EVERY pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening condition, hence EVERY preegnancy justifies an abortion under Jewish law. There’s a passage in the Talmud that says that because pregancy is itself inherently potentially life-threatening, pregnancy enables women to override certain religious prohibitions. The original context included things like fast days and forbidden foods. If a pregnant woman craves it, she gets to eat pork on Yom Kippur. These plaintiffs are simply extending this well-established rule to abortions. Under this religious position, if a woman with a completely normal pregnancy craves an abortion, she gets it, under the same logic as the eat-on-fast-days rule. As I noted in an earlier post, there are well-known Orthodox rabbis who take this position.

But no rabbi would advise a woman with a completely normal pregnancy who wants children to have an abortion. The rule these plaintiffs are positing only applies if a woman “craves” an abortion. That is, only if she wants one. If she doesn’t want an abortion, nothing in these plaintiff’s position, or any Jewish position, compels a woman with a normal pregnancy to have one.

[David Nieporent]

This is all fascinating, but you understand that the RFRA (and/or 1A, as appropriate) does not enshrine the Talmud into law. It's what these women believe their religion requires, not what a rabbi or 100 rabbis say their religion requires, that's relevant.

[ReaderY]

This is what these women say they believe.

[Aunt Teefah]

"I think a baseline condition is that a claimant has to argue their religion REQUIRES them to do something that the state forbid, that it doesn’t leave it optional."

That may be, but so what? All the claimant has to do is say "my PERSONAL belief is that it is required." Courts have never inquired as to whether that personal belief actually comports with the claimed religious doctrine. Note that nothing in the Bible states that a business owner is required to make his corporation forego providing contraceptive insurance coverage to its employees.

[bernard11]

Right. As I understand it the courts rely on the individual's stated beliefs and do not inquire as to whether the beliefs comport with orthodox views of their professed religion.

Nothing in Christianity requires a football coach to pray at midfield, immediately after the game.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Will ReaderY address the "prayer meeting at the 50-yard-line" case?

[ReaderY]

Kennedy was decided under Smith, by analogy to Lukumi Bablo Aye.

Prayer, like sacrifice in Lukumi Bablo Aye, is an inherently religious act that has no secular equivalent. It can only be done for religious purposes. To prohibit it is specifically to prohibit religion as such. Prayer, and only prayer, was prohibited. When challenging a law specifically against prayer or specifically against sacrifice, the adherent doesn’t have to claim prayer or sacrifice is required. Prohibiting religious practices as such targets and suppresses religion. Government can’t do that even under Smith.

But a law against abortion doesn’t target a specifically religious act. Unlike the school district in Kennedy and the city in Lukumi Bablo Aye, the state of Indiana is not specifically targeting religion as such by its restrictions on abortion.

That makes this case unlike Lukumi Bablo Aye and Kennedy. Indiana’s abortion law easily survives Smith. It could only be challenged under pre-Smith law.

To get out of a law of general applicability under pre-Smith law, you indeed have to claim that your religion requires you to do it. Only a religious requirement triggers heightened scrutiny under pre-Smith law.

That’s the difference.

[ReaderY]

Let me add that the Indiana abortion law may well not survive the Alito interpretation of Smith. Under the Alito interpretation, if you make a medical exception but not a religious exception, you are discriminating against religion, thereby targeting it. That means Lumumi Bablo Aye applies, and the plaintiffs win, without having to show the existence of any religious requirement, just that they are engaging in a religious practice.

The Indiana abortion law does exactly that. It makes medical exceptions but not religious exceptions. So if Alito’s view of Smith prevails, I think the plaintiffs win here. Once an exception for something else is made, the pre-Smith religous-obligation condition becomes as irrelevant in dealing with ordinary laws as it was irrelevant for laws targeting religion in Lukumi Bablo Aye and Kennedy.

This means Alito’s interpretation of Smith turns what had been thought to be a shield for government into a sword for religious plaintiffs, greatly expanding religious liberty from pre-Smith standards.

I’ve regularly criticized the Alito interpretation of Smith in my comments on this blog, saying I think it goes way too far and opens up floodgates for people to do anything they want as long as they claim it has something to do with religion. I think this case illustrates some of the reasons why.

[David Nieporent]

Let me add that the Indiana abortion law may well not survive the Alito interpretation of Smith. Under the Alito interpretation, if you make a medical exception but not a religious exception, you are discriminating against religion, thereby targeting it.

Nope. It depends whether the exception is related to the purpose of the rule. (I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before, but I can't rule out the possibility it was someone else.) You need to re-read his FOP case. He distinguished between a medical exemption which was not consistent with the purpose of the underlying rule, and an undercover exemption, which was.

And he analogized it in Smith to the prescription drug exception, which did not undermine the underlying rule.

[ReaderY]

At the time Kennedy was decided, I had characterized it as another “don’t do stupid things” decision. All the school district had to do was to formulate their rule in general, religion-neutral terms - “no unauthorized personnel on the athletic field,” for example, rather “no teachers praying on the athletic field” - and they could have won easily.

They would have won under Smith since it’s a rule of general applicability. And they would have won under pre-Smith as well. Coach Kennedy had no specific religious requirement to pray at that specific time and place, and a requirement to pray daily or similar could be easily accommodated with ordinary break time or by taking time from his lunch. He would have no right to pray on work time or to get extra breaks if he could use existing ordinary break time.

As I see it, all the Kennedy case really says is that government has to be careful to formulate its rules in religion-neutral terms. It can do that pretty easily. For this reason, I don’t see it as a big or important case so far as its practical consequences are concerned. If government simply avoids doing stupid things, it can win future cases like this straightforwardly.

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing is, they typically don't bother because they actually DO have animus towards religion much of the time, and don't even feel bad about having it, so they don't see the need to conceal it. They think, doesn't everybody?

Like Colorado in the Masterpiece Bakery case, they effectively admitted to having animus. Why? Because they thought it was proper to, so didn't see the point in concealing it!

My theory of what is going on here is that the internet has created bubbles where people with fairly outlier views are only exposed to like minded people, and they get to thinking their views aren't outlier views, that they're general consensus views. And then act like it, and get outraged when they don't get treated like everybody agrees with them.

[ReaderY]

Consider a religion whose only precept is “Do what thou wilt.” Could an adherent get out of each and every single and sundry law in the universe that’s not nailed down by a compelling interest on grounds that anything that I will, my religion requires that I do it?

Suppose that really is, as you say, the adherent’s personal belief. Their personally belief really is, as you say, that that is required.

I don’t think courts would or should buy it. It’s not what’s meant by a religious “requirement” for Religion Clause purposes.

This religion isn’t really any different. It’s a sort of get-out-of-obligations-free card focused specifically on pregnant women. But that more limited focus doesn’t really matter to the constitutional analysis. This religion lets pregnant women effectively “do what thou wilt.” It says that which they will, they are required to do.

Although it’s specific and narrow, it no more meets the constitutional definition of religious “requirement” than my hypothetical general case where it’s the religion’s only precept and applies to everyone and everything.

[Aunt Teefah]

"It’s a sort of get-out-of-obligations-free card"

I agree that that's exactly what RFRA has become (not sure about the Religion Clauses). All that's required under that law is that the claimant have a "sincere belief" - there is no requirement that the belief be grounded in any established religious tradition. So someone who sincerely believes "do what thou wilt" (and plenty of people do) can at least get their foot in the door. To be sure, that just means that the law in question is subject to strict scrutiny, not that the claimant automatically wins, so presumably laws against murder, rape, etc. are safe. But what about environmental protection laws, OSHA regulations, the minimum wage? Under existing RFRA precedent, an unscrupulous business could potentially subject every regulation affecting it to strict scrutiny. I think it poses a real challenge to the legitimacy of religious exercise challenges.

[bernard11]

And yet, in many cases, the so-called exemption is more imaginary than real.

[bernard11]

If a woman doesn’t want an abortion, she is under no religious obligation can get one. That fact, I think, is critical, decisive, to the First Amendment analysis. It means the state law can work at the level of the woman’s will, before her personal decision reaches the religion and leads to religious consequences. So far as the religion is concerned, whether she wants an abortion or not is completely up to her. Accordingly secular law, by making it illegal for her to have an abortion, is entitled to change the calculaus of what she personally wants. This means that there is no actual religious conflict, and hence no Free Exercise claim.

That argument would apply to any religious practice that the state wishes to regulate unless it is explicitly mandated by the individual's religion.

[ReaderY]

That’s precisely the case. Unless it’s specifically mandated by the individual’s religion, there is no Free Exercise Clause basis, pre- or post-Smith, for claiming a religious exemption.

And it indeed applies to any religious practice the state wishes to regulate. The Establishment Clause would also apply if the state seeks to regulate religious practices as such, as occurred in the attempt to regulate sacrifices struck down in Church of Lukumi Bablo Aye. Abortion laws, however, are laws of general applicability.

[ReaderY]

Let me correct that. As I note above, Lukumi Bablo Aye relaxed the requirement for laws that specifically target religion, thought to be a rather narrow and rare category of laws.

But Alito has changed all that. Alito may have never met a law that he didn’t conclude targets religion. If he’s honest about applying his interpretation neutrally, I think he’d conclude that the Indiana abortion law also targets religion under his approach. That means I think the plaintiffs win under his interpretation, with no need to show that their religious beliefs are actually in the nature of a “requirement.”

I disagree with the Alito interpretation of Smith, which hasn’t commanded a majority of the court, at least not yet.

[JasonT20]

I think a baseline condition is that a claimant has to argue their religion REQUIRES them to do something that the state forbid, that it doesn’t leave it optional.

I would simply counter that belief in a religion is itself optional. Thus if the law presents someone with the requirement of violating their religious beliefs to follow the law, why not choose different religious beliefs?

[ReaderY]

You believe religion is optional. But that’s just your own religious belief. The Religion Clauses exist to keep people like you from imposing it on others.

After all, all belief is optional, isn’t it? You don’t have to believe that there’s such a thing as “the law,” for example. You can equally well argue that all talk of “the law” “requiring” anything is just a fairy tale if you want. “The law,” countries, governments, civilizatikns, etc., only exist becasue people believe in them. If nobody believed in them, they wouldn’t exist. They’re all entirely optional.

[JasonT20]

You believe religion is optional.

I don’t see how it could be otherwise. If religious beliefs are not imposed upon someone by an authority, then that person has chosen to be subject to those religious rules.

The Religion Clauses exist to keep people like you from imposing it on others.

I have no desire to impose religious beliefs on anyone. I do expect each individual to follow the laws that all other people have to follow.

Replying to your edit:

“The law,” countries, governments, civilizatikns, etc., only exist becasue people believe in them. If nobody believed in them, they wouldn’t exist. They’re all entirely optional.

That's an absurd counter. There are clear consequences to violating the law, and it is just as clear that legislatures wouldn't pass laws if "nobody believed in them". Each religion in a free country has no authority with that kind of power to issue consequences if someone chooses not to believe in it.

[ReaderY]

There’s a great many people who died a cheerful death burning alive at the stake greatly preferring the consequences of defying your so-called “authority” to the consequences of defying God. Your disagreement with them and your personal preference for heeding your so-called “authority”’s short-term consequences is strictly your own religious belief, nothing more. If one can can give cowardice the dignity of being called a “belief.”

[JasonT20]

Again, you're going to absurd lengths to avoid addressing what I'm actually saying. Here, you are using extreme examples from centuries ago rather than anything within living memory in Western democratic countries.

I am specifically talking about this modern world of liberal democracies where people are not threatened with severe punishment or death simply for holding beliefs that the government does not like. We are only talking about a person's ability to argue that their religious beliefs mean that they should avoid having to follow laws that everyone else is expected to follow. (Where such laws are passed by legislative majorities and would easily hold up to constitutional questions other than for the religious claims.)

You are also weirdly confused about what constitutes a religious belief. When I suggest that people should be expected to follow the law (or to challenge the law in court if they think it violates their rights), that is not a religious belief by any stretch of the imagination.

[ReaderY]

Your “world” is a limited and narrow one. Frankly, if you’ve paid any attention to the news this past century, you’d be aware most people and places on this planet today don’t live in it.

If you say some of the things you are saying in certain places, say the Taliban or the Islamic Republic or the Guardian of Mecca or any number of other regimes, the authorities will behead you. If you are self-consistent, you will admit that means your beliefs aren’t real, have no reality, the minute you step into their territory. They exist only in and relative to certain narrow times and places, a “world,” where your current beliefs happen to be sufficiently shared. If that world disappears, your beliefs go with it. They don’t, as you say above, have any existence outside it. If only authorities who impose physical consequences are real, then in that world only authorities who behead are real, and only they warrant obedience. You’d conform and share their beliefs if you were there. Admit it.

[JasonT20]

Your “world” is a limited and narrow one. Frankly, if you’ve paid any attention to the news this past century, you’d be aware most people and places on this planet today don’t live in it.

I'm just staying on topic. Your original post was about a First Amendment claim by Jewish plaintiffs. Talking about oppressive theocratic regimes in the present or past is not relevant. Belief in a particular religion or any religion at all is optional in the U.S. and that is what matters for this discussion.

If you say some of the things you are saying in certain places, say the Taliban or the Islamic Republic or the Guardian of Mecca or any number of other regimes, the authorities will behead you. If you are self-consistent, you will admit that means your beliefs aren’t real, have no reality, the minute you step into their territory.

My belief that I would have a right to think what I want and believe what I want in regards to religion might not be respected in those places by those with authority, but they would still be real in the sense that I would continue to believe them. I don't know why you are even using the word "real" here. I don't think I've ever said that a person's religious beliefs are not "real" in that sense. The question is whether they should get to avoid following the law, here in the U.S., based only on their desire coming about because of their religious beliefs.

It is in this sense that I would actually put religious beliefs as being equal to an individual's philosophical or other personal ideas about morality or anything else. I don't get to avoid following the law just because I have a philosophical opposition to it, no matter how well reasoned or based in objective fact my opposition might be. So why should religion be an excuse? This is what bugs me about all of this. These religious claims would privilege religious belief over all other ways of thinking. Pretty much the only opinion of Scalia's that I agree with was in Smith where he denied that the Free Exercise Clause requires strict scrutiny when an individual claims that following a generally applicable law would violate their religion and thus they shouldn't have to follow it. Allowing people to become "a law unto themselves" with religious claims that could simply be a mask for their true motives is foolish.

[Don Nico]

Jason,
Your reply simply reduces your claim to a tautology by dismissing out of hand any regime that does not conform to your original claim. It is just another ipse dixit

[JasonT20]

You're going to need to explain why you think any of that applies to what I've written, because I just don't see it.

[not guilty]

I doubt that burning alive, under any circumstances, constitutes "a cheerful death." The hyperbole here is unpersuasive.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Choose reason. Every time.

Choose reason. Every time. Especially over sacred ignorance, dogmatic intolerance, and childish superstition.

Choose reason. Every time. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for ignorance, superstition, gullibility, backwardness, and bigotry. By adulthood -- this includes ostensible adulthood, even in the most desolate, poorly educated backwater one might consider -- it is no excuse.

Choose reason. Every time. And education, modernity, inclusiveness, freedom, science, and progress. Avoid superstition, ignorance, backwardness, bigotry, dogma, insularity, and pining for "good old days" that never existed. Not 75 years ago. Not 175 years ago. Not 2,000 years ago, except in fairy tales suitable solely for young children and especially credulous adolescents.

Choose reason. Every time. Recognize that competent adults neither accept nor advance supernatural or superstitious arguments in reasoned debate among adults, particularly in the contexts of education and public affairs.

Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.

Or, at least, please try.

Thank you.

[Theendoftheleft]

You lie about choosing and prioritizing reason, AIDS. You regularly defy basic logic here on this blog and you cloak yourself in a superficial, hypocritical ideology. When confronted with your own irrational, fallacious, and hypocritical propositions and commitments you NEVER revise your views, try to educate yourself, or improve. You are a bullshitting moron through and through.

Your superficial ethico-political ideology isn't progressive either. REASON DEMONSTRATES that's it's an evolutionarily inferior meme, one whose implications (again) YOU YOURSELF don't even believe!

Here's what your side in your domestic culture war just did.
https://www.thefp.com/p/trans-activists-killed-my-scientific-paper

You and your lot are yourselves an existential threat to science, to academic freedom, and to a functional free society. You don't have reason-based, science-grounded social re-engineering skills, and you're demographically imploding anyway (ALL WHILST alienating the entire world -- in a remarkable display of your inability to effectively and deftly wield power).

Kill yourself, AIDS. Don't make your American betters do it for you. Choose reason, AIDS: the world will be a much better place with you dead.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There’s a great many people who died a cheerful death burning alive at the stake greatly preferring the consequences of defying your so-called “authority” to the consequences of defying God.

Childish, superstitious, deluded fucking idiots, every one.

[Theendoftheleft]

You should import millions of such people into your country annually, call doing so ‘inclusive’ and a celebration of diversity, all whilst making it abundantly clear to them that your real aim is to destroy their faiths and cultures and to use them as pawns in your grandiose social re-engineering program.

Your IRRATIONAL CULT is stupider and weaker than their respective ones, AIDS. You fucking moron.

Kill your grandkids, AIDS, before killing yourself.

[Randal]

We don't want to destroy their faiths and cultures. That's France.

I'm starting to realize that you don't know what multiculturalism even is.

[Theendoftheleft]

You haven’t realized anything. I live in a multicultural state, one that’s more stable, peaceful, and successful than yours.

AIDS, moreover, does want to destroy their faiths and cultures. (So too does your government.) He regularly calls for the eradication and delegitimization of religion as ‘superstitious nonsense’. To him, they are inferior belief systems subscribed to by children. This, whilst simultaneously bemoaning Islamophobia — a faith he is on the record as nonetheless detesting and wishing to eradicate.

Wake up, Randal. The entire world, from the left to right, from the secular to the religious, doesn’t believe your American liberal bullshit anymore. The game is nearly over and you are losing.

[Randal]

I live in a multicultural state, one that’s more stable, peaceful, and successful than yours.

Yet which you're too ashamed of to name.

Still haven't figured out which bit of American culture you accidentally referenced the other day? Proof that even you lap up American media. Why, if you find it so triggering? What're you even doing here on an American legal blog? You're awfully obsessed with us for someone who thinks we're all illegitimate lame-ohs.

[Theendoftheleft]

Yes, it must be due to shame. No other credible explanation is possible. And I’ll certainly be Randaled into giving you the info with a cheap trick about my feeling ‘ashamed’ too.

Have you ever left the USA? You do understand that most of the world consciously consumes American media, yeah? We need to know what the current hegemon is doing. That doesn’t constitute endorsement by any stretch of the imagination. Sociologically, it’s also interesting to study your regime’s media propaganda.

Why are you asking me about my presence here? It’s you who is vehemently opposed to this blog’s content. Shouldn’t you be asking yourself why you troll here?

More importantly, why don’t you ask AIDS (aka Rev Arthur) why he supports a duplicitous authoritarian scheme, one that is alienating America’s allies, pushing the Islamic world towards China, is avowedly authoritarian, and is tearing your country apart?

Since you decided to take an impoverished communist totalitarian regime and make it one of the wealthiest and most powerful of all time (all whilst gutting your industrial base and middle class), it would be very helpful if you fuckwits could get your act together; this cold war needs to last a while if the West is to have even a chance in hell, and you seem to be cracking under the pressure.

Perhaps you can start to improve things by impeaching the non-compos mentis, criminal, Fenian degenerate in the White House? Perhaps stop ramming your identity politics down your fellow countrymen’s, and the world’s, throats? Also stop with the authoritarian crap altogether. Your own people don’t want to join your military anymore. Don’t you WANT them to do so?

It’s not that America’s hegemonic reign is particularly good, just, or wise. It’s that Chinese overlordship for the next five hundred years or more is a rather bleak prospect. Get your fucking act together.

Oh, and I obviously couldn't give a fuck about the reference you have in mind.

[David Nieporent]

You haven’t realized anything. I live in a multicultural state, one that’s more stable, peaceful, and successful than yours.

Russia might be multicultural, if reluctantly so, but it's certainly not any of those other things.

[Randal]

I’m a verb! I’ve always wanted to be a verb.

It’s you who is vehemently opposed to this blog’s content.

Anyway, since you asked, I’m not vehemently opposed to this blog’s content. With the (notable) exceptions of Blackman and Bernstein, I’m basically in line with the posts’ positions. I think it’s become a little clickbaity over the years… but what hasn’t?

Most of the commentariat consists of silly right-wing conspiracists, so yeah they’re fun to troll, but that’s more of a side gig. That wouldn’t keep me here by itself. There’s still enough interesting discussion to make it worthwhile. (Also, I’ve noticed the pendulum swinging leftward over the last year or so. I feel like the VC comment section may have moved past peak reactionary.)

I’m into your movie idea about the rest of the world studiously examining American media, not out of enjoyment but to “sociologically study” us and keep an eye on what we’re up to. I love it. Very American political thriller actually.

It was a Game of Thrones reference. Of course, you were totes just watching it as a sociological study. “In a world… with no more Democrats… global liberty reigns. The End of the Left! Coming soon to a theater near you.”

[Randal]

Russia might be multicultural, if reluctantly so, but it’s certainly not any of those other things.

I was gonna guess Russia! It makes sense that a Russian would be particularly worried about China.

Don’t you worry your little foreign head about China. America’s got it under control. For one thing, their population is in severe decline. They just got overtaken by India. (India’s population is heading into decline as well, but not for another decade or so.)

Second, China’s completely dependent on the US dollar. You may have heard noises about some new global reserve currency gonna replace the dollar. It’s nonsense. It can’t be the Yuan, or anything linked to it, without destroying the Chinese economy. (One of the major policies propping it up is that its currency can’t easily leave the country. No way to have a reserve currency that way.) Anyway, the reason the dollar is the world’s reserve currency is that we’re also the world’s consumers. Every other country strives to have positive net exports as a way to bring in wealth. We’re the only country comfortable with extremely net-negative exports. It warps our labor market and it’s the reason we’re in extreme debt, but it also stabilizes the world economy. Someone’s gotta buy all your crap! That sends dollars out into the world. What can you do with those dollars other than buy our debt? Without sacrificing your own trade balance, nothing.

No other currency can replace the dollar unless its backers are willing to run the same sort of wildly negative trade imbalance that we do… otherwise the currency will just flow back into its issuing countries. What’re they gonna do, print a bunch of money and hand it out all across the globe? (China actually tried a version of that with Belt ‘n Road… it sort of worked, but not really.)

[Theendoftheleft]

Nieporent keeps calling me Russian because, like many Americans, he’s still too hindered by fear of accusations of racism to call me Chinese. I could post here criticizing America’s new-found authoritarian tendencies all day long, and he’d still insist I’m pro-Russia, all the while being blissfully unaware that he’s himself just a useful idiot for plutocratic oligarchy.

Most American media is trash. You just cannot do film, literature, theatre, or art well — at all. It’s really quite poor and dumb. Hence, it’s mostly to be dismissed. Again, though, it’s interesting to note, sociologically, how every single piece has been repurposed for your identity politics ends. Every fucking narrative, every fucking cast. It’s mindless. Everyone, around the globe, notes that ‘diversity’ for American media programs is entirely unrepresentative of the world’s make up. Hell, it’s wholly unrepresentative of America’s present makeup too. And it’s not akin to a political thriller; it’s a tragedy that your country has become openly authoritarian, nakedly propagandizing your desperate ‘inclusive’ identity politics. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Russia was already worried about China. The Siberia situation has been known for two decades. That’s why your efforts in Ukraine, and with so-called ‘Russia-gate’, to vilify Russia for hacking Clinton’s servers and showing the world how she was a crook (and how your CIA and FBI are corrupt), whilst sticking your nose into Ukraine for no good reason, will turn out to be a monumental mistake. You took a country with every reason to fear Chinese demographic invasion, one with a massive economy and a large military and nuclear arsenal, and you pushed it into China’s arms. The Russians are pieces of shit, but America’s mistake was colossus. NO ONE in the rest of the West wanted this. The hope with Trump’s presidency was that, although Russia would never be a great ally, let alone a friend, the shared concerns regarding China show why it’d be better to have Russia on our side than on Team China.

You fucked this up. Big time. And it will cost us, the West, dearly. All to defend your criminal of a former presidential candidate (Clinton, not the other ones) and for your military industrial complex to spend money in Ukraine.

Dollar hegemony status is a function of its tie to oil and the world’s energy supply, not American consumption. The Islamic world is leaning pro-China, no matter what the American media say presently. The Chinese can literally put millions of Muslims into ‘education’ camps, perhaps forcing them to eat pork and drink alcohol, and yet basically the ENTIRE Muslim world blocks UN resolutions against China. The Islamic world is also tied of American imperialism, and they’re not stupid: they know what you really think of Islam.

Regarding India, as far as I’m concerned, Modi is the real leader of the free world. (He’s certainly compos mentis, at least.) Have been there several times. However, the place is backwards and it won’t catch up to China economically or militarily. The West should have started investing there en masse 30 years ago. Further, one-belt-one-road means India’s going to basically be surrounded by regimes which are pro-China. (Obama set up many bases in some of the Stans in anticipation of this new cold war. Let’s see if America can keep them there.)

Africa, most of South America, and much of Asia will also go over to Team China. You probably don’t understand the extent to which they hate you.

America’s also imploding demographically, and the idea that you are capable of maintaining your trade deficit indefinitely is ludicrous. Furthermore, you’re alienating your middle and working classes, rendering them poorer, and dumping millions of illegals into the country — whose children will be poor too. You’re basically committing suicide. That, let alone your cultural fragmentation (because you aren’t real, credible social engineers) leading to social and political unrest that you have no ability to quell. (You also have this weird obsession with trying to normalize Islam now, even though it’s an imperialist apartheid cult, founded by a warmongering illiterate pedophile. There’s only so long you’re going to be able to whitewash this for the American people. Europe is going to continue to go further right because of this.)

The dollar is the reserve currency because of oil, not American consumption. A basket of currencies can thus replace the dollar. Even a couple of currencies backed up by all the Gulf’s oil can change things too. (Hence your assumption that dollar replacement must be predicated upon A GIVEN nation being able to run a comparable trade imbalance is false.) The belt-and-road idea seems to be working just fine too, making partner states indebted to China.

We have seen the high water mark of American power. The ‘right-wing’ conspirators are 100% correct about your regime too and its authoritarian abuses of power. (It’s disgusting how liberals and nevertrumpers try to rationalize these things.) What you might not know is that the real left, globally, basically agrees with the right about this. You can verify that by reading any of the main English-speaking leftists sites (Jacobin, Znet, etc), let alone the global ones.

[Randal]

The magical basket of currencies! It didn't work with the Euro. You should try to understand why that experiment failed.

Dollar hegemony status is a function of its tie to oil and the world’s energy supply, not American consumption.

You've got the causality backwards. Everyone's got dollars because of American consumption (and US monetary policy), so they use those dollars in international markets like the energy market.

What's your theory for how any other currency will become sufficiently internationally liquid?

[David Nieporent]

Africa, most of South America, and much of Asia will also go over to Team China. You probably don’t understand the extent to which they hate you.

Why do you think that being paid by Vladimir Putin to make up divisive propaganda about the United States gives you some sort of insight into what literally any other person on the planet — let alone the entire 7.7 billion people who aren't Americans — think?

[Theendoftheleft]

Gott im himmel, I know exactly why the Euro is a scam.

Your mere assertions about the basis of the dollar's status, ie, being predicated upon American consumption, or about causality running the other way, don't make them so. (I also know how the Eurodollar market came about, and it had nothing to do with American consumption.) Hence, there's no need to answer your query for a theory of that sort, since an alternative reserve needn't be predicated upon your stated basis, and it needn't even be a singular currency becoming just as liquid.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘Why do you think that being paid by Vladimir Putin to make up divisive propaganda about the United States gives you some sort of insight into what literally any other person on the planet — let alone the entire 7.7 billion people who aren’t Americans — think?’

Let’s take your claim seriously for a moment, Nieporent. I don’t live in America. What are the odds that I can find out what ‘literally any other person on the planet’ thinks about any given matter — whether I was in a politician’s employ or not? Why would that need to be a function of, or impacted by, the source of one’s salary?

HOW fucking retarded are you, Nieporent? Are YOU being paid by Putin to make Americans look like morons on this blog, to discredit them, you rat?

Further, do you think the Ruskies would pay to propagandize on THIS PARTICULAR blog when Somin the Tankie already works here for free? Where they already have anti-American trolls like The Rev Arthur (aka AIDS) who openly, explicitly, and repeatedly calls for population replacement in America, for authoritarian, comprehensive social re-engineering projects, and the destruction of the American constitutional order as it stood for some 200 years? WHY would the Russians pay for something those useful idiots already do for free?

Thanks for the laugh.

[Randal]

Can't wait for that magical currency basket! What do you think it'll be called? The Fascisto?

[David Nieporent]

Somin the Tankie

There are commenters here who think there is a vast conspiracy to turn kids transgender, that black people are about to rise up and kill all white people, and that Donald Trump was elected but all the evidence of it was destroyed. And yet, you have managed to top all of them for stupidity.

One could draw the political spectrum as a one dimensional line, a two dimensional graph, a three dimensional space, or an n-dimensional whatever. And in every single one of those conceptions, Prof. Somin would be exactly the opposite of a tankie. Either you are the stupidest fucking person who ever lived or the most mendacious. (Obviously you don't know what a tankie is, but the fact that you keep using the term anyway is what makes it so extraordinary.)

[Theendoftheleft]

I’ve topped them all? Not you, making imbecilic claims?

The Soviets, like the Jacobins and Socialist Zionists, undertook — without any real, empirically grounded and tested knowledge or skills — comprehensive social re-engineering projects, to ‘re-program’ the people’s forms of consciousness.

That’s what Somin wants for today’s America. He, like AIDS and yourself, does NOT want a spontaneous ordering of new social or moral norms arising out of dumping millions of people from different cultures into the US (or elsewhere). On the contrary, he thinks thought, speech, and conduct must be strictly controlled to be ‘inclusive’, etc. Freedom of conscience, association, and of thought are tossed out the window to the extent that they interfere with the project. (Abuses by the state in this regard are to be ignored, downplayed, or dismissed as conspiracy.) Deny that various cultures and norms are incongruent with America's or the West's generally? That too is to be dismissed as a mere function of 'phobia', and of 'ignorance'. That’s a paradigmatic tankie project.

Your failure to understand that is in part a function of your being a mindless ideologue who foolishly takes his political and ethical philosophy to be something more definite than the contingent, socially constructed norms and ideology that they are. Largely, though, it’s just because you’re a moron.

Is this you, Nieporent? https://images.app.goo.gl/7VL3hDhZaa4ByAJL6

Is that your wife? Don’t you think she looks SUSPICIOUSLY like Somin the Tankie (or is that just because of her morbid obesity)?

When you put your penis into your wife’s mouth, do you imagine that it’s Somin sucking you off? Is that why you’ve spent so many years here, writing inane stupid things? https://sls.gmu.edu/ilya-somin/

[David Nieporent]

The Soviets, like the Jacobins and Socialist Zionists, undertook — without any real, empirically grounded and tested knowledge or skills — comprehensive social re-engineering projects, to ‘re-program’ the people’s forms of consciousness.

That’s what Somin wants for today’s America. He, like AIDS and yourself, does NOT want a spontaneous ordering of new social or moral norms arising out of dumping millions of people from different cultures into the US (or elsewhere). On the contrary, he thinks thought, speech, and conduct must be strictly controlled to be ‘inclusive’, etc. Freedom of conscience, association, and of thought are tossed out the window to the extent that they interfere with the project. (Abuses by the state in this regard are to be ignored, downplayed, or dismissed as conspiracy.) Deny that various cultures and norms are incongruent with America’s or the West’s generally? That too is to be dismissed as a mere function of ‘phobia’, and of ‘ignorance’. That’s a paradigmatic tankie project.

Like I said: stupidest fucking person who ever lived. You neither know what a tankie is — hint: it's nothing at all like what you said, not even a little bit — nor do you know who Prof. Somin is, since you have described exactly the opposite of what he wants.

[Theendoftheleft]

Nieporent, you are a parochial, ignorant, uneducated ideologue.

The ‘liberals’ are no longer, and for a while haven’t been, liberal at all. They’re opposed to the individualism, tolerance of difference viewpoints, and agnosticism about the good life such that different viewpoints can live under one system of rights whilst tolerating each other that defined liberalism. Instead, the ‘liberals’, including libertarians, are now openly intolerant: you MUST believe these identity politics views, and about pluralism, or you are ignorant. You must be inclusive. You support language and thought policing. You cannot think mass immigration is a bad thing (that’s NECESSARILY ignorant, xenophobic, dangerous, etc).

The tankies of old wanted state ownership and control of the means of production and exchange. However, for them, that wasn’t enough: they believed that they needed to change the people’s entire form of consciousness: to purge bourgeois, capitalist, religious, patriarchal modes of thought and concepts. That’s WHY the disappeared millions of people, including many intellectuals. That’s why Pol Pot’s regime killed people with glasses and without calluses on their hands. Etc. Read too Koestler's Darkness at Noon, talking about the Soviet goal to have people use the word 'we' instead of 'I'.

Today, instead of even talking about the means of production, the New Left and the ‘liberals’ wish to socially re-engineer a new ‘more inclusive’ and ‘diverse’ America, one that will act and speak in the name of this new discourse, with new identity labels. It is about culture erasure in the name of making a new (post-ethnic, post-religious, post-white, post-Protestant) America. This involves considerable abuses of power by the government, media, academia, and other sub-state actors to police thought and language, to punish dissent (cancel culture, disruption, silencing, platform banning, etc) and to champion mass population migration. Change the demographic composition, police thought and speech, change the form of consciousness; that’s the project.

Somin is a cheerleader for this. That makes him a tankie.

NOW, I WILL ASK YOU AGAIN: Is this you and your wife? https://images.app.goo.gl/7VL3hDhZaa4ByAJL6

Don’t you think she looks SUSPICIOUSLY like Somin the Tankie, or is that just because of her morbid obesity? When you put your penis into your wife’s mouth, do you imagine that it’s Somin sucking you off? Is that why you’ve spent so many years here, writing inane stupid things? https://sls.gmu.edu/ilya-somin/

[Theendoftheleft]

.

[David Nieporent]

Somin is a cheerleader for this. That makes him a tankie.

You are retarded with a capital retarded. Even if you were right about any of the rest of what you said — and you're not — "tankie" is not a synonym of "communist" or "leftist." Tankies were originally people who supported Russian totalitarian aggression — the term came from those who cheered on the Russian tanks rolling into Hungary and Czechoslovakia — and has since been expanded to analogous supporters of Chinese oppression, including the Tiananmen Square massacre and the Uyghur genocide. People who either cheered these on, or apologized for them by blaming the U.S./the West for them. You know, like you're doing with Ukraine. In other words, simply being communist — which, once again, is 100% the opposite of Prof. Somin — did not remotely make one a tankie. Indeed, the word was coined by other communists to disparage the ones who supported Russian aggression. (And for a long time it was really a British word; in the U.S., they were usually just called the "Blame America First" crowd.)

And even if you were trying to call Prof. Somin a communist and just used the wrong word out of ignorance, none of that is in the same universe as correctly describing Prof. Somin. He does not want to "socially re-engineer"; he is not opposed to individualism; he does not support "language and thought policing." He does, of course, support immigration, because that is a classic liberal/libertarian position. But he does not waste any time condemning opponents of immigration as racist; he simply advocates for his position. And of course since you're Russian rather than American you don't understand that your "culture erasure" is crap; there is no "American culture." We're not an ethnostate like Russia (or, indeed, most of Europe.) Immigrants are part of our demographics and culture, not a corruption of it.

[grb]

Theendoftheleft : “NO ONE in the rest of the West wanted this…”

I don’t know if you’re a Russian bot (albeit a talkative one) or not, but you sure are ignorant. Sure, no one in the West wanted an invasion on the European continent. After all, there hadn’t been a major new war of conquest on European soil since 1939, when the Russians invaded Poland with their ally Hitler.

No one wanted that, which is why every major western head of state told Putin that an invasion wouldn’t be countenanced before the war began. The British, French, Germans, Poland and the Baltic States – everyone told him. Putin was warned repeatedly. But the man was just too frigg’n arrogant & stupid to hear. He actually thought the Germans would step back over natural gas. Wrong. The Germans had zero problem shutting down Nord Stream with whole armies moving across international borders in their neighborhood.

Putin actually thought the Europeans wouldn’t dare cut off Russian access to SWIFT. Wrong again; they didn’t hesitate. He actually thought neutral countries like the Finns, Swiss and Swedes would turn their backs. Wrong. Sweden and Finland joined NATO; Switzerland imposed harsh economic sanctions. He thought the “weak and decadent” West would avert their eyes. Instead NATO countries boosted their military spending and all contributed to Ukraine’s defense.

Since you’re a clown, Theendoftheleft, you missed all of this. In your cartoonish understanding, the U.S. arbitrarily decided to pick a fight (the reasons you list are shit-for-brains stupid) and the Europeans mindlessly followed along. Didn’t it ever occur to you (Russian bot or not) that the Europeans don’t like conquesting armies in their backyard ?!?

Just how stupid are you?

[Theendoftheleft]

Cartoonish understanding? America’s been meddling in Ukraine for DECADES. You had a written agreement with the Russkies that Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO. John Mearsheimer is correct and helpful for showing you America broke its promise, kept meddling there, and pushed Russia towards invasion. America ITSELF wouldn’t tolerate Chinese or Russian bases on the Mexican border, or in Cuba; yet it expects other countries would tolerate similar conditions on their borders?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

Notice also how Mearsheimer, in the last few minutes, backs down from stating the more global concerns, which is why the Global South isn’t on America’s side. (Russia wanted the Donbas and Crimea, and it didn’t want NATO bases in Ukraine. Europe understood this well; America didn’t give a shit.)

Notice, further, how you didn’t respond to MY point (‘NO ONE in the rest of the West wanted this…’). They didn’t. They themselves wouldn’t have antagonized, let alone started a proxy war, with Russia. This was entirely America’s doing. WHY IS AMERICA EVEN INVOLVED THERE? Why isn’t this the EU’s job, the EU’s responsibility? Do you actually think the larger member-states of the EU wanted NATO expanded to include Ukraine? Do you know anything about Europe??? You think we dramatically boosted our NATO spending!??!?! I live in a NATO-member state. Do you know how little we’ve actually done in that regard? Are you joking? Do you think we, or our neighbours, have actually put forth a real effort, other than to send a trifling sum in terms of money and a couple of dozen weapons? Get the fuck out of here, you ignoramus.

Also, the Russkies saw this coming years in advance. That’s why they started developing ways to making their economy less dependent upon the West and more involved with China, the ME, and ASIA years before they invaded Ukraine. Russia will probably shrink considerably, and perhaps collapse altogether; but that doesn’t mean it is mistaken to note that Russia ought not to have been antagonized in the name of ‘NATO’ expansionism, or to have been pushed into the Chinese’s arms. America fucked this up and it will cost us in this new struggle over global hegemony.

In that view, here’s another pressing question for you. WW2 ended in 1945. Why are there so many American military bases in East Asia. WHAT ARE YOU STILL DOING THERE? The answer is simple: global empire. American ‘interests’ there are global imperialist interests.

Are you one of these parochial Americans who’s never left the US? Have you spent much time in Western Europe? Who the fuck do you think actually agrees with your bullshit in Europe?

[David Nieporent]

You had a written agreement with the Russkies that Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO.

The technical term for this is a lie. And worse, it's a deliberate obfuscation because if there were such a "written agreement," which there wasn't and isn't, it wasn't violated because Ukraine didn't join NATO. (There was, however, a written agreement — the Budapest Memorandum — that Ukraine's territorial integrity would be respected, and your employer Russia violated it.)

They themselves wouldn’t have antagonized, let alone started a proxy war, with Russia. This was entirely America’s doing.

No, it was entirely Russia's doing. Russia invaded Ukraine. Completely without justification or provocation. (Imaginary hypotheticals about Mexico do not constitute justification or provocation.)

. (Russia wanted the Donbas and Crimea, and it didn’t want NATO bases in Ukraine. Europe understood this well; America didn’t give a shit.)

And I want a pony. What does that have to do with anything? I like how you treat "Russia wanted to annex parts of Ukraine" as something that it's wrong to oppose.

Why isn’t this the EU’s job, the EU’s responsibility?

Why would it be?

Do you actually think the larger member-states of the EU wanted NATO expanded to include Ukraine?

Why do you keep talking about this? NATO didn't expand to include Ukraine, and it could not have done so if any members of NATO — not sure why you're confusing the EU and NATO — opposed it, as expansion requires unanimous consent.

Do you know anything about Europe??? You think we dramatically boosted our NATO spending!??!?! I live in a NATO-member state.

Do you think anyone believes that?

Do you know how little we’ve actually done in that regard? Are you joking? Do you think we, or our neighbours, have actually put forth a real effort, other than to send a trifling sum in terms of money and a couple of dozen weapons?

Yes. Get the fuck out of here, you ignoramus.

[Theendoftheleft]

Holy shit, Nieporent, ALL you can do is lie! What kind of libertarian are you? Look how pathetic and trite your answers are. You’re a stooge for empire.

Do you think your mere say-so means anything to me?

I’m not Russian, you uneducated idiot. LEARN about the real world for once in your fucking life.

And admit that your wife looks like Somin.

[grb]

Theendoftheleft : “America’s been meddling in Ukraine for DECADES”

So many words. So little truth. Let me help you out some:

(1) America’s been meddling in Ukraine exactly how? It’s no secret the United States encouraged and welcomed the Orange Revolution, but sorry, the estimated 500,000 protesters in in Kyiv’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti weren’t U.S. stooges, the product of U.S. interference, or dependent on any U.S. support. Not even your buffoonish fantasies can make that so. The people of Ukraine simply wanted to turn west rather than be vassal to Putin’s mafia-style regime. Who can blame them?

2. Quote : “You had a written agreement….(etc)” No we didn’t. You’re already peddling lies. It is alleged there was an informal promise back in the late-80s to the now-defunct U.S.S.R, but that was never a formal treaty (to a government that no longer exists).

3. Quote : “…pushed Russia towards invasion…” How? There was zero chance Ukraine would be accepted into NATO pre-invasion and very little chance even now. Look at the trouble inoffensive little Sweden had getting a unanimous vote. It wouldn’t even need to be a Putin-bootlicker like Orban or contrarian like Erdogan. I don’t think any government of France – Left or Right – would have voted for Ukrainian membership pre-invasion and I seriously doubt they will now.

4. The reason Putin invaded was spelled out in a psuedo-historic text ghost-written “by” him months before the invasion: It said Ukraine doesn’t really exist and must accept direction from the mother state of Russia. He’s peddled the same bullshit multiple times since. Add to that, Putin’s masturbatory dreams of being a modern Peter the Great – an cringe-worth embarrassment also put into print multiple times before and after the invasion. Add to that, Putin’s bright shiny new “improved” army he was eager to show off. (Too bad he had go and leave it out in the rain, eh?)

5. Mearsheimer is a great favorite of the tin-foil-hat crowd far-Left and far-Right. Given I’m neither, I find his arguments trite.

6. Quote : “This was entirely America’s doing” You’re such a clown! Newsflash : America didn’t invade Ukraine; Russia did. Of course the weather may be different on whatever planet you reside.

7. Quote : “Why isn’t this the EU’s job…. (ranting)” You’re so ignorant! The numbers I grabbed are from February, so are slightly dated : The U.S. has provided 77bn in military and economic aid; the Europens, 55bn. So claiming the EU is on a free ride is just more imbecility from your endless supply. By GDP, their contribution is actually greater.

8. Quote : “Also, the Russkies saw this coming years in advance” For once a true statement! Too bad your admitting Putin’s Big Adventure was planned long ago disproves much of your other rants. Advice : If you’re going to spew a lonnnggg trail of bullshit, take a sec and make sure the head matches the tail. Also, all of Putin’s efforts to build a budget nest egg and insulate Russia’s economy was predicated of a swift war. Yet another blunder.

9. Quote : “Are you one of these parochial Americans who’s never left the US?” Hell, my ex-wife was East German. It’s like one of those 50s movies : I Married a Communist (though she wasn’t). So, yeah, I’ve been to Berlin six or seven times, Amsterdam, London and Sweden. In fact, it seems like I know more than you (right, no surprise there, eh?) : A December Eurobarometer poll found 74 percent of EU citizens approved of the bloc’s support for Ukraine. Obviously, the support was greatest in countries that actually have experience with Russia, but still….

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/24/has-the-ukraine-war-strengthened-europe-or-weakened-it

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an interesting post I found (originally posted on Reddit by AnarchistEva).
https://groups.google.com/g/Sci.Med.Cardiology/c/TgXh-1GxxiA

The older generation still do not understand how lockdowns have
disadvantaged an entire generation of young people and its so
disappointing to witness.
Serious Discussion
Lockdowns happened 3 years old but we can no longer underestimate nor
ignore the impact it has on young people as the effects are now present.
Here in the UK a TV presenter called Nana Akua bravely shared about how
lockdowns harmed her childs development. Her child went from being very
confident to being socially anxious and withdrawn. Nana speaks about her
powerless as mother being unable to help her son. Other parents have
also sharing about how their children's emotional and mental well-being
declined during the lockdowns. It is now even coming out that in the UK
GP records and medical data show a sharp rise in teenage girls in the UK
developing eating disorders and self-harming during the Covid pandemic.

[Nige]

I'd be furious about Johnson's lockdown partying if I were them, too.

[JasonT20]

The term "lockdown" has become one of those words that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. The truth is that COVID mitigation efforts varied widely between different countries and within countries as well. That was especially true in the U.S. with many states taking substantially different paths. To further complicate the analysis, it mattered a great deal how people actually behaved and not just how governments acted.

To give an anecdote close to my home, the "Free State of Florida" gave school districts some options. The district I teach in, like many larger ones, received a waiver to allow parents to choose whether to send their kids to school or attend virtually from home. Teachers like me ran their classes for those at home and those present in the class simultaneously. I don't know the final data district-wide or by grade level, but in my high school classes generally less than half attended in person. To emphasize the point, this was entirely voluntary on the part of parents.

It is important to understand what COVID mitigation efforts worked at reducing the spread of the disease and which didn't and which may have helped but came at too great a cost. It will take a great deal of rigorous scientific research to do. In the meantime, people with political axes to grind will undoubtedly cherry pick from that research to support whatever they want to believe if they even bother to try and justify their position with facts at all.

[Michael Ejercito]

What mitigation measures existed during the Hong Kong flu pandemic?

[JasonT20]

A quick read seems to show that there wasn't much in the way of mitigation other than efforts to increase vaccination among vulnerable groups. Given the relatively low effectiveness of influenza vaccines compared to vaccines for things like measles or polio, the decision was always to focus on higher risk populations with the limited supply of what could be produced quickly.

The case fatality rate also does not seem to have been much higher than is typical for the flu. (~0.1-0.2%) It did make a lot of people sick, and excess deaths are estimated to have been 1-4 million worldwide. But it is still well short of the impact of COVID. (Estimated excess deaths associated with COVID-19 exceed 10 million worldwide in 2020 and 2021.) Had COVID had the same kind of risk that the 1968 H3N2 flu had, then the same response would have been appropriate. (It should be noted that 1957-1958 saw an outbreak of H2N2 Asian flu, and people may have still had some resistance to the H3N2, which was descended from it. SARS-CoV2 was entirely new to the human population in 2019.)

Like I said, there is a lot of data to sort through, and scientists from around the world will be analyzing this data and trying to draw conclusions about what mitigation was appropriate for years to come. There is probably still debate about what could have been done better in the 1968 pandemic.

[Don Nico]

Jason,
Oxford's Our World of Data carefully define a stringency index (SI) to describe the collection of non-pharmaceutical interventions that nations took to control the degree of infection and the subsequent morbidity due to SARS-COV-2.
If one plots the SI versus hospitalizations, ICU admissions, mortality, or even infections, one sees NO correlations on a national basis throughout the world.

Don't ask for a citation. Do the statistics for yourself.

[JasonT20]

If one plots the SI versus hospitalizations, ICU admissions, mortality, or even infections, one sees NO correlations on a national basis throughout the world.

I don't see any way of doing that easily. The data that site presents on the stringency index varies with time for each country, so plotting it versus outcomes would first require either picking a point in time or doing some kind of average over time. I'll need a lot more instruction on how to "do the statistics for [myself]" in order to check what you are claiming.

Secondly, I doubt the usefulness of that as an exercise in any case. The index is itself an average of 9 different mitigation efforts across the whole of each country. It also notes that it uses the most restrictive policy within each country when it varies between regions, such as between different states in the U.S. For instance, I looked at its data for masks in particular and noted that it lists the U.S. as having masks required outside the home at all times up until April 2021, when I can't think of a single city that was that strict with its mask policies even in spring of 2020. (I know many tried to require masks in all public places when around other people, even outdoors, but that's a different category in their data.)

As I said, each mitigation effort will need to be studied separately to see what worked and what didn't. And each will need to be studied at a local level by how it was actually applied and followed by people, not just by what the government policies were, especially across countries with large populations.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and people use words sloppily. The U.S. never had "lockdowns." (Not for individuals, anyway; classes of businesses actually were shut down by law.)

[Randal]

Sometimes if you mix all the data into one “index” you just get brown. These stats look brown to me.

There are so many local factors that go into virulence (and so much variability about what “lockdown” even means) that I think the best we can do is look at specific cases.

Take China. The lockdowns there were obviously extremely effective for a long time… until Omicron finally overwhelmed them.

Big, cold northern cities obviously benefitted from their lockdowns. Look at New York. The data there is clear.

Less dense, sunny regions? Maybe not so much.

I don’t think we’re ever going to get to a yes/no answer on whether “the lockdowns,” as some sort of universal concept, were effective. Some were, some weren’t.

[Ed Grinberg]

Democrats went all in on draconian "lockdowns," school closures, masking requirements, "social distancing," etc., etc. (Remember cops arresting people for going to the beach?) Yet they don't seem to have paid any electoral price for it. Maybe people don't mind politicians ruining their (and their kids') lives ...

[Nige]

That's because mitigation efforts worked and civic-minded people appreciated they were doing their part in a national emergency.

[Michael Ejercito]

So people were more civic minded than from 2009-2010?

Or 1968 to 1970?

[Nige]

What does that even mean?

[Michael Ejercito]

There were pandemics during those years.

[Nige]

And?

[OtisAH]

Of course the “lockdowns,” such as they were, all happened under the Turnip administration. But in the interest of comity, we’ll just shorthand that down to “the Democrats did it.”

[VinniUSMC]

Of course the “lockdowns,” such as they were, all happened under the Turnip administration. But in the interest of comity, we’ll just shorthand that down to “the Democrats did it.”

No shorthand needed. Trump didn't order lockdowns. Most red states didn't order lockdowns. Lefty shit totalitarians loved them some lockdowns though. So yes, the Democrats did it.

[Nelson]

I live in Delaware, a pretty "blue" state, albiet moderately so. We never had any lockdowns. We could always go anywhere we wanted. No one ever tried to limit people's movement. I'm not sure where these "lockdowns" were, but they weren't around me.

[Life of Brian]

I live in Delaware, a pretty “blue” state, albiet moderately so. We never had any lockdowns. We could always go anywhere we wanted. No one ever tried to limit people’s movement.

Welcome to your state. Quoting from the initial 3/23/20 executive order: "All non-essential businesses are closed. All Delawareans are instructed to stay in their homes, except when they are going to and from their place of business if it's permitted to stay open. This shelter-in-place order will remain in effect until May 15."

[David Nieporent]

Maybe don't rely on wikipedia, linking to a local tv station, for your information? Here's the actual shelter-in-place executive order. And there's the relevant language, which does not actually require people to stay in their homes. This is not China welding people's doors shut:

7. Leaving your home or residence for Essential Activities is permitted. Individuals may only leave their residence to carry out Essential Activities or Essential Travel. For purposes of this Order, Essential Activities are defined as follows:

a. To engage in activities or perform tasks essential to their health and safety, or to the health and safety of their family or household members (including, but not limited to, pets), such as, by way of example only and without limitation, obtaining medical supplies or medication, visiting a health care professional, or obtaining supplies they need to work from home.
b. To obtain necessary services or supplies for themselves and their family or household members, or to deliver those services or supplies to others, such as, food supplies, dry goods, pet supplies and any other household consumer products, and products necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of residences.
c. To engage in outdoor activity, providing the individuals comply with Social Distancing Requirements, as defined below, such as, by way of example and without limitation, walking, running, biking, or fishing. Individuals may go to public parks and open outdoor recreation areas (except beaches, which may be used only as described in my Third Modification of the Declaration of a State of Emergency).
d. To perform work permitted by the Fourth Modification of the Declaration of a State of Emergency.
e. To care for a family member, friend, or pet in another household, and to transport family members, friends, pets, or livestock as allowed by this Order.

8. Leaving your home or residence for Essential Travel is permitted. For the purposes of this Order, Essential Travel includes travel for any of the purposes set forth in this paragraph. Individuals engaged in any Essential Travel must comply with all Social Distancing Requirements.

a. Any travel related to the provision of or access to Essential Activities or Minimum Basic Operations.
b. Travel to care for elderly persons, minors, dependents, persons with disabilities, other vulnerable persons, pets, or livestock.
c. Travel to or from educational institutions for purposes of receiving materials for distance learning, for receiving meals, and for receiving any other related services.
d. Travel to return to a place of residence in Delaware from outside the jurisdiction.
e. Travel required or authorized by a law enforcement officer or court order.
f. Travel required for non-residents to return to their place of residence outside the State.

There's more, but I quoted the most relevant parts of the order.

[Nelson]

Yup. There wasn't much to do since a lot of things were closed, but most of the daily domestic stuff (grocery shopping, going to Home Depot, going to work. Going on a run or bike ride, etc.) went on as usual. I ran a swim team through the pandemic with roughly 300 athletes at two different facilities. We all wore masks, distanced, and sanatized the shit out of everything, but we weren't "locked down" by any reasonable definition.

[Life of Brian]

Fascinating that your eyes managed to glaze over paragraph 1 of the XO, which states exactly the same degree of restriction I mentioned:

1. Shelter in place of residence. Effective March 24, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. E.D.T., with the exceptions as outlined below, all individuals currently living within the State of Delaware are ordered to shelter in place, at their home or place of residence except as permitted in this Fifth Modification of the Declaration of a State of Emergency.

Nice try, and thanks for playing.

This is not China welding people’s doors shut

I'll take red herrings for $800, Alex.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is, dumb people try to do gotchas by skimming until they find words that fit their preconceptions, and then shouting triumphantly and stopping their reading. So you saw "shelter in place at their home" and stopped reading there. But the next words are "except as permitted". And then it explains all the many exceptions that are permitted, including the ones I quoted to you.

In other words, people were not locked down at all. They were free to go out of their homes. They could shop (though of course many businesses were closed), work, travel, or do outdoor activity.

[Life of Brian]

You just don't know when to quit when you get caught with your hand squarely in the cookie jar, do you?

If people were "not locked down at all" as you claim, then the "ordered to shelter in place" language in paragraph 1 would have had precisely zero operative meaning and wouldn't have been written into the XO at all.

Yet for some really weird reason, it was. And there are plenty of contemporaneous discussions about Delaware's shelter-in-place order just to confirm that.

You're getting almost as bad with the shameless gaslighting as Sarc.

[David Nieporent]

I’m beginning to think that you don’t know what the words “locked down” and “except” mean.

Brian's mom: "You may not go out with your friends this weekend until you've done your homework and your chores."
Brian: "I've been grounded!!!!!! See — my mom said I couldn't go out with my friends this weekend!!!!!!"

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think our son would have suffered pretty badly, too, if we hadn't done a lot of home schooling, and hadn't made a point of ignoring the lock downs in terms of socializing with friends. I think it still set him back a bit relative to where he'd have been without them.

The biggest damage locally, I think, was that the schools largely didn't revert to normal teaching methods when the lockdowns ended. A lot of the teachers liked remote learning so much they just kept it up, with the students on their laptops in the classroom.

[JasonT20]

A lot of the teachers liked remote learning so much they just kept it up, with the students on their laptops in the classroom.

I don't know what teachers you are talking about. None of my colleagues, nor I, "liked" remote learning. And I after two decades of seeing efforts to put more of the curriculum online, I am over that as well. Computers are a great resource for information (if students are taught how to distinguish between reliable sources of information and those that aren't and how to use it as a source of information rather than to copy and paste from the internet into their work). Computers can also provide tools for performing tasks that would take a lot longer to do by hand. But they are mostly a distraction in the classroom that takes their focus away from what they should be doing in the moment.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can we get an Amen!

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually discussed this with the principle; She wasn't terribly happy about it, and it wasn't all the teachers, but some kind of state guidance was getting in the way of her putting a stop to it.

[David Nieporent]

The princiPAL is your pal.

[Randal]

Other parents have also sharing about how their children’s emotional and mental well-being declined during the lockdowns.

You mean during the pandemic? Everyone's emotional well-being declined during the pandemic. There was sickness and death, with no end in sight.

Who thinks it would've been better to send kids to school with teachers out sick for weeks, some dying, everyone scared... and if you don't think that's what would've happened, try asking a Vegas dealer about it. They had to work through most of the pandemic and they all have stories of dead coworkers and horrible sickness.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we mean during the lockdowns. Most of the damage from Covid was actually caused by the response to it, not the virus itself. And that's especially true for K-12 aged children, who were the least at risk group.

"Who thinks it would’ve been better to send kids to school with teachers out sick for weeks,"

Me, me! I think that. Because, you know, teachers actually ordinarily get sick from time to time, and the fraction of the population actually sick from Covid was never very high, so almost all the actual disruptions came from the policy responses.

[Randal]

the fraction of the population actually sick from Covid was never very high

Because we had lockdowns, you nit!

You're like... stupid fire department! All the damage was done by the water, not the fire!

[Brett Bellmore]

No, not because we had lockdowns, you nit, because all the research after the fact has shown that the lockdowns didn't do didly squat once you control for obvious confounding variables.

[Randal]

That's laughable. I'm sure the lockdowns weren't perfectly calibrated (e.g. I could imagine they went on longer than necessary), but it's ridiculous to claim they had no effect.

[Nige]

'once you control for obvious confounding variables.'

There are those ever-tinier zeno-arguments again.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett could be correct in the end. But as of yet the research is equivocal. And will be for a while.

He’s cherry picking, wishcasting, and of course adding some of his own confident analysis.

[JasonT20]

... try asking a Vegas dealer about it. They had to work through most of the pandemic and they all have stories of dead coworkers and horrible sickness.

I remember hearing about food processing facilities (like meat packing plants) that had a lot of workers getting sick with some dying. Knowing that people that didn't have options to work from home, couldn't afford to be without a job, worked in health care, had to use public transportation to get to work, worked in places without adequate ventilation, and/or had jobs where no kind of social distancing was possible makes it hard for me to sympathize with people that have spent the last 3 years complaining about how they weren't allowed to go to church or restaurants during the "lockdowns".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative
blog has operated for

THREE (3)

days without publishing a vile racial slur
and has published racial slurs on at least

NINETEEN (19)

different occasions (that's 19 different
discussions, not 19 racial slurs; many of
those discussions featured multiple slurs)
during 2023 (so far).

This assessment does not address
the incessant stream of homophobic,
misogynist, antisemitic, Islamophobic,
and xenophobic slurs and other bigoted
content offered daily at this conservative
blog, which is operated by members of
the Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

[Frank Drackman]

Not "Kind" or "Gentle" Coach!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Knowledge Is Good
-- Emil Faber, our founder

Bigotry Is Bad
-- not Volokh Conspiracy fans

[Theendoftheleft]

'Knowledge is good — except when it directly undermines the liberal-progressive ideology. Then it must be suppressed and drowned out by allegations of ‘bigotry’ and ‘ignorance’.

The Right Rev Arthur L Kirkland (aka AIDS)

[not guilty]

This may be of interest to those commenters who have excoriated Attorney General Merrick Garland and U.S. Attorney David Weiss of Delaware regarding Hunter Biden. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000189-403e-d0a8-a59b-dffe47490000

[Michael P]

So, Garland lied.

[jb]

LOL. Only if you think that there is some magic charging power that differs from the procedures that Weiss outlines in his letter.

Or let's put it this way: in order for Garland to be telling the truth, what power would Weiss need that he doesn't currently have?

[Mr. Bumble]

This is the typical semantics game that's been in Washington since at least the days of Bill Clinton.
Weiss is saying that he inquired about being designated as a "special attorney" rather than a "special counsel".

[jb]

Yes, I get that Weiss is trying to clarify his statements versus what Shapley is claiming. What I'm struggling with is Michael P's interpretation as to what this has to do with Garland's statements since Weiss seems pretty convinced he can charge people if he wants and he's even explaining how.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, FWIW Garland seems to have said that Weiss was free to bring charges in any jurisdiction but that does not seem to be the case unless he was granted special attorney status. Reportedly the US Attorneys in DC and California refused to act on Weiss' request.

[Sarcastr0]

Where did he say this any jurisdiction?

I just know the litigators here say that’s not how it works.

[David Nieporent]

Law relies on the fact that words have meaning. They are not "semantics."

[Michael P]

For Garland to not have lied, Weiss would need the actual delegation of authority -- a written instrument, from before Garland's statement to Congress saying that Weiss had "full authority" to bring any charges in any federal district -- that named him as a special attorney or special counsel.

A pinky-swear promise to give him authority in the future if he does other things first is not an actual grant of authority.

[not guilty]

What false statement do you claim that Garland made? When? To whom? What facts evince any intent to deceive?

[Michael P]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/politics/merrick-garland-senate-judiciary-committee-testimony/index.html

Garland reiterated that the US Attorney in Delaware, David C. Weiss, has “full authority” to carry out the investigation and to bring in another jurisdiction if necessary.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/attorney-general-denies-whistleblower-claims-interference-hunter-biden-100342941

“He was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own,” Garland said. “I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him for bringing a prosecution given that he has that authority.”

What evidence evinces an intent by Garland to deceive? His lips are moving, for one. Or do you think that Garland didn't know the basics of the special attorney / special counsel rules, such that he confused a promise to grant authority with actually granting it?

[not guilty]

You have linked, not to any transcript of what Garland testified before a tribunal, but instead to reporters’ characterizations of what Garland said. Hearsay, IOW.

The portion of the CNN report that purports to quote Garland’s statements about Weiss reads:

“I have pledged not to interfere with that investigation, and I have carried through on my pledge,” Garland said, responding to questions from Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley on the probe.

Garland reiterated that the US Attorney in Delaware, David C. Weiss, has “full authority” to carry out the investigation and to bring in another jurisdiction if necessary. Garland said Weiss “is not to be denied anything that he needs.”

The portion of the ABC report that purports to quote Garland’s statements reads:

“He was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own,” Garland said. “I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him for bringing a prosecution given that he has that authority.”

None of that conflicts with what David Weiss wrote in his letter today, which states in relevant part:

To clarify an apparent misperception and to avoid future confusion, I wish to make one point clear: in this case, I have not requested Special Counsel designation pursuant to 28 CFR § 600 et seq. Rather, I had discussions with Departmental officials regarding potential appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 515, which would have allowed me to file charges in a district outside my own without the partnership of the local U.S. Attorney. I was assured that I would be granted this authority if it proved necessary. And this assurance came months before the October 7, 2022, meeting referenced throughout the whistleblowers’ allegations. In this case, I’ve followed the process outlined in my June 30 letter and have never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.

Merrick Garland never said that David Weiss was ever given carte blanche to override the Fifth And Sixth Amendment guaranties that a criminal prosecution can be brought only by a grand jury and only in the federal district where the offense is alleged to have occurred. The expansive construction you seem to attach to the phrase “full authority”, however, would contemplate just that.

The more reasonable construction of what Garland meant by “full authority” is that Weiss was free to make his own decision as to what charges, if any, to present to a grand jury, and neither Garland nor anyone else at DOJ would interfere with his prosecutorial judgment in that regard. If Weiss needed to proceed in a district other than his own, all he needed to do was ask — which he did not do. All that is entirely consistent with having “full authority” to carry out the investigation and to bring in another jurisdiction if necessary.

Instead of a common sense reading of what was said, you are making distinctions finer than frog hair. Did you perchance agree with Bill Clinton when he cavilled, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's extremely important to note that Weiss had the authority to request - and be granted - Special Counsel status to pursue the charges in California and Oklahoma (I think it was) for which he requested the cooperation of the other jurisdictions.

That they did not pursue those charges, and that he did not then get himself appointed as Special Counsel, does not refute that he had the authority to have done so should he have so wanted.

Special Counsel status brings with it more cost to the taxpayers. Part of prosecutorial discretion involves the figurative (and sometimes literal) cost-benefit analysis.

There's no "gotcha" here outside of the minds of people who simply want it to be so.

[Michael P]

There is an actual mechanism to grant the authority to make the decisions that Garland said Weiss had authority to make. As I said earlier, it does not involve promises or requests. It involves an actual written instrument of appointment.

You fabulists can lie all you want, but you are just tarring yourself with Garland's leftover brush.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Weiss chose not to.

You're angry because you don't like his decision.

[Michael P]

Weiss never said he chose not to. Regardless, Garland's statements would only be true if he actually granted Weiss that authority. In writing, because that's what the law requires for the grant of authority to be valid.

So, again, Garland lied.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, there doesn’t need to be an additional grant of authority for Garland and Weiss to be right. Hence nothing in writing.

No one agrees with you.
This is a trial balloon already withering in the right wing vine. All part of the conspiracy to you, I guess.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I commend you on your unwillingness to understand a simple concept.

Yes, Weiss would've needed to request Special Counsel status from Garland. Garland was ready and willing to give it.

That Weiss chose not to request it does not change those facts. Weiss doesn't have to tell you everything he chose not to do.

I've even given you a reason why Weiss might've chosen not to request it, and you keep ignoring reality and screaming about your latest conspiracy.

[Michael P]

I linked to them quoting exactly what Garland said. I even quoted exactly what Garland said. So did you. Garland claimed that Weiss actually had the authority that Weiss now says Weiss never requested.

Your bullshit rationalization about some contorted "construction of what Garland meant" does not change the fact that Weiss never actually had the authority that Garland said he had. You even rewrite what Garland said, from "complete authority to make all decisions" to "'full authority' to carry out the investigation".

[not guilty]

Uh, “complete authority to make all decisions” comes word for word from the CNN report you linked to. “‘[F]ull authority’ to carry out the investigation” comes word for word from the ABC report you linked to.

I didn't change anything. You are the one grasping at straws for a convoluted construction of what Garland's referring to Weiss's having "full authority" means.

[Michael P]

Dude, you were literally just complaining about relying on what s reporter wrote rather than the exact words that Garland spoke. Now you're relying on a reporter's words to limit what Garland said. At least try to be consistent.

A US Attorney has the authority to bring charges before a grand jury in his own district. The only way to grant authority in other districts is through specific procedures naming them either a special counsel or special attorney, and the Weiss letter is clear that neither of those actually happened. Weiss never had the authority that Garland claimed he had.

[Randal]

M. P, you're just inventing a meaning for "full authority" and then saying Garland lied.

"Full authority" means "all of the authority." It doesn't mean "ability to do whatever he wants without regard for process."

In other words, Garland was saying that Weiss's decisionmaking would not be interfered with. Not that he was somehow now the Attorney Supremeo of the United States with unfettered access to the full power of the DoJ surpassing even that of Garland himself.

[not guilty]

Where do you get that Garland lied, Michael P?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where do you get that Garland lied, Michael P?

From shitty sources, such as Newsmax, FreeRepublic, RedState, FoxNation, Instapundit, Stormfront, the Volokh Conspiracy, One America, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Fox News, the Heritage Foundation, etc.

[David Nieporent]

So, Garland lied.

I can see how an illiterate person would come to that conclusion.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an article of interest.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/07/10/ethics-dunces-sociology-dunces-law-enforcement-dunces-whatever-the-california-reparations-task-force/

Try a mind experiment: if California’s ridiculous and racist Reparations Task Force wanted to exacerbate racial tensions as much as humanly possible while also making African-Americans seem as toxic to society as a KKK Grand Dragon could imagine in a fever dream, what would it be doing differently that it is doing right now? We know that the group is already recommending that millions of dollars in taxpayer reparations for slavery be handed out to the state’s blacks, even though slavery never existed in the Golden State. But wait, there’s more!

Item: The task force report calls on the state legislature to end child support debt for black deadbeat dads. The 1,100-page document noted that the state’s black residents represent a larger percentage of those who owe child support debt than their proportion of the state’s population, as if we didn’t know that already.

Obviously it is just one more bit of sinister systemic racism designed to keep black men down! The task force is either willfully ignorant or certain that anything they write, no matter how absurd, is assured of setting woke heads a-nodding like those plastic German Shepherds people used to have in the rear windows of their cars.

About 70% of all black births are to unmarried women (the white percentage is about 30%). Of course there are a disproportionate number of black fathers who aren’t paying their share for the children they created; there are a disproportionate number of unwed black fathers.This is a cultural pathogen in the black community, one that African-American leadership has negligently ignored to the detriment of women, children, families, the black community and American society itself. Yet the task force’s solution is for the California legislature “to terminate all interest accrued on back child support, requiring only the payment of the principal owed.”

That is not the way to encourage black men who can’t, as the saying goes, “keep it in their pants” to stop creating children they can’t support or have no intention of raising. It is not a formula for imbuing the black culture with ethical values, either. It is a guaranteed formula for creating a strong and justified backlash from whites. Compensatory discrimination is, sooner or later, bound to reach a tipping point that inflames race relations to a dangerous extent: I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred already. In addition, the “over-incarceration” logical fallacy (“The justice system is racist because such a disproportionate number of blacks commit crimes that get them jailed, so the solution is not to enforce those laws…”) needs to be obliterated, not extended to other destructive black community tendencies. How can a group pursue “antiracism” while trying to benefit from the unethical conduct that contributes to negative black stereotypes? Well, the task force is how, and the effort requires near complete self-delusion.

[Nige]

'while also making African-Americans seem as toxic to society as a KKK Grand Dragon could imagine in a fever dream,'

A KKK Grand Dragon would be driven to apoplexies of fury and hate by this, claiming it confirmed every revolting racist claim he ever made about black people, and you think that this should be persuasive TO his point of view.

[Michael P]

Why is the Glorious Leader surrounded by so many lying, dog-faced pony soldiers? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-reportedly-fumes-spews-curses-staff-private-no-one-is-safe

[Estragon]

Does anyone here think the term “freedmen” is a “formally race-neutral category”?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1199/232463/20220801160903406_Harvard%20UNC%20Final%20PDF.pdfA.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I do.

As you already know, the 14th amendment was written by Congress to apply to the states, and NOT Congress, because they wrote it themselves, no better reason. So they didn't have to be careful how they worded statutes. Sometimes they were careful to use race neutral language, sometimes they didn't bother.

But that doesn't tell us what the 14th amendment means, because, again, it was written to not apply to Congress.

[Martinned]

Was it though?

neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

[Estragon]

I am not shocked by this at all, but it’s asinine.

The definition of “freedman” is “emancipated slave”

But this is a race neutral category? You and Thomas are clowns

[Sarcastr0]

It’s formalist twaddle, but the right is into hiding behind formalism to rationalize their inconsistencies.

It’s also not required. Black schools were set up without any proviso about freedmen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here is something you might not read about at a bigot-appeasing, right-wing blog with a vanishing academic veneer.

Republican attorneys general from a handful of America's worst-educated, least-productive, most bigoted states have written to target, whining about gay and satanic merchandise, mumbling about parental rights and the safety of children, and hinting they might take action concerning Target's ostensibly negligent conduct, breaches of fiduciary duty, and affronts to the sensibilities of gape-jawed conservatives in our most desolate and superstition-addled backwaters.

I assume the bigots at the Volokh Conspiracy cheer the work of these Federalist Society assholes.

[Michael Ejercito]

Alvin Bragg was too effective in teaching them.

[Cheerio]

LOL. Most (though not all) of the VC bloggers are respected scholars, even among many academics who disagree with the libertarian bent. Only partisan hacks try to pretend otherwise.

And they probably don't cover what you want them to because it tends to be stuff the rest of the media is obsessing about anyway.

Regarding "bigotry" -- you consistently exhibit at least as much of it as you decry in others. Fortunately, truly "mainstream" Americans reject your left-wing bigotry just as much as right-wing bigotry. Those are the "betters" who recognize that pluralism and tolerance is the only way forward in the long run.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

even among many academics who disagree with the libertarian bent

The Volokh Conspirators are conservatives, not libertarians. Don't let that "we're often libertarian" or "libertarianish" advertising fool you.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's codefendant in Florida, Walt Nauta, today filed a motion asking the District Court to continue the pretrial CIPA conference scheduled for July 14, 2023. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.63.0.pdf

It does not appear from the docket sheet that Nauta's Save America PAC-paid lawyer, Stanley Woodward, has filed a motion to appear pro hac vice, and Nauta was dilatory in obtaining Florida licensed counsel to represent him. In that regard he is the architect of his own misfortune.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nauta seems a dope -- uneducated, unaccomplished, a toady -- in far enough over his head to be crushed like that Titanic-chasing submersible.

If he cooperates with prosecutors I hope he is treated leniently. If he does not, I hope he spends years in prison.

[Estragon]

Why would this be “misfortune”?

The strategy is clearly to drag things out past the next election in hopes of winning and being able to self-pardon and pardon Nauta

[not guilty]

This case is presently set for jury trial to begin on August 14, 2023. (Docket Entry 28, entered June 20, 2023.) Nauta has been dilatory in obtaining counsel. Suppose the District Court declines to continue that trial date -- no one can presume what the judge will do.

Nauta's local counsel is a novice in federal court matters. His D.C. lawyer has not yet sought admission pro hac vice. To have to go to trial in five weeks could turn into a train wreck.

[Estragon]

Giver her past rulings I would expect Judge Cannon to accommodate these time-buying tactics. Nauta has already asked that the pre trial CIPA conference be postponed indefinitely.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.63.0.pdf

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon's rulings in the prior civil action suggest she is in the tank for Trump. In this criminal action, though, she is constrained by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. Nauta has not moved to continue the trial date. (DOJ has moved to continue the trial date, but only to December 11, 2023.)

It is risky to presuppose what a judge will do. Nauta and his attorneys are playing with fire. If the present trial setting holds -- which is the default setting -- I surmise that DOJ would be there on August 14 with bells on, ready to begin jury selection. I seriously doubt that either defendant would be ready.

[not guilty]

The DOJ response in opposition to Nauta's motion is here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.64.0.pdf

Footnote 1 indicates that, contrary to what Nauta's motion represents, Mr. Woodward told DOJ counsel that he would not oppose the government's motion requesting that the Court set a
hearing under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

Nauta's counsel runs the risk that the District Court will perceive that they are trifling with the Court. That is an uncomfortable posture for any lawyer to be in.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Taking a month to engage a lawyer is not the path of a serious, effective person. A reasonable court would sense disrespect and disingenuous tactics.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Cluster bombs are illegal war crimes, and Biden even asserted so. Yet he is sending them to Ukraine.

If Zelensky uses them, are both Biden and Zelensky war criminals? Or just Zelensky?

[jb]

Our bi-weekly dose of Russian propaganda from BCD!

I find no evidence that Biden has ever said that the use of cluster munitions are inherently a war crime. This article seems like a pretty good summary of his history with them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/07/bidens-complicated-history-cluster-munitions/

(tl;dr: he hates them less than a lot of people)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fUWCFxzxe-w

[jb]

That looked a lot like Jen Psaki to me. I guess I'll be generous and assume you meant "Biden administration" versus Biden although most people can understand the difference between those two things.

You'll note that the question was specifically about the use of cluster munitions on civilians, not the use of the munitions per se. I think many more people would agree that's a war crime, but probably only by whoever actually did it.

[Longtobefree]

Not exactly a war crime. Just a treaty to not use them.

Which the USA did not sign.

"Taking effect on 1 August 2010, the Convention on Cluster Munitions bans the stockpiling, use and transfer of virtually all existing cluster bombs and provides for the clearing up of unexploded munitions. It had been signed by 108 countries, of which 38 had ratified it by the affected date, but many of the world's major military powers including the United States, Russia, Brazil and China are not signatories to the treaty."

[not guilty]

The United Nations Convention of Cluster Munitions, which was adopted in 2008 and went into force in 2010, “prohibits all use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions.” Nearly 125 nations have ratified and signed onto the convention. Russia and the United States are not among them. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/cluster-bombs-ukraine-biden-congress/#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20Convention%20of,and%20signed%20onto%20the%20convention. Neither is Ukraine.

[Nige]

Putin has been using them all along FWIW.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot falling back on his military experience (Watching "War Games")

[Nige]

edgebot being a baby

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Cluster bombs are illegal war crimes, and Biden even asserted so.

How does an ostensibly academic legal blog attract so many fans who are disingenuous and ignorant?

By design, of course.

Carry on, clingers. Better Americans will let you know how far, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

How did we get a President who is so disingenuous and ignorant is the better question.

[Frank Drackman]

He "won" a (rigged) erection

[StellaLink_the dog]

Bumbleberry asks: “How did we get a President who is so disingenuous and ignorant is the better question.”

He ran against the most hated woman in American politics.

[Mr. Bumble]

The one you voted for?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"The one you voted for?"

A typically silly question, the answer to which would add no information relevant to your question about how we ended up with Donald Trump as president. I will offer that in 2016 I was 65 and had never voted for a Democrat in my life. Had someone like me voted for Clinton, an historically awful and undeserving candidate, it would have been in concert with a sizeable plurality of voters. So, in addition to the fact that Clinton was such a terrible candidate we can add the vicissitudes wrought by the electoral college system although Trump did receive fewer electoral votes than did Biden in 2020.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Diary,

Why are there so many people who don't believe the things I believe!?!? Harumph! Someone should do something about letting people only believe approved beliefs!

Sincerely,
Arthur the Wise

[David Nieporent]

Cluster bombs are not any kind of crime; perhaps someone who understood the English language would say that the use of cluster bombs is a war crime. ("illegal … crime" is redundant). However, someone who understood law would not say that, because it is false.

(Of course, the targeting of civilians with cluster bombs would be a war crime, but the targeting of civilians with any lethal weapons would be a war crime.)

[Michael Ejercito]

An article worth reading.

https://archive.li/qN2FN

What’s particularly striking about the Economist/YouGov poll is how Black Americans responded. Indeed, more of them actually approved of the decision (more than 4 in 10) than disapproved (fewer than 4 in 10). And more Black Americans “strongly” approved (31 percent) than disapproved (26 percent).

[Frank Drackman]

Well as Sleepy Joe told Charlemagne Da God in 2020
"I'll tell you, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for Affirmative Action, then you ain't black!! (man!)."
Sad to say, alot of Afro Amurican Physicians get mistaken for Housekeeping Staff (hey, when everyone wears Scrubs, is that your Interventional Cardiologist or Lafonda with fresh linen??) and you know who's most suspicious of their qualifications??? Other Afro-Amuricans (Oh, and the Asians, they think all round eyes are idiots)

Frank

[Estragon]

“Mr. Giuliani’s argument that he did not have time fully to investigate his case before filing it is singularly unimpressive. He sought to upend the presidential election but never had evidence to support that effort. Surely Rule 3.1 required more.”

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23868906/2023-07-07-issuance-letter-and-hearing-committee-report-giuliani.pdf

They have recommended disbarment.

[Frank Drackman]

Kinder/Gentler Frank here,
Work alot of overnight shifts (in the Medical Field we call this "Call" (Dean at my Med School who of course was a PhD, asked my class what this was)
And well into the 21st Century no ones figured out how to have Emergency C-sections/Bowel Obstructions/Trauma Surgery during the day,
but at 4am, finishing up a case, no better tune than the Commodores "Night Shift" (Commodores from Tuskegee Alabama, a mere hop, skip, and a jump from my Almer Mater)
If you're still pissed off after that tune, that's a you problem.
and then you follow up it up with Lionel Richie's "All Night Long"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrkEDe6Ljqs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqAvFx3NxUM

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Yep. Gonna be some sweet sounds, comin' down...

That's about as smooth as it comes.

...on the night shift

I'm trying to hold off from taking my turn on the night shift...I don't know much about it, but I hope those guys are waiting there...that'd be sweeet.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

SDNY just charged a Biden whistleblower with espionage and treason.

I'm sure the bootlickers will start saying how good this is.

[Frank Drackman]

Not kind or gentle
and when "Nightshift" came out in the 1980's AlGore hadn't invented the Internets, and I wondered who the "Jackie" in the song was (I figured out the "Marvin"/"what's goin on")
always thought it was a chick.. (No, not Jackie Kennedy)

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

Do you have a link?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/SDNYnews/status/1678514463052296192

[not guilty]

Your Twitter link does not indicate that the defendant is a whistleblower. What do you base that on?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://nypost.com/2023/07/06/media-silence-on-gal-lufts-biden-revelations-speaks-volumes/

Why are you people always so freaking low-information?

Stop watching MSNBC dude.

[not guilty]

Let’s see now. Mr. Luft claims to have given information about Hunter Biden to the FBI in Brussels in 2019, which information was not acted upon. The Attorney General at that time was William Barr, who had no reason to coddle Hunter Biden.

Luft is now facing a false statement charge, which he claims arises out of that meeting in Brussels. (The indictment likely remains under seal, in that the accused is not yet in custody.)

Does that seem fishy?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Does it seem fishy that all of a sudden when his allegations hit the mainstream he gets charged with these felonies to you?

It doesn't seem fishy to me that Bill Barr protects the Deep State, he ordered his people to NOT investigate 2020 election fraud.

[Nige]

Not as fishy as Luft should have seemed to Jim Jordan.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why was (the now released) indictment filed under seal and is undated?
Is that "fishy"?

[not guilty]

An indictment is ordinarily sealed until the accused is in custody.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And undated and releases before he is in custody?

[grb]

It took an effort, but I found it!

“As alleged, Gal Luft, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen and co-head of a Maryland think tank, engaged in multiple, serious criminal schemes. He subverted foreign agent registration laws in the United States to seek to promote Chinese policies by acting through a former high-ranking U.S. Government official; he acted as a broker in deals for dangerous weapons and Iranian oil; and he told multiple lies about his crimes to law enforcement”

“Luft was initially arrested in Cyprus in February before skipping bail and going on the lam. He remains a fugitive”

Looks like you picked a real winner here, BravoCharlieDelta!

“The eight counts Luft faces are: conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act; conspiracy to violate the Arms Export Control Act; violation of the Arms Export Control Act (relating to Libya); violation of the Arms Export Control Act (relating to the United Arab Emirates); violation of the Arms Export Control Act (relating to Kenya); making false statements; conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; and an additional count of making false statements”

“Prosecutors said Luft brokered a deal for Chinese companies to sell weapons to countries including Libya, the United Arab Emirates and Kenya, despite lacking a license to do so as required by U.S. law”

“He is also accused of setting up meetings between Iranian officials and a Chinese energy company to discuss oil deals, despite U.S. sanctions on the Middle Eastern country”

“Lastly, Luft is accused of recruiting and paying a former high-ranking U.S. government official on behalf of principals based in China in 2016, without registering as a foreign agent as required by law. Prosecutors did not identify the former official, but said he was working as an adviser to the then president-elect Donald Trump at the time. Luft is accused of pushing the adviser to support policies favorable to China, including by drafting comments in the adviser’s name published in a Chinese newspaper”

Whatya wanna bet the Feds have this clown cold – even as our forlorn Right-types here pine away with fantasies of the Biden crime family (exposed!) another decade or three or four?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I know right? Prosecutor allegations are ALWAYS true!

And we can trust SDNY to be trustworthy and apolitical, like when they went after the people who found Ashley Biden's diary, or they spied on PV's privileged communications with their lawyers and gave them to the NYT!

So pure and ethical.

[grb]

I dunno, BCD. The charges above seem to have a ten-fold specificity over your “Biden Crime Family” moonshine. That’s a hint you’ll find upcoming developments highly unwelcome.

Your boy knew he was two steps from the hoosegow; the feds had already put him under the bright lights (see false statement charges above); so suddenly he morphs into “whistleblower”, makes wild charges after his arrest, and then skips bail. But that only because he “feared for his life” and “knew he couldn’t get a fair break”, right ?!?

Hey! Didn’t your faux “whistleblower” who peddled bullshit on Biden and Shokin also “fear for his life” and flee ?!? Of course his story was so stupid even a braindead child couldn’t buy it, so there’s that. Pretty low class of “whistleblowers” we have lately, eh?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You know what's weird.

That's the exact same company Hunter and Joe's brother worked for, yet the SDNY didn't charge them for FARA violations.

That's weird.

[David Nieporent]

Wait, you're telling me that two different people both … worked for the same company, and yet one was charged with a crime and one wasn't? Could it be that they did different things, one set of which were illegal and one set of which weren't?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

One coworker went to the FBI and blew the whistle on two other coworkers.

The FBI indicts the whistle-blower.

[David Nieporent]

That one person made accusations against someone else does not make him a "whistleblower."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He went to the FBI in reported the crimes in 2019. Four years later when his whistleblowing became public the SDNY indicted him.

What else do you think a whistleblower is? Here is an authoritative definition:

“On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing. ” see https://www.whistleblowers.org/what-is-a-whistleblower/

Do you see what happens when you wallow around in your deep deep ignorance? You don’t know shit about this but here you are playing in the big leagues.

Why do you do this? Do you enjoy looking stupid?

PS I enjoy making you look stupid

[Randal]

Are you spewing voltage again!

[David Nieporent]

He went to the FBI in reported the crimes in 2019. Four years later when his whistleblowing became public the SDNY indicted him.

1) Luft didn't go to the FBI at all. The government had arrested a bunch of his business partners, and then arranged a sit down with him to see what he had to say. (According to the indictment, a bunch of lies.)
2) It's not clear what, if anything, Luft told them about Hunter Biden in 2019. What we do know is that in 2019 Trump was still president and Barr was still AG. So whatever he might have told them, Barr didn't find it very compelling.
3) Luft was indicted before Comer etc. began beclowning themselves about Hunter Biden and before Luft released his public video making wild, evidence-free accusations about Biden.

So someone interested in accuracy would've said, "Four years later after he was indicted he started doing what dumbasses call 'whistleblowing' in an attempt to divert attention from himself."

[not guilty]

[duplicate comment deleted]

[Nige]

Yeah, like Republican allegations. Only difference is, Prosecuters have to produce actual evidence.

[David Nieporent]

And we can trust SDNY to be trustworthy and apolitical, like when they went after the people who found Ashley Biden’s diary,

You mean stole, and tried to sell.

or they spied on PV’s privileged communications with their lawyers and gave them to the NYT!

Never happened, as we've long established.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How did they steal it David? Did they break into her mansion and burglarize it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/politics/project-veritas-journalism-political-spying.html

Yeah dude, PV gave the NYTs those privileged documents. lol good one

[not guilty]

No, BCD, the defendant is not charged with espionage and treason. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/co-director-think-tank-indicted-acting-unregistered-foreign-agent-trafficking-arms-violating Where are you getting your information?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-pen-phone-and-stray-voltage/

CTRL+F "stray voltage"

Don't be so ignorant all the time. It's rude.

[not guilty]

Your link has nothing whatsoever to do with United States v. Gal Luft. Did you think I wouldn't click on it?

You claimed that the defendant is charged with espionage and treason. I haven't found the indictment, but I linked to DOJ Office of Public Affairs information showing you are full of shit. You replied with bupkis.

Why should readers here believe a word that you say, BCD?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ok you autistic pedant.

"This is the White House theory of "Stray Voltage." It is the brainchild of former White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe, whose methods loom large long after his departure. The theory goes like this: Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness."

Let me explain this, since you clearly are not capable of higher-order thinking.

I made a controversial claim that sparked attention. The attention provoked conversation. The conversation embed previously unknown information about the DOJ targeting Biden whistleblowers which is a marginalized idea for the bootlickers.

How the fuck did you practice law when you can't reason or think?

[Sarcastr0]

You shit your pants, but it was on purpose so it’s actually clever social engineering!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey you dumbfuck, this isn't the first time I've asserted "stray voltage".

I read the original tweet and made this post, you think I didn't read the charges?

Just because you're a two-brain-celled bootlicker, doesn't mean everyone else is.

[Nige]

Did the stray voltage set your pants on fire?

[Nige]

'controversial claim'

A lie. But in fairness now more people know what a clown show the Republicans are running.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : “I made a controversial claim that sparked attention”

In the movie The Big Short, there’s a scene where two scuzzy real estate types openly talk about widespread fraud to a group of potential investors. The head investor guy takes his associates aside and asks, “Why are they confessing to us?”

One of his guys answers, “They’re not confessing, they’re bragging”. The two real estate types were so hopelessly corrupt they didn’t even realize they were confessing. It never even occurred to them. Thus BCD, who gives us a crude lie and then brags about lying as a systematic strategy.

It’s interesting to compare his confession to my description of BravoCharlieDelta (addressed to him above) :

“Right-types (like you) want WWE-style spectacle, cartoon theatrics, and meaningless fireworks. Right-types (like you) don’t care if it’s disconnected from reality, refuted by facts, or detached from serious purpose. They just want their show to cheer or hiss in turn”

What can I say? It’s not my fault I’m always right…….

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I do this shit all the time, and have even asserted stray voltage before.

When I don't, you idiots close your minds and pretend you never saw any counterfactuals.

Go look up in this thread and see where Krychek claims he never saw a video. That's what all you people do, as soon as something comes around that challenges your worldview, you stick your small tiny heads in the san and pretend it doesn't exist.

Unless I volt you with some stray.

[Randal]

Stray voltage! That's what you're calling it? We used to call it "stirring the pot." You're not very good at it. Your attempts end up with people discussing... what a dumb liar you are. Not the contents of the pot.

Also the last thing you're supposed to do is tell people that's what you're doing. You've totally discredited yourself.

[David Nieporent]

We used to call it "trolling."

[David Nieporent]

“Right-types (like you) want WWE-style spectacle, cartoon theatrics, and meaningless fireworks. Right-types (like you) don’t care if it’s disconnected from reality, refuted by facts, or detached from serious purpose. They just want their show to cheer or hiss in turn”

Yes. Look at how many of them argue — with as much sincerity as they can muster — that Trump's big rallies and cult-like following prove he's better than Biden. They actually measure a politician by TV ratings and audience size. (Remember "boat rallies" from 2020?)

[not guilty]

BCD, you claimed that the defendant is charged with espionage and treason. That is not "a controversial claim that sparked attention." It is a flat out lie.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What about the rest of the definition of stray voltage?

How did my comment do?

Also, speaking of lies, as far as you know can someone’s sexual orientation change?

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : “… (gibberish) … stray voltage … (gibberish) …”

Begging your indulgence, BCD, but I gotta stay stubborn on this:

When you lie (as you always do), I’m going to continue to refer to it as lying. This “stray voltage” stuff may be the choicest malarkey, but it’s just a little too postmodern for my taste.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

grb, consider this:

When I was teaching, occasionally there would be some very important points that I wanted to make sure the students remembered. So every once in awhile I would intentionally inject typos because a.) typos are known to slow down readers and b.) because sometimes when I would get lucky some smartass student would pat himself on the back about catching the professor making a spelling mistake, I’d make some quip or some other joke to illicit some emotion. I would do this because I also know when your in a state of arousal of any emotion, you’re more likely to remember the context more.

So in other words, I would engage in tactics that intentionally manipulated my students into remembering something I wanted them to remember. Unbeknownst to them.

Now, would you say that I was just too postmodern for my students? Or would you say my intellect was far far superior and that I held a lot of power to mold others into ways I wanted them to be?

What do you think? Too post modern, or really really genius?

[Randal]

There are far better ways to emotionally engage with students than by manipulating them with typos.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You read my words and you took from them that the purpose of me injecting typos was for emotional engagement?

[Randal]

I would intentionally inject typos because when some student would catch the spelling mistake, I'd make some quip to illicit emotion.

[Randal]

I should add that illicit emotion is what your kind are always accusing liberal teachers of eliciting. Strange of you to admit, here, to grooming your own students.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : “What do you think?”

You know, most people liked the movie Ex Machina, about a genius computer scientist, his prize female robot, and the confused young man brought in to run a Turing Test. But there were some who thought all the plot developments around the robot were based on nothing more than stale sexism.

I could see their point, but didn’t entirely agree. I found interest in the character of the computer scientist. Without going into details, it turns out the only way he could decide the robot was fully sentient was to see it lie, cheat and deceive. Apparently, this broken man thought the only truly human traits were betrayal and deception.

You remind me of that character, BCD. As soon as you stop bragging about lying, you boast of deceiving. As soon as you’re done with that, you demand applause for your skills of manipulation. It doesn’t sound very healthy, if for no other reason than many people proud of their deception abilities spend their entire lives worrying about being played themselves.

I suggest you embrace life with affirmation and welcome the fellow human beings around you. And if you also become Liberal as a result, all the better for your mental health….

[not guilty]

As juries are routinely instructed, falso in uno, falso in omnibus.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You gonna stick your tiny head in the sand and pretend you never saw all that evidence about sexual orientation changing?

[David Nieporent]

I haven’t found the indictment,

The indictment is right here: https://www.justice.gov/media/1304911/dl?inline

[not guilty]

Thank you.

[Michael P]

Has Gal Luft provided any hard evidence that can be independently corroborated? If so, has it been?

One of the oldest scams in the book is the guy who tells you what you want to hear. I'm not going to jump on this guy's bandwagon before he provides something new and substantial that checks out (and even then I'll think twice).

[Nige]

Republican 'whistleblower' is Chinese spy. Now who's in China's pocket?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and you.

[Nige]

That's what the Chinese spy whistleblowing to Jim Jordan said!

[Mr. Bumble]

Fang Fang talked to Jim Jordan?

[Nige]

Wouldn't surprise anyone if she had.

[David Nieporent]

Wrong, as always. Can you get anything right? Setting side the fact that Republicans don't know what whistleblowers are, the indictment of Gal Luft was eight months ago, not "just."

[grb]

Last year I hiked about 160 miles above the Arctic Circle on the Kungsleden in Sweden. On a cold drizzly late afternoon I (and my hiking buddy) pulled into the Singi stuga (or hiking hut - without electricity or running water). There were a bunch of hikers already there from Poland, Germany, and France. I remember a reindeer walked by right outside the window.

Before shouldering my pack next morning, I hunted up the two old ladies who were the stuga caretakers, asking if there were any English books about (for I had run out of reads). One of the ladies produced the second volume of Elena Ferrante's Neapolitan Novels - The Story of a New Name. Handing it to me, she said, "You're very lucky."

She was right. I traded a Walter Mosley mystery - no small thing - but it was well worth the cost. Back stateside, I read the remaining three books, following Lenù and Lila's (rocky) friendship from childhood in a 50s Italian neighborhood, dirt poor and blighted with organized crime, thru decades of changes both personal, cultural and political. They're great books.

This weekend I binged on the HBO adaptation (three novels worth, the fourth underway) and was equally impressed. If you're up for subtitles, I recommend this My Brilliant Friend series as well.

[Bwaaah]

I don't know if I'll ever read a book, but even so, that sure is a good book recommendation.
🙂

[Nige]

Ferrante is amazing. That was an incredibly cool way to discover her. The series is HBO-at-the-top-of-their-game level.

[Martinned]

In news that is bound to lead to calm and measured discussion, Caster Semenya just won her case against Switzerland at the European Court for Human Rights. The ECtHR held that Switzerland, as the host country for the athletics federation World Athletics, did not afford her sufficient procedural safeguards when challenging World Athletics regulations.

Or, for the lawyers in the family, it found a violation of art. 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy), when taken together with art. 14 (right to non-discrimination in the exercise of Convention rights), when taken together with art. 8 (right to privacy).

The ECtHR website is still terrible, so let me link to the tweet: https://twitter.com/ECHR_CEDH/status/1678678173670572034

[Martinned]

The judgment is here, but so far only in French: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-225768

[Nige]

Good for her. That was fucked up. The multiple levels of dysfunction, stupidity and bigotry that lead to that are legion.

[SRG]

If someone is 46 XY DSD like Semenya, and identifies as a woman, then socially, legally, and from an employment perspective, she should be treated as a woman,

Once she steps out onto a track, however, she has an unfair advantage over 46 XX women because she is not genetically female. And anything done to make it fair to 46 XX women is unfair on her.

That being said, it doesn't surprise me when sports' ruling bodies fuck things up.

[Nige]

It is regarded as ‘unfair’ because of her natural hormone levels. So, now we need to establish a baseline for acceptable hormone levels in competing athletes, and only athletes at that baseline – either naturally or through the adminisration of drugs to raise or lower those levels with some sort of waiver for the use of banned performance enhancers here – are allowed compete. Or maybe just stick to targeting black female athletes with this arbitrary bullshit? Either way!

[Martinned]

That's basically where I am too. If you want to organise a basketball league for people shorter than 6 ft. that's fine. Just set a standard that isn't directly discriminatory.

By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, the ECtHR did not make any finding about whether Semenya should have been allowed to compete or not. The judgment was purely about the appropriate procedural safeguards.

[SRG]

We accept that there should be separate events for men and women because otherwise it's unfair on women. What to do in the case of someone who falls between categories, as Semenya does? She's not biologically fully female nor is she fully male. It's not merely a case of an unusually high level of hormone in an XX female. It's not unreasonable to say, as you're partly male, you have very high levels of testosterone, so you're getting an advantage from being partly male - so you can only compete against XX women if you have your testosterone level reduced. What that level should be is a separate issue.

Nor is it a case of targeting black athletes - first, Indian women have also been on the receiving end, not because of colour but because they too were 46 XY. And second, genetic diversity is - as one would expect - greater in Africa than in the West hence a greater chance of finding more extreme genetic outcomes.

[John F. Carr]

Trump has asked for an indefinite delay of his Florida trial so he can spend more time running for president. A judge has broad discretion to move trial dates, especially with the defendant's consent. I expect pretrial motions to have the effect of a long postponement without the formal granting of one.

[Mr. Bumble]

Didn't the prosecution already request a delay to Dec. 11, 2023?

[jb]

Yes. As I noted at the time, most likely precisely because they expected Trump to ask for a much longer delay and wanted to start to anchor on a more reasonable timeline.

(Also as we see here the people arguing that Trump should/would argue for a speedy trial instead were pretty silly.)

[not guilty]

Both defendants have moved to continue the trial indefinitely, suggesting that an impartial jury cannot be seated until after the 2024 presidential election. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23870430-trumptrialskedflg071023

The constitutional right to a speedy trial is that of the accused, but the public has an interest in bringing malefactors to trial sooner rather than later. This interest is recognized in the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The ends of justice would not be served by continuing the trial to an unspecified date in the future.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure whether it will matter with Judge Cannon, but assuming she decides to act like a normal jurist rather than Trump's lawyer as she did in the last case, Trump's current lawyers would've done better to stick with the arguments about complexity and Trump's other legal difficulties, rather than to make their request so obviously nakedly political and partisan by specifically tying their request for delay to the presidential election.

(I have never heard "Prosecuting me will interfere with my job" as a reason for indefinite delay in setting a trial date. (Which they try to apply to Nauta, as well!) I mean, I think criminal prosecution will tend to interfere with most people's jobs. But them's the breaks. But, again, Cannon explicitly accepted "Donald Trump is special" as an argument in the search warrant proceedings, so maybe she'll do it again. The 11th circuit expressly said, "No, he's not.")

[Bored Lawyer]

A smart judge would split the difference. Maybe start the trial the day the Iowa caucuses commence.

[not guilty]

For Judge Loose Cannon to grant the defendants' motion to continue the trial indefinitely would invite pretrial review by the Eleventh Circuit, particularly if her findings indicate that she bases such a continuance on Donald Trump's status as a presidential candidate.

The Speedy Trial Act requires that when a district court grants an ends-of-justice continuance, it must "se[t] forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons" for finding that the ends of justice are served and they outweigh other interests. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). The Act does not permit a defendant to prospectively waive the application thereof. Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 500-501 (2006).

During the investigative stage of this case, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in substance that Donald Trump is not entitled to special treatment by a federal court because he is Donald Trump. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/22-13005/22-13005-2022-12-01.html ("We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.") That, however, seems to be exactly the defense theory as to when trial should commence.

An order granting an indefinite continuance would call for pretrial review by writ of mandamus. The prosecution would have no other adequate means to attain the relief it desires. The Government's right to issuance of the writ would be "clear and indisputable" under the Speedy Trial Act. The Court of Appeals likely would be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. See, Cheney v. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); Kerr v. United States District Court for Northern District of California, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976).

The Eleventh Circuit has heretofore reversed Judge Cannon twice in this matter. A third strike could result in instruction to reassign the case upon remand.

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, it's not necessary. It makes Trump's life (and that of his lawyers) much easier (setting aside the inevitable appeal) if she just definitively postpones it until post-election, but she doesn't need to do that to give Trump what he wants. There are going to be many pretrial motions that she can just slow walk, and she can just grant a series of shorter adjournments based on the more traditional arguments his lawyers raised: the volume of documents, the other previously scheduled trials, etc.

[not guilty]

It is noteworthy that a criminal defendant may not prospectively waive the application of the Speedy Trial Act. Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 500-501 (2006). The Act was designed with the public interest firmly in mind. That public interest cannot be served, the Act recognizes, if defendants may opt out of the Act entirely. Id., at 501. Instead of simply allowing defendants to opt out of the Act, the Act demands that defense continuance requests fit within one of the specific exclusions set out in subsection (h). Id., at 500.