Monday Open Thread

What's on your mnd?

Comments

[Krychek_2]

For those claiming that Donald Trump's indictments are political persecution, the Democrats could have indicted Reagan for Iran-Contra. They did not. They could have indicted George W. Bush for war crimes. They didn't do that either. Given the unwillingness of Democrats to criminally charge other Republican presidents who could have been charged, it seems unlikely that they have now suddenly discovered lawfare for the first time. So perhaps a more rational explanation is that maybe Trump's crimes were simply too much to ignore.

[David Welker]

Who ever said that crimes by Presidents should be ignored?

In fact, to ignore crimes by Presidents violates the rule of law.

My criticisms of some of the prosecutions goes to my skepticism that the prosecutions can really prove that he knew he lost the election. At the end of the day, that is the very thing that so many of the charges rely on. But since elections are not directly observable, it is nearly a speculation task rather than a factual task to prove Trump’s state of mind here. Unlike much simpler state of mind tasks, like determining whether a homicide was intentional or preplanned or not.

I do not believe that Ford did the right thing when he pardoned Nixon. In fact, Nixon should have been prosecuted. In our system, politicians are subject to the same laws as anyone else. Politicians are public servants, nothing more and nothing less.

I approve of the prosecution of Trump based on the classified documents. I believe that anyone else who behaved as he did would be prosecuted. Therefore, Trump should be prosecuted. On the other hand, I believe the real reason Trump is being prosecuted in the other cases is horror about January 6.

Such concerns about January 6 WOULD be a basis for prosecuting Trump if you could prove he intended for the crowd to invade the Capitol. But that isn’t what the prosecutions of Trump are about. Instead, the claims boil down to that he was seeking to overturn the election, despite really knowing that he lost it. At least as far as I have ready the indictments. To be clear, I read through probably 25% of Jack Smith’s indictment before deciding that I had better things to do with my time than think about Trump and his prosecution, which is something I have minimal influence over.

I could be wrong. And I would be happy to be wrong.

[Randal]

Good news, you're wrong!

Much of Trump"s conduct, especially in Georgia, would be illegal even if he had in fact won the election. That's just not the way to go about contesting a result. The means are illegal even if the ends were just. (And anyway, they weren't.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Then Al Gore ought to be in prison because Sore Loserman did the exact same things in Florida back in 2000.

And if it is a question of style, let us never forget Lyndon Johnson...

[Nige]

'did the exact same thing'

Ooh, spotted the flaw in your otherwise impeccable argument.

'Sore Loserman'

Hahahahaha

[JasonT20]

Then Al Gore ought to be in prison because Sore Loserman did the exact same things in Florida back in 2000.

Well duh. Al Gore should be in jail for requesting recounts and making legal filings. Then, when he accepted that the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore basically left him with no other legal options, he rejected the objections of more than a dozen Democrats in the House, since there weren't any Senators signed on for their objections. Lock him up!

[David Welker]

As I understand it based on listening to an Advisory Opinions podcast on the subject (I did not even try to read the indictment in that case), the Georgia case depends on proving that Trump lied to Raffensperger.

I believe that means you have to prove that Trump knew the assertions he was making about the election were false. But how can you prove what Trump "knew" here, since Trump's "knowledge" about the elections would be based on what others told him about it.

The argument seems to be that X, Y, and Z told Trump that A was true, therefor Trump "knew" that A was true. But then he said to Raffensperger not A was true. That is, he lied to Raffensperger about A.

Problem. Just because someone tells you something, doesn't mean you believe them.

I don't know that a jury is going to be able to ascertain Trump's true beliefs in the Georgia case such that they can establish that he lied. (Where I define lie as an intentionally false statement, not merely a false statement.)

I could be missing something. After all, I haven't read the indictments. But, overall, from 1000-feet (which is about how closely I intend to observe this... seriously, Trump isn't worth my time...) that is my sense of it.

I would be glad to be wrong. I don't have any problem with Trump being prosecuted if he is actually guilty of a crime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Something like that. The argument is that, since Trump KNEW he'd lost, asking for a chance to find the votes he claimed were there could only plausibly be interpreted as a request that Raffensperger fabricate them. And since Trump was talking about negative consequences for Raffensperger 'when the fraud was finally exposed' if he'd obstructed finding it, Trump was supposedly extorting that fabrication from Raffensperger.

And certainly, there were enough people telling him he'd genuinely lost. Problem is, he also had suck ups telling him he'd genuinely won.

Of course, it's not irrelevant that the prosecution is situated so that the jury pool is hostile to Trump, having been initiated in the only area of the state he didn't carry.

[grb]

There’s also the fact that Trump persisted in demanding more votes and threatening Raffensperger after the Georgia official told him there were no grounds for questioning the state result. After he refuted every point that was raised. Trump’s response?

“And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated”

You see the same thing in Trump’s meeting with acting DOJ head Rosen, Trump wanted Rosen to send a letter to states asking they postpone certification because of fraud found in an ongoing DOJ investigation. But there was no fraud found. There was no ongoing investigation. Even after Rosen told him to his face such a letter would be untrue, Trump still wanted the letter sent. His response:

“Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen”

There’s no sincere conviction here. Trump thought “his” politicians would change the results if enough accusations created enough noise to provide cover. That’s why Trump started prepping his audience for an election fraud scam months before the vote occurred. That’s why he’s never produced a consistent explanation of the “stolen election” from one audience of marks to the next. That’s why Trump kept repeating claims even after they were disproved a dozen times over. It was just a scam:

Trump’s Stolen Election – just like Trump University, or the Trump Foundation, or Trump Airlines or Trump Steaks.

Below Brett admits Ronald Reagan knew about Iran-Contra, proving credulity has an expiration date. I wonder how many decades have to pass before Brett decides it was obvious Trump attempted to steal an election….

[hoppy025]

The Constitution requires an impartial jury of one's peers. 12 semi-retarded Atlanta blacks are not peers of Trump.

[David Nieporent]

The constitution indeed requires an impartial jury. It does not require a "jury of one's peers." (Check it out: that phrase isn't in there.) And of course the people you describe are both morally and intellectually superior to Trump.

[hoppy025]

Trump may not be a brain surgeon, but he has an IQ far above the 85 average that an Atlanta jury pool will result in.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, it says "right to an impartial jury" with "of one's peers" coming from the Common Law.

[David Nieporent]

No, it comes from Magna Carta, where "peers" had a meaning. It has no meaning in the U.S., where there is no nobility.

[hoppy025]

You're delusional if you think that all people in the U.S. are equal. What does someone like Mayflower old money and class have in common with some ghetto black girl with 4 illegitimate kids?

[VinniUSMC]

Mayflower old money and class

What in the name of stupid is this supposed to mean?

[Stephen Lathrop]

But how can you prove what Trump “knew” here, since Trump’s “knowledge” about the elections would be based on what others told him about it.

Welker, what if you could prove that before Election Day Trump told one or more of his confederates he would lie if he lost, and fight to have the results overturned by state legislatures? Would that convince you?

[Drewski]

This reads like a Reddit post by a kid who just learned about theory of mind, heard all the chatter about the importance of mental state in the Trump case, and is now ready to blow everyone's mind.

In reality, you meet a very basic legal threshold and then let the jury decide, based on evidence presented and their inferences. The interesting question is how they'll be instructed, but I guarantee it won't be a course in philosophy 101.

[Josh R]

Much of Trump”s conduct, especially in Georgia, would be illegal even if he had in fact won the election.

What law would Trump have broken?

[Randal]

... a criminal organization whose members and associates engaged invarious related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury.

The bold ones don't seem to depend strongly on Trump thinking he lost.

[Josh R]

Trump is not named in the computer-related charges. He is in the fake electors scheme. But if he won, I strongly suspect there would be no prosecution. The charges alleging the very disgusting behavior directed at Ruby Freeman could very well stick even if he had won (assuming Freeman did not do what Giuliani alleges she did), but that wouldn't rise to the level of a RICO conspiracy.

[Randal]

But the computer crimes are part of the RICO charge. If Trump is proven to be a member, it doesn't matter if he personally did the deed. That's the whole point of RICO. He's the crime boss.

[Josh R]

If there is only crime that Trump was involved in (against Freeman), it's a very long stretch the computer crimes (the only other crimes) were part of a conspiracy with Trump as the crime boss.

[Krayt]

Yay! Git 'im!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I do not believe that Ford did the right thing when he pardoned Nixon. In fact, Nixon should have been prosecuted."

49 months earlier, Nixon had won a 49 state landslide, all but MA & DC. Nixon still had a bleepload of support, not only in "flyover country" but in the entire country. It was a generational split and the WWII generation was quietly pissed at the "dirty hippies."

Look at what had happened at the Chicago DNC convention, which all sides now admit was a "police riot." Those weren't rogue officers doing that, not in the numbers they had -- they were men who had gone to Korea (and *even more* unpopular war) and had no sympathy for (or tolerance of) those refusing to go to Vietnam Etc.

Look at the first Rambo movie and what the cops did. Look at the end of Easy Rider. Stuff like that was happening -- a lot.

Deciding to pardon Nixon was a wise decision because otherwise he would have become a maytar and there were a large number of people who likely would have been provoked to violence. Look at the trial of Lt. Calley for the My Lai Massacre -- a lot of people treated Calley as a hero. See: https://time.com/5202268/calley-trial-my-lai-massacre/

Hoover knew what was going on in the country and -- corrupt as he was -- he was, in his own way, quite patriotic as well. I'd not be surprised if he strongly encouraged a pardon And Ford was an Eagle Scout, in more ways than one -- how much punishment is "enough"? Nixon had been driven from office and was a national disgrace -- how much more of a destroyed man could we watch?

And then there was Pat Nixon -- highly popular with the women who weren't burning their bras, and this was her husband. She had the popularity of Barbara Bush, and when she had her first (of two) strokes in 1976, a lot of people blamed that on the Democrats.

I think Ford did the right thing.

[David Nieporent]

Deciding to pardon Nixon was a wise decision because otherwise he would have become a maytar and there were a large number of people who likely would have been provoked to violence.

I'm not sure what a maytar is, but there were roughly zero people who would have been provoked to violence. Not everyone is a psychopath like you.

[Kazinski]

You’re kind of going off the rails here Kryckek.

When did “Democrats” have prosecutorial power to indict Reagan? Reagan had been publicly diagnosed as senile in 1994, privately a year before that, Clinton wasn’t president until 93.

By the time Obama could have ordered a code red against GW, Bush he was raining Hellfire missiles down on American citizens in non-belligerent countries.

Try to have some temporal awareness.

Of course Congress did investigate both presidents, and managed to immunize Oliver North from any prosecution, so there’s that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reagan didn't know about Iran Contra, held a press conference upon learning, and the Boland Amendment was gone at that point anyway. He'd won a 49 state landslide in 1984, there weren't the votes to impeach him.
Bush 43 was dealing with terrorism, and these weren't real Americans he was killing, but foreigners with US citizenship on technicalities. Congress had authorized the GWAT.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're a bit credulous in believing that Reagan didn't know about Iran/Contra. And I say that as somebody who actually liked Reagan.

[Kazinski]

I don't think he knew they were selling arms to Iran to get money to fund the Contras. He knew they were helping the contras.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Dems spent the summer of '87 trying to prove that Reagan had known and couldn't. QED...

And why would Reagan have later revealed it in that press conference if he hadn't then just learned of it?

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, y'all are really easy to convince of some pretty hard to believe stuff!

I know it's harder than most know to keep a standard of evidence consistent, but you need to try at least a little, no matter how much you hate the libs.

There is no evidence elsewhere that Reagan's White House was that loose a ship. Quite a convienient breakdown in communication...
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not"

This convinced you?!

[Brett Bellmore]

Did you mean for that to be a reply to the people who DON'T think Reagan knew?

[Sarcastr0]

Ayep.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not”

That's called taking responsibility for what your staff did -- without you knowing they were doing it. North and Poindexter were down in the basement without any adult supervision and when daddy found out, he apologized.

[SRG2]

No, that sounds like excusing a lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and Republicans could easily have prosecuted both Clinton and Obama. What you're overlooking is that the situation hasn't been static, party tolerance for the opposing party has been declining over time.

Look at this graph.

Presidents have always had more support from their own party than the opposing party, and that's hardly shocking. Still, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, they all had over 50% support from the opposing party for a significant portion of their time in office.

But over time, the amount of support Presidents see from the opposing party has been declining. The elder Bush was the only President since them to start out with higher than 50% opposition approval. The younger Bush and Obama ended up with single digit opposition support, and Trump and Biden started there.

The only thing odd about Trump in this regard is that while almost all Presidents have had correlated support between the parties, with just a growing offset, Trump's support from Republicans and Democrats was anti-correlated. The happier he made Republicans, the madder Democrats got, and visa versa.

Biden is back to the usual pattern: His job approval has been declining on BOTH sides of the aisle.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wish I'd noticed that Reason had stripped out my link before the edit window closed.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/20/bidens-job-rating-is-similar-to-trumps-but-lower-than-that-of-other-recent-presidents/ft_2022-10-20_bidenapproval_02/

[hoppy025]

That’s because the Democrats have gone insane and evil. They’ve gone from “Let’s make things a little better for the little guy” to “You must accept having your children watch a video of the Rev. Kirkland bareback his husband in elementary school, and if you speak out, you’re a hateful bigot!”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans and this is your target audience, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason mainstream legal academia ascribes your thinking and conduct to neurodivergence and wonders whether to ignore you, despise you, disrespect you, feel sorry for you, or some combination.

[Nige]

'Republicans could easily have prosecuted both Clinton and Obama'

The DOJ might have had a problem, though, since they usually seem to like actual evidence of crimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

In practice that's not much of an obstacle when they want somebody prosecuted. But, what do you suppose was standing in the way of state prosecutions?

[Nige]

Weird how it never worked for Trump trying to get his enemies convicted of anything.

Evidence? Not Bellmore-level evidence, though, where the tiniest bad-faith scrap is enough to convict a Clinton but a massive mountain of proof and actual admissions aren't enough for Trump and Co.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think what scared the left about Jan 6th so much is that it was the first time the right had adopted their tactics.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

None of those presidents were populist outsiders who disrupted the prime directive of Washington - endless foreign wars.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you look at that graph, and strip out the correlated component, the fraction of its behavior based on stuff the parties agree on,

Carter had a 31% gap between Democratic and Republican approval.

Reagan had a 52% gap.

The elder Bush had a 38% gap. 9/11, I guess.

Clinton had a 53% gap.

The younger Bush had a 58% gap.

Obama had a 67% gap.

Trump had an 80% gap.

Biden has a 75% gap.

The divide between the parties has been rising almost monotonically since the 60's, and I don't think that's because Obama and Biden were 'outsiders'; Being an outsider got Trump unusual opposition from the establishment of 'his own' party, but didn't move public opinion much.

[Brett Bellmore]

Forget the 9-11 remark, it's early.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Biden and Obama aren't outsiders. And who cares what public opinion is? That doesn't win elections, nor does it get legislation passed.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what I was saying: You can't attribute the huge partisan gap in support to being "outsiders", because it was huge for Obama and Biden, too. And who would characterize THEM as "outsiders"?

People have just been getting less and less tolerant of the opposing party as time goes by.

I don't think the Trump prosecutions are due to Trump being an outsider, though if he weren't, the Republican leadership might be putting up more of a fight against them, and that might have emboldened the Democrats a bit. Rather, Democrats have just gotten so intolerant of non-Democrats holding power that they're going to prosecute ANY Republican who ends up in the White house.

Trump was just the first Republican to do so after the Democrats had reached that point. But it doesn't really matter who gets the Republican nomination next year: If they end up in the White house, they WILL be prosecuted.

Maybe even if they don't, just to teach people a lesson about being uppity and thinking anybody besides Democrats are allowed to occupy that office.

[Nige]

'Democrats have just gotten so intolerant of non-Democrats holding power'

Imagine saying this with a straight face, even as part of a woo--woo defence of Trump. Y'know, the guy who still claims he won the 2020 election.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bots Dilithium Crystals all charged up for the new week, unfortunately his logic circuits have been corrupted.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's a good point, because before there was TDS, there was BDS. Who can forget that?

[Randal]

Lol. Every accusation an admission.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trivially, in this case, since I'm explicitly saying that BOTH parties have been losing their tolerance for office being held by the opposing party.

Democrats were just the first ones to reach the point of deciding that all out lawfare was appropriate.

[Nige]

You're saying that because your party is the one that attacked democracy and tried to overturn an election, while the other party did not, and this is supposed to sound 'balanced.'

[Randal]

Rather, Democrats have just gotten so intolerant of non-Democrats holding power that they’re going to prosecute ANY Republican who ends up in the White house.

Absolutely false, of course.

But it is a good description of the current state of the Republican party, which has entirely jettisoned its policy apparatus. It now consists entirely of own-the-libs, grievance-peddling, and retribution fantasies.

Anyway, here's what the left actually thinks of Republicans:

I will say this — you'll be shocked, probably — I think the country needs a strong Republican Party [like] we need a strong Democratic Party... but this is not it. It isn't our judgment about what it should be. It's their judgment, but it's a missed opportunity for America.

-- Nancy Pelosi

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how you can say that a prediction about future behavior is absolutely false, unless maybe you've got access to a time machine.

Sure, Pelosi said that. But, what the hell does she even mean by "a strong Republican party"? A controlled opposition party that's strong enough to suppress internal dissent? Or a genuinely opposition party that's strong enough to effectively oppose Democratic party policies?

It's hard to believe she actually means a Republican party that would trashcan Democratic victories whenever it got power, so I suspect she meant the former: A Republican party strong enough to keep its base in check, so that the Democrats don't have to.

[Randal]

No, she means a genuine opposition party. She knows that in a two party system, both parties have to be viable, or else it's not really a two party system.

A lot of what's happening right now is due to the Republican Party becoming increasingly unviable. It's freaking conservatives out and making them paranoid and desperate enough to do things like turn into a cult and sack the Capitol. That wouldn't happen if the Republicans just had sufficiently popular policies and principles to win elections, which would make America a much better place.

[Randal]

How do I know? She’s said similar things lots of times. Here’s another one:

I say to my Republican friends, take back your party. The country needs a big, strong Republican Party. And I say that as a leader in the Democratic Party… Don’t have it be a cult of personality…

[David Nieporent]

Talking about "opposition parties" in the United States is a category error. That's a characteristic of a parliamentary system like the UK. You have the party that controls parliament and chooses the prime minister (and, of course, all other ministers) and governs, and then you have the other party/parties, that are out of power. In the U.S. we have separate branches. The GOP is not the "opposition party." It has a majority of seats in the House; to the extent that we can attribute the actions of the members of a party to the party, the GOP is as in power as is the Democratic Party. Both parties are responsible for governing. Even when one party's members make up a majority of both houses and the White House, the job of the minority party members is not to "oppose" the majority party. That does not mean the former must acquiesce to everything the latter wants, of course. But it does mean that they should not be reflexively voting against it, either. Just as only a minority of Supreme Court decisions are 5-4 (or 6-3 nowadays, I guess), only a minority of votes in Congress should be party line votes.

[Randal]

I think Brett and I were using “opposition party” colloquially to mean an equal adversary, like an opposing team.

But I take your point, and in fact, it sheds even more light on Pelosi’s thinking.

A two-party system, like you said, isn’t really about two parties scrapping for power winner-take-all. It’s about balancing two parties against each other in a structure designed to encourage both parties to seek 51% of the vote, such that the political focus remains in the middle and compromise is the natural result. The effect of parties persuading voters is to move the middle around. For example, the middle moved way to the right after Reagan, and it wasn’t until Clinton embraced “the era of big government being over” that Democrats got back in the game.

After Bush II screwed up the economy, the middle drifted leftward again. But this time the Republicans haven’t been willing to compromise and simply adjust their policies to get back to 51%. Instead they got stubborn and threw in with their extreme right flank and its cult leader.

Pelosi recognizes how that has and will continue to destabilize America by throwing the two-party system out of balance.

Think of it from her perspective. With the Republicans wallowing in conspiracy theories and grievances, there’s no policy ground to fight over. That means there’s no reason for Democrats to try to engage the center, or to moderate their policies at all, really. Pelosi needs a “strong” Republican party around as a constraint on her own base, so that she has less cat-herding to do herself.

But also, that’s how America is supposed to work. Two parties meeting in the middle, not two parties each trying to out-extreme each other. Our politics is dangerously out of whack.

[David Nieporent]

By the way, I agree with Pelosi. I think MAGA delenda est, but not in a Kirklandian replacement theory sort of way. MAGA needs to be destroyed and the earth around Mar-A-Lago salted so that a reasonable conservative party can be reborn, to keep the left in check. It's not healthy when one side holds all the power because the other side is insane. (And of course it is not healthy when an insane side holds power.)

[Krychek_2]

"Outsider" is largely in the eye of the beholder. Trump had been doing deals in Washington for years, knew everyone, and was extremely well connected politically, so I don't think he can properly be considered an outsider. (Compare that to Obama, who arrived in Washington as a little-known state legislator with few connections and yet managed to get the presidential nomination four years later.)

If you mean that he took positions - such as ending wars - that some powerful interests would have opposed, that doesn't make him an outsider so much as someone who took positions that some powerful interests would have opposed. I very much doubt that Obama (or for that matter Al Gore) would have gotten us into war in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place, and it's harder to get out of a war you're already in.

[Brett Bellmore]

He wasn't an unknown outsider, but he was an "outsider" in that he arrived in office without having been blessed by the party establishment. (Which has a long record of sacrificing seats if a challenger wins the primary.)

"I very much doubt that Obama (or for that matter Al Gore) would have gotten us into war in Afghanistan"

Mr. "I bomb wedding parties"? I'm not so sure, though he certainly wouldn't have admitted it was a war. Probably would have used some dumb euphemism like "kinetic action" to pretend he wasn't waging a war.

[Krychek_2]

He wasn't aware it was a wedding party, and one of the reasons we should be cautious about getting into wars is that collateral damage is inevitable. There is no way to ensure that there will never be innocent civilians in harm's way.

He would not have been stupid enough to launch an invasion and attempt nation building. That was all George Bush. And, as I said, it's harder to get out of a war once you're in it than to stay out of it in the first place.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't you think you're sort of obligated to know what's at the place you're launching a missile towards, especially if it's not in an actual war zone during a declared war? Like that's some kind of defense?

And Obama wasn't shy about starting wars. He just didn't like admitting they WERE wars.

[Krychek_2]

Which wars did Obama start?

I think you're obligated to act on the best intelligence you can get, which Obama did, but there is no such thing as 100% foolproof intelligence.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The major hit on Obama was his massive LBJ-like expansion of the war in Afghanistan.

He also did expand into Syria in some ways.

[Sarcastr0]

Fucking ridiculous to compare Afghanistan to the Vietnam War.

[Life of Brian]

No kidding. In Vietnam it took years after our retreat for the side we had propped up to be taken over, not hours.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not at all.

Vietnam cost approximately $1 Trillion, in inflation adjusted currency. Afghanistan cost $2 Trillion. Obama (like LBJ) massively ramped up spending to try to "win" the war.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, the key here is unnormalized dollars not, you know, lives. Or to pretend we didn't lost Vietnam quite as hard and that's the important thing.

How could either of you think anyone would buy this shameful nonsense?

[Frank Drackman]

only reason fewer Amuricans were killed in Afghanistan than Veet'nam is advances in Medicine.

[Kazinski]

Its not ridiculous at all:
A twenty year quagmire against a domestic guerilla movement that we could never unroot. We set up our own puppet government that never had the support of the people. Their army never had any will or much motivation to fight on their own.

The biggest difference, mostly due to technology and different terrain is that our body count was a lot lower.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty fucking big difference.

Both were dumb quagmires. But what matters is the blood.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "But what matters is the blood"

And the trauma. Afghanistan didn't tear this country apart like Vietnam . Not anywhere close.

[Krychek_2]

Expanding a war is not the same as starting it. Obama inherited those wars from Bush and made a strategic decision to try to actually win it. In hindsight he may as well not have bothered, but trying to win a war that someone else started is not the same as starting it yourself.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Obama would definitely attacked Afghanistan. Remember, 9/11 was an attack performed by a proxy of that country's government by people that were openly trained in that country with the blessing of that country's government. Any American president ever would have attacked Afghanistan given that set of facts.

Iraq is different. Obama would arguably not attacked them.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Disagree.

The US gets involved in many relatively minor or smaller military operations. Libya and Syria were some of the engagements Obama started. Vietnam used to be relatively smaller under Kennedy. Somalia was smaller under Clinton. Knowing when NOT to expand a war massively, is important. Going in and conquering Somalia would have done us no good...Clinton was right to withdraw.

Afghanistan, under Bush, was "smaller" relatively speaking.

Expanding a war massively (like Obama did in Afghanistan or LBJ did in Vietnam) is a choice, and a major choice. And it was the wrong choice. It's not just "inheriting" a war. It's the choices you make about how to expand, whether to expand, or whether to wind things down and how you do it.

[Nige]

Obama being more hawkish than most people care to admit does not mean he’d have blundered into one of the worst debacles of the 21st century. Tell you what though, he definitely wouldn’t have exploited post 9-11 insanity and cook up fake intelligence to invade a wholly unrelated country, too.

'Expanding a war massively'

It's a bit like the recession he was also handed by Republicans - unavoidable and unwinnable and the people responsible get to crow from the sidelines.

[VinniUSMC]

Nige is excessively stupid. Just barely eclipsed by Krychek's incredible idiocy below.

[Nige]

You really hate being reminded of that, don't you?

[VinniUSMC]

You really hate being reminded of that, don’t you?

Your excessive stupidity? Yes. Yes I do hate that. Please stop.

[jb]

The question was: what wars did he start?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Syria and Libya

[Armchair Lawyer]

Also, Yemen.

[Sarcastr0]

Ya'll have a definition of war no one else shares. The shameful lack of perspective to own the libs seems extra high today.

I'm no fan of Obama's flaunting the WPR, but comparing him to LBJ is one of those how do you look at yourself in the mirror things.

[Nige]

Obama made a mess of them, with help from the international community for sure, but I don't recall shock and awe invasions of US troops in any of those.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Ya’ll have a definition of war no one else shares. "

How about, "committing acts of war against another nation"?

Sure, sure, it wasn't a war, it was just soldiers killing people, if that distinction makes you feel better.

[jb]

I think it's fair to say brought the US into the Syrian and Libyan conflicts. That's different from outright starting a war like Iraq (or even Afghanistan, although I agree with others that that any President would have done that).

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that war with Libya, for instance.

[Krychek_2]

Which war with Libya was that?

[Armchair Lawyer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

[NOVA Lawyer]

The Libya Civil War which was already underway, so Obama could not have started that.

Or the coalition firing missiles and bombing targets under UN auspices to enforce UN Security Counsel resolutions?

The "war" he started that first involved other UN nations, France in particular, and that involved no ground troops?

The one he started with a unanimous Senate vote to impose a no-fly zone?

He started that "war with Libya"?

You seem to have idiosyncratic definitions of "start" and/or "war".

[Armchair Lawyer]

Just curious here NOVA....

What exactly would you consider "starting a war" by the US?

The US, and its allies, conducted a seven month operation, where they launched over 25,000 sorties over Libyan airspace, destroying 5900 military targets, including 600 tanks and 400 artillery pieces.

Hypothetically speaking, if the United States did the EXACT SAME operation over Ukrainian airspace, destroying Russian equipment in Ukraine...

Would you say the US "started a war" with Russia?

I would.

[Nige]

Like Libya, the war in Ukraine was started by someone else.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The U.S. started a war in Iraq, for instance. There was no war, then there was and the U.S. fired the first shots and crossed an international border. Ergo, the U.S. started the war.

A war was already happening in Libya and it was France and its allies, including the U.S., who provided air support and missile support to one side. The United States did not start a war in Libya.

And, no, if the U.S. destroyed Russian equipment in Ukraine, the U.S. did not start a war with Russia. The U.S. would have joined the war that Russia started, but the U.S. can’t start a war that is already happening.

The U.S. didn’t start World War II, for instance. Setting aside Japan and the Pacific theater, in the European theater the U.S. joined an already raging war started by Germany. The U.S. didn’t start the war.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Nova,

At this point, you're just being pedantic. You can just as easily claim the 2003 invasion of Iraq was just the continuation of hostilities from the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the continued internal warfare in Iraq. And so the US never "started" a war with Iraq in 2003 or 1991.

It's pedantic. If the US engaged in major military operations over Ukraine against Russia, it would be starting a war with Russia, regardless if there was already a war in progress. When the US and its allies engage in major military operations over Libya, it was starting a war against Libya, regardless of the ongoing civil war.

If you REALLY want to be pedantic about it, the US hasn't "started a war" since 1860 or 1846.

But a realistic definition is when the US engages in major military operations against a country that it hadn't previously being doing so against. That includes Libya. And Syria.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You can just as easily claim the 2003 invasion of Iraq was just the continuation of hostilities from the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the continued internal warfare in Iraq. And so the US never “started” a war with Iraq in 2003 or 1991.

No, you can't. Nor can I. In 1991, Saddam Hussein started a war, we, via UN, entered the war on Kuwait's side. That war ended. Over a decade passed. The U.S. started a preemptive war.

In Libya, the U.S. wasn't involved. Then a civil war in Libya broke out. Then the U.N. stepped in on Libya's side with the U.S. providing air power and missiles. You can be as pedantic as you like, but that still isn't starting a war. You can't start a war that is already going.

At any rate, the two situations are entirely different. In one, we sent ground troops in and occupied territory against a country with whom we were not actively engaged in hostilities and no one else was either. That's starting a war. In the other, we gave one side in a civil war help.

Further, if you really want to be pedantic, we didn't go to war or take action against Libya. There were two factions fighting a civil war disputing who was the legitimate government of Libya. Given that Qaddafi lost, we weren't fighting Libya, we were fighting for Libya against an illegitimate leader who was in the process of being removed by an already ongoing civil war. That, perhaps, is being pedantic. But under no circumstances did the United States start the Libyan civil war. And that's what the war was.

It may have been a mistake to help one side to avoid mass civilian casualties. It may have been counterproductive. It may have been evil. But it wasn't starting a war.

Under your formulation, FDR started a war against Japan because, under FDR, "the US engage[d] in major military operations against a country[, Japan,] that it hadn’t previously being doing so against." But, cllearly, he did not start a war against Japan. You need to workshop your definition to make you pedantry work.

Or, better, just stop being sloppy with language in order to try to claim the U.S. started wars it didn't start.

[Don Nico]

"He wasn’t aware it was a wedding party,"
You mean he was deliberately misinformed? Who lied and why didn't he ask. The buck stops with the CinC. Those attacks were supposed to happen only with the direct consent of POTUS. The only reasonable conclusion is that he knowingly killed American citizens extra-judiciously.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I think Trump was undoubtedly an outsider, especially given that he had no previous government experience or political experience.

He was not beholden to previous deals made "in the party" like every previous president.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t see how not coming up in politics makes you less beholden to your party’s previous deals.

Focusing on the world 'behloden.' What mechanism is at work here?

[David Nieporent]

I very much doubt that Obama (or for that matter Al Gore) would have gotten us into war in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place, and it’s harder to get out of a war you’re already in.

Iraq, probably not. Afghanistan? Of course he would have. Every single American who exists or ever existed would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 if he or she had been president at the time.

[Krychek_2]

I wouldn't have. I'd have gotten the best intelligence possible on where the Taliban was and then sent them all to paradise to collect their virgins with a massive bombing campaign. No need for an invasion. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the region knows that invasions don't work; England and Russia could both have provided details. And attempts at nation building there are risible.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Oh, so you'd have pulled out the North Vietnam Plan.

Nieporent is right. As I said above, given the set of facts any American president ever would have attacked Afghanistan. That country committed an act of war on us. Nobody would ever let them get away with that, nor should they.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sorry Krychek,

Nieporent is right here. The second the Taliban didn't promise full cooperation, it was over. Mere bombing wouldn't have sufficed (unless it was nuclear bombing, which was a distinct, albeit low, possibility). Boots on the ground were needed.

[Krychek_2]

All right. We had an invasion. We put boots on the ground. We defeated the Taliban and established our own puppet government there. With what results?

We found bin Laden, on our own, in Pakistan, without any cooperation from the Taliban. Twenty years after the invasion we left and the country promptly went back into Taliban control. Our invasion of Afghanistan was a massive waste of blood and treasure. We'd have accomplished just as much with a well-coordinate bombing campaign, and maybe some strategic special ops against Taliban leadership assuming we had the intelligence to pull it off.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well, to begin with, you just changed the subject. You were asserting that Obama wouldn’t have attacked Afghanistan. The wisdom of the invasion is a different issue, which you’re judging with perfect hindsight.

We removed the government that attacked us, which was the primary objective. We’ve never been good at government building, so expecting that to work out was sorta dumb. Note that nobody else has ever been either, unless you like the iron fist Soviet style ov governance.

[Krychek_2]

Obama was not the hothead Dick Cheney was, and unlike Bush, he listened to historians and others who would have advised him that the invasion was a bad idea. So while I can’t say to a 100% certainty that he wouldn’t have invaded, I think it’s unlikely.

Removing the government that attacked us did not require an invasion. We removed the Japanese government that attacked Pearl Harbor without any American soldier stepping foot in Japan. Yes, I know, the two situations were different, but we have enough air power, intelligence, and special ops that I think it could have been done without an invasion. And without all the American solders dead and wounded, and the trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If you're arguing we should have nuked Afghanistan, then yes, we wouldn't have needed to put troops on the ground.

That is the one situation I'll say it may not have been needed.

[Krychek_2]

I don't think we would have needed to nuke Afghanistan. I think we could have gotten some decent intelligence about where the Taliban was hiding and strategically bombed it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Are you old enough to remember the Vietnam War? Or even the first Iraq one? Japan in WWII? Simple bombing does not work.

You’ve completely lost your own point, I think. Why do you find it significant that Obama would have acted in the manner you suggest?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Krychek....

You're arguing we didn't need to invade Japan, to remove the Japanese government. We just needed to nuke them (then occupy them).

The normal bombs didn't work. But you think the normal bombs would've worked somewhere else?

Can you cite any case examples where just normal bombing (not nuclear) resulted in a full regime change?

[Don Nico]

"Obama was not the hothead Dick Cheney was,"
Obama, outCheneyed Chaney in expanding the police power of the state against enemies of the US world wide, including American citizens. He expanded the reach of the Patriot act etc. All in all he was not a champion of civil liberties. Was Trump worse, sure and he deserves jail time.

[Sarcastr0]

re: Obama vs. Cheney.

I don't disagree with your point about the final policy positions on domestic surveillance where each ended up. But you neglect momentum.

Cheney provided many many more newtons of policy-force than Obama did.

I also think with the 'you're either for us or you're with the terrorists' is some McCarthyist bullshit that Obama never got near.

[Nige]

Obama would have done *something* with Afghanistan, and once started the allure of nation-building would have been quite strong, plus Democratic presidents have always been as much in love with secret war bullshit as Republicans, see Obama's drone campaign. Oddly enough Biden, of all people, seems vaguely immune, absent the emergence of proof of such shenanigans in Ukraine or eslewhere.

[Armchair Lawyer]

With due respect, I'll disagree here, rather heavily.

Al Queda had just committed the largest terrorist attack in history, the largest attack on US soil since the WWII or the War of 1812. Thousands dead, massive destruction. And the Taliban was protecting them.

A little bombing and some special forces weren't going to cut it. The Taliban was making a judgement call. They thought the US wouldn't respond that heavily. Most, if not all, of the leadership would survive, in their bunkers. Whereas, if they betrayed Al Queda, Al Queda would kill them off.

This is the thought process that goes on. You can "tweak" the proverbial eagle, gain the public reputation, suffer the bombing (it's just people getting killed, not you), and it works out to your advantage. And if the Taliban got away with something like this....you gotta think that other hostile powers would think about doing it too. Iran, Hamas, North Korea, etc.

No. As the United States, you make it abundantly clear that this will not be acceptable, and there will be a disproportionate response. You make it clear, the entire leadership will be eradicated, no matter the cost. You make it abundantly clear that if you dare try anything like this...it will end you. Sure, if you betray the terrorists, they "might" get you. But if you don't, the US will get you. Immediately, without hesitation.

That is why the invasion was needed

[Sarcastr0]

We have some pretty good results as to the uselessness of escalating above 'A little bombing and some special forces.'

We don't know the counterfactual, but we do know that what we did was pretty ineffective. Unless you buy that we fought them there so we didn't need to fight them here, which has not aged well.

You make it clear, the entire leadership will be eradicated, no matter the cost.
Hard Men. Hard Choices. Imaginary tough-guy bullshit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"We have some pretty good results"

Indeed, we do. There hasn't been another 9/11 style attack in the last 20 years.

Other hostile powers paid attention.

[Nige]

Thay just sat back and opened the popcorn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember too that this wasn't the first attack on the WTC -- there had been that truck bomb i 1993 and had it been placed correctly, it would have taken both down, or at least dropped one into the other.

The bomb did a lot of damage, but none to the structural something that it was intended to damage.

[Krayt]

Congrats on being in the 2%. Below the error bar size.

[VinniUSMC]

I wouldn’t have. I’d have gotten the best intelligence possible on where the Taliban was and then sent them all to paradise to collect their virgins with a massive bombing campaign.

Did you mean to sound like Trump?

Krychek, even if you're the only person in the room, you're still not the smartest person in the room.

[Don Nico]

"Every single American who exists or ever existed would have invaded Afghanistan"
NO! not Barbara Lee who want to be the next Senator from CA.

[Krayt]

She voted against the aumf. The Afghan was 98 to 0.

[Kenneth Almquist]

A different President might have made a serious effort to negotiate with the Taliban. (Making nonnegotiable demands is not a serious effort to negotiate.) I think it's likely that the Taliban had an understanding with Al Qaeda that the Taliban wouldn't be willing to break, which would make it impossible for the United States and the Taliban to reach an agreement, but I don't think that's a certainty. If the issue was that the Taliban was afraid of Al Qaeda, as Armchair Lawyer suggests, that could have been negotiated because United States wanted Al Qaeda destroyed, or at least weakened to the point where it didn't have the ability to kill off the Taliban leadership.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Every single American who exists or ever existed would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 if he or she had been president at the time.

I disagree, to the extent "invaded" evokes a large-scale, blunt-force expedition.

A different course would have been to conduct a precisely targeted police action ("hot pursuit"). I believe the better course -- and I know it was discussed, and rejected -- would have been to declare that the United States would pursue those responsible for the attack energetically, largely without regard to national borders or local preferences, until the relevant people were apprehended or killed. No settling other scores, no widespread military action, no distractions -- just identify, locate, and apprehend or kill the legitimate targets. I believe the world would have welcomed, supported, and/or acquiesced in that approach.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I remain surprised that Clinton didn't resign when the Starr report came out. It was a very different Democratic party back then.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nixon resigned, as I've heard it, because the Republican leadership in Congress dropped in on him, and told him that he'd be impeached AND convicted otherwise.

I expect Clinton had a meeting with the Democratic leadership in Congress, but the news he got from them was quite different.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was Barry Goldwater telling him that his defense was intentable.

[bernard11]

Just curious, do you see any differences between Clinton's offense and Trump's?

Let me guess. You think what Clinton did was far worse.

[Frank Drackman]

How was it different???, OK, I don't think there are currently any former Grand Kleagles in today's Senate, but 45 DemoKKKrat Senators voted unanimously to acquit William Juffuhson, think it'd be any different with Parkinsonian Joe??

Frank

[bernard11]

Huh?

Looks to me like it was a different Republican Party.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Simply because they didn't do it with previous presidents, doesn't necessarily mean they aren't doing it now.

[John F. Carr]

Which Democrats could have indicted Reagan for what and when? The Justice Department was Republican until 1993.

[Don Nico]

The sooner that the Orange Clown goes to jail, the better.

[jimc5499]

They didn't want to. That would have sent Bill Clinton down the tubes as well. All of those flights originated in Fayetteville, flew to Jacksonville, loaded the weapons and then flew to South America.
Bill was getting generous funding from Southern Air Transport for the use of Fayetteville. Before any of you say that I'm full of it, I used to take shifts standing guard on those weapons and got to know the flight crews. When I was getting out, I was offered a Flight Engineer's job with SAT.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then the flights out of Mena as well…

As to South Africa, never forget that the Soviets were backing the ANC...

[Orbital Mechanic]

I have a very simple proposal for those who are having difficulty with the propriety of the Trump prosecutions.

Step one: download all the documents.

Step two: do a global search/replace to change the string "TRUMP" to the string "CLINTON" and similar edits for the variants.

Step three: Now read the documents. They will all make perfect sense. In your eyes the constitution will be sacrosanct once again.

Step you-don't-need-to-bother: pretend that it would make no difference to you who the defendant actually is.

[Nige]

'global search/replace'

Yes, we know how false equivalences are made.

[Reallynotbob]

I would just like to highlight the absurdity of those who want Trump to be president again arguing that he was too dense to detect that his advisors were lying to him, or to listen to the facts that court after court said undermined the stolen election narrative.

[Ben_]

Today’s Democrats are extraordinarily more corrupt than historical Democrats.

Also but they didn’t do it forty years agoooo… is a really, really dumb line of argument, even by dumb Democrat nonsense standards.

[Sarcastr0]

Gonna do a little posting series on 9-0 cases this term, and how they happened. Probably not exhaustive, just till I get bored/busy.

Dubin v. United StatesTopic: Statutory InterpretationBackground: David Dubin was convicted of health care fraud for overbilling Medicaid while working as the managing partner of a psychological services company. The challenge is to the additional charge of aggravated identity theft, when no theft of identifying information occured, just the use of the names of the purported patients he was overbilling on behalf of.Losing side: In the government’s view, unauthorized use of names is sufficient for the additional charge since it uses someone else’s ID to facilitate or further the predicate offense.Winning side: That the statute only “covers misrepresenting who received a certain service,” “not fraudulent claims regarding how or when a service was performed.”Upshot: Reverse and Remand 5th CircuitCourt’s reasoning: ordinary meaning, noscitur a sociis, functionally this enhancement will always occur when billing fraud occurs, and lenity. All mitigate against the government’s broad reading.

So how did this get to the Court but end up not being a close question: This is my rather untutored opinion, so contradictions are welcome, but it looks to me like it's all the 5th being a bit stubborn. No circuit split, even. The Court has been narrowing white collar criminal laws for a while, so this is not them leading a new change. So it was not surprising that the Court wouldn't like how prosecutors had hit on using this novel broader interpretation. But the full 5th Circuit, by 9-1-8, didn't get the message.

[David Welker]

These cases should get more attention.

The public is misled into believing that law is just politics in part by not talking about these cases

I am not saying politics of some sort (as in ideology) never enters the picture. But on many matters, the logic of the law does lead everyone to the same place.

[not guilty]

A large portion of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous. Those decisions don't generate as much media coverage and are usually decided earlier in the term.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m interested in whether such decisions were easy, and if so why they made it all the way up to the Court.

[Kazinski]

A lot of times they are easy because of stupid precedents in the circuit that get taken to far then applied to much less egregious facts because they feel bound by precedent.

Look at the Lori Drew case which had terrible facts, but the only thing they could convict on was the computer fraud and abuse act for lying about her age on her MySpace profile. If the judge had let the jury verdict stand and be propagated we would have 200 million felons that lied on their dating profile about their age, weight, and being 'laid back'.

[Kazinski]

Cambridge University has put out a blueprint of what is going to take to get to net zero by 2050, and its not pretty.

No flying, no beef, no lamb, no new buildings, no imports, no exports, no fossil fuels, and the only cars allowed will be 2 seat smart cars with a range of 58 miles.

Vehicles 2030- 49 - All new vehicles electric, average size of cars reduces to ~1000kg. [A Nissan leaf weighs 2000kg, and 335kg is battery and has a range of 149m, the 2 seat Smart car is the only car currently built with specs in that range].

Flying 2023-30 - All airports except Heathrow, Glasgow and Belfast close with transfers by rail
2030-49- All remaining airports close

Shipping 2030-49 – All shipping declines to zero

Heating - Programme to provide all interior heat with heat pumps and energy retroifts for all buildings. [Heat pumps can’t be retrofitted in to high rises. And heat pumps don’t work at all below about 10f]

Food - National consumption of beef and lamb drops by 50%, along with reduction in frozen ready meals
and air-freighted food imports phased out by 2030.
By 2049- Beef and lamb phased out, along with all imports not transported by train; fertiliser use greatly reduced.

Appliances
Electrification of all appliances and reduction in size to cut power requirement. [This will be hell for large families, and the rest of us will just have to have fewer cloths and dishes.]

Mining, Manufacturing and Construction - Mining Iron ore and Limestone phased out. Cement and new steel phased out. All conventional mortar and concrete phased out, all steel recycled. Focus on retrofit and adaption of existing buildings.

Energy - Four-fold increase in renewable generation from 2020, all non-electrical motors and heaters phased out.
Fossil fuels completed phased out.

https://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf

[Krychek_2]

I've said it before, the only genuinely effective ways to reverse climate change would involve crashing the economy, and no politician of either party is going to do that. We're at the point of re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. So all we can really do is hope our evolutionary successors do a better job of taking care of the planet than we did.

[Kazinski]

The last time CO2 levels were as high as they are now was the Pliocene, that’s when primates came down out of the trees and early humans evolved.

To be sure it wasn’t all a bed of roses, the temperature was even warmer than it is now, there were mastodons, saber tooth tigers, 10 foot tall terror birds, giant sloths.

I can see why you are so worried about 400ppm CO2 with giant animals like that running around,and all our ancestors sporting brains the size of oranges.

But it was hardly an ecological catastrophe, that is until the ice ages came, CO2 cratered to 180ppm, mastodons, mammoths, great sloths perished in part because vegetation can’t thrive at such low CO2 levels and we’ve had our way with things since.

[Nige]

'But it was hardly an ecological catastrophe'

Well for a start, there was still a functional eco-system, which is the thing we're busy burning, crashing, poisoning and dismantling.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Nature will be fine. It always finds a way

[Nige]

We're part of nature, and nature don't care if we remain a viable species or not due to wrecking the environment we need to survive.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Obviously the solution is to empower the global elites to make rules for us and to control our choices so we only make approved Green ones!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot strives to be human (and sentient)

[Kazinski]

But plants thrive on higher CO2 levels, and they like warm climates too. If as you say we are burning, crashing, poisoning and dismantling, then the best course for remediation is to go on a crash program to raise global standards of living as rapidly as possible.

A clean environment is a luxury good. Richer societies take more care of the environment, reducing pollution, cleaning up waste and litter, remediating old mines, industrial complexes, installing pollution control equipment, using cleaner fuels like natural gas instead of coal. In fact they say part of the recent warming we've experienced in the last few decades is fewer aerosols like sulfur dioxide pollution that causes smog and reflects sunlight.

And putting more plant food in the air.

[Nige]

'But plants thrive on higher CO2 levels'

They don't thrive on being burnt in widlfiires dessicated by droughts, washed away by floods or generally being buggered about by shifting weather patterns. And that's not getting to all the non-climate-related human-directed destruction of plant-life.

'A clean environment is a luxury good'

A wrecked environment in a negative externality, an austerity programme and massive subsidy imposed on anyone who can't afford a private bunker.

'And putting more plant food in the air.'

Y'know how I've had to point out that the effects are extremely limited every time you've posted a link to that study? Is that why you don't post it any more?

[Kazinski]

At what level do the effects become extremely limited?

Lets ask the people who make their livings from greenhouses and maximizing yields:

"Elevated levels of carbon dioxide during the ‘daylight’ growing hours enhance plant growth. In greenhouses, the growth rate and development of all plants can be improved by controlling CO2 concentrations at levels of around 800 ppm. This is approximately twice as much as the natural concentration of CO2 in natural ambient air. Higher CO2 concentrations up to 2000 ppm have been used in greenhouses and hydroponics, but each incremental increase in CO2 levels above 700 ppm has diminishing benefit to the plants. Despite these diminishing returns, some operators control the CO2 levels at 1000 or 1200 ppm to fully exploit the potential of CO2 addition."

https://www.envirotech-online.com/article/gas-detection/8/sbh4-gmbh/carbon-dioxide-dosing-in-commercial-greenhouses-ndashbr-gas-sensors-for-optimal-control-of-growth-conditions-and-safety/2492

But do you know what is severely limited by diminished returns? The warming effect of CO2.

The IPCC says doubling CO2 from 280ppm will add 3.4 watts per meter warming, the first 280ppm with the other much smaller trace Greenhouse gasses added 33 watts per meter. So doubling CO2 only provides 1% forcing, if that.

I was just remarking to my wife that my view out over the canyon has severely deteriorated over the last 5 years due to tree growth.

I may have to take things into my own hands if drought floods and other acts of God don't speed up and do some natural tree trimming, but I'm not hopeful.

[Nige]

Oh lovely in the controlled conditions of a well-tended greenhouse where the atmosphere can be adjusted, that's great news for horticulture, I'm sure we'll be able to put that to good use in the underground bunkers.

The self-limiting effects of warming aren't that reassuring, especially in the short term but most definitely not in the long term. You've already compared the global temperature rising by one degreee to noticing a one degree difference when standing outside, so honestly, you either don't understand or don't want to.

[bernard11]

But it was hardly an ecological catastrophe,

Ecological events are only "catastrophes" from the POV of some, maybe many, species*. For others they may be a blessing. The issue is not that climate change is an ecological catastrophe across the board, it's that it may be such for human beings. That's why arguments about the Pliocene or whatever are meaningless.

*Of course there is the possibility of an event that destroys all species on Earth, but that's not what we are talking about here.

[Kazinski]

Now why would it be more of a catastrophe for humans? A species that can thrive from deserts to rain forests, sea level to Tibet, the tropics to the Arctic.

Tell me another one.

[Nige]

I love how we veer between ‘climate change is negligible’ and ‘humans will thrive in the Mad Max lansdcape left over after the water wars!’

There’s a word for people who look down, or in this case forward, from priveleged comfortable conditions on the (entirely preventible) negative effects of their comfort and prosperity and decide the surviving peasants are fine, they can take a little more pain, they’re adaptable.

[bernard11]

Now why would it be more of a catastrophe for humans?

OK. Maybe not for humans as a species, but certainly for human civilization.

[Brett Bellmore]

Assuming for the moment that the warming really IS threatening enough to justify action, it's hardly the case that you'd have to crash the economy to fight it. Not remotely.

Rather, what's going on is that the people screaming loudest about global warming have a fixation on approaches that would crash the economy, and an almost absolute abhorrence of any approach that wouldn't.

I won't say that they oppose ALL sources of power; If a power source is sufficiently unreliable and/or intermittent, they'll tolerate it. But it it's reliable enough to run a civilization off of, they absolutely hate it.

The reason everything they would support crashes living standards is that crashing living standards IS their approach to fighting global warming, and that's the ugly truth of the matter.

So, how would you deal with global warming, if convinced it was a real threat, and NOT totally fixated on approaches that would crash living standards?

You'd embark on a crash program to nuclearize the economy, using electricity and synthfuels. Nuclear is the only carbon neutral energy source we have today that's both reliable and scalable. It's objectively hugely safer than all alternatives, the primary cost obstacles are just regulatory churn and the plants being built so rarely that they're all unique learning experiences. Both of which are easily solved IF the watermelons get out of the way.

I will say this: There is a growing subset of environmentalists who support nuclear power, because they're genuinely concerned about warming, and NOT determined to turn us into feudal serfs. So they're willing to look at nuclear objectively.

[Nige]

'Rather, what’s going on is that the people screaming loudest about global warming have a fixation on approaches that would crash the economy, and an almost absolute abhorrence of any approach that wouldn’t.'

Economies crash all the time. It crashed in 2007, despite plenty of warnings that largely gor dismissed, a bit lime the warnings about climate change. Pretty much the saem people doing the ignoring, in fact.

Second, you don't have any other approaches to offer.

'There is a growing subset of environmentalists who support nuclear power,'

I doubt it. But see the reaction to what just happened in Fukuyama. It's not the environmentalists that are preventing the further uptake of nuclear power. Otherwise there'd be nuclear power stations all over Appalachia.

[Brett Bellmore]

They don't normally crash to "Stop expecting to eat meat, or travel more than 50 miles from home" levels, which is what's planned here.

And you've got a lot of nerve saying I'm not offering any other approach in reply to a comment where did exactly that.

The watermelons have done a great job of demonizing nuclear power, or else people would have noticed that it's actually, rare accidents included, the safest reliable power source out there.

Death rates per unit of electricity production

The difference between nuclear, and the comparably safe wind and solar, is that nuclear actually works, reliably. Rather than showing up when it's in the mood.

[Nige]

‘Eat less meat and have a functional public transport infrastructure or you'll end up eating less food and without any infrastructure’ is only an intolerable hardship to a very particular point of view.

‘The difference between nuclear, and the comparably safe wind and solar, is that nuclear actually works, reliably’

Odd that it came out of its heyday in the forties and fifties a crippled, heavily subsidised, non-viable industry with a nightmare waste problem, then. Can’t blame that on environmentalists.

[Nelson]

"Odd that it came out of its heyday in the forties and fifties a crippled, heavily subsidised"

You mean the emerging technology that was born in the mid-40s was subsidized for the first decade or so? Kinda like wind and solar is now?

And how was it "crippled", since we still have it almost 80 years later? Has the fall been coming in just a few years ... for decades?

"non-viable industry"

The economic viability of nuclear is clear, even with the back-breaking levels of regulation it endures.

I strongly support necessary regulations that are designed to protect consumers from fraud and bad behavior. Regulations that don't increase consumer protection or safety, but add significantly to the cost of production, are indefensible. And the nuclear power industry endures many, many, many useless regulations.

"with a nightmare waste problem"

Containing nuclear waste isn't a nightmare. It's a challenge, much like the containment of every other dangerously toxic industrial by-product is a challenge. The fact that every major hospital in America isn't a radioactive hellscape is proof of that.

"Can’t blame that on environmentalists."

As the overregulation and baseless fearmongering demanded by environmentalists has made the cleanest (and most powerful) source of reliable power almost impossible to deploy, yes. You absolutely can and should blame fringe environmentalists.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The petroleum industry has been spending billions of dollars making people doubt all the evidence of global warming. A lot of that evidence comes through the research they themselves funded prior to 1980. Whenever I read comments here by you and others, I have to wonder if you are getting the benefit of that largesse, or are you silly enough to do it for free.

[Nige]

‘Kinda like wind and solar is now?’

Well, yeah, given that a leak from a wind or solar facility won’t render the local water-table radioactive.

‘And how was it “crippled”,’

Oh come on. You’re here complaining that there isn’t enough and what there is is being shut down. Not exactly thriving, is it?

‘And the nuclear power industry endures many, many, many useless regulations.’

That’s because the industry was every bit as evil in their way as the oil industry is, but they had to deal with the spectre of the Cold War putting everyone off and the fact that they kept getting caught being wildly reckless and putting ‘reckless’ and ‘nuclear’ together spelled doom.

‘Containing nuclear waste isn’t a nightmare.’

Oh sure, everyone’s looking forward to those ‘Nothing of value is buried here’ signs popping up all over.

‘baseless fearmongering’

Anyone who remember the 80s and 90s or who even glances cursorily at the will know why the nuclear power industry has the credibility and trustworthiness of a glowing dead fish. Because of all the dead and glowing fish, for one thing. I wish more people would realise that the fossil fuel industry is actually worse, but hey, give it time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kinda like the heavy metals used in solar panels have an infinite half life, unlike nuclear waste they're toxic forever?

[Nige]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

[Nelson]

Do you know how many companies recycle solar panels?

[Nige]

Not enough.

[Nelson]

If you want to inderstand why it's a LOT more complex than a slogan, you can read this:

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/09/22/recycling-solar-panels-making-the-numbers-work/

Note that to get to profitability and a 20% recycling rate, there needs to be an $18/panel government subsidy on a $28/panel cost. In other words, the government would have to subsidize almost 2/3 of the recycling cost and wait a decade for profitability. For that investment we would get only 20% of panels recycled.

That's a terrible waste of money when simply supporting nuclear power today would have an instant effect on climate change.

[Nelson]

"Well, yeah, given that a leak from a wind or solar facility won’t render the local water-table radioactive."

Throughout history, how many times has this happened? As a follow-up (once you discover the amswer), what is the theoretical possibility of that happening? After you discover that answer, tell me what your threshold is for something to be likely enough to justify restrictive regulations? Finally, which existing technologies would have the same (or worse) impact and would they be replaced by a safer, more efficient, and infinitely cleaner technology like, say, nuclear?

The argument isn't over whether nuclear is perfectly safe. The argument is over whether nuclear is better than the available alternatives. And for climate change as well as safety, the answer is clearly yes.

"Not exactly thriving, is it?"

Have you not been paying attention? The unnecessary regulatory costs imposed on nuclear not only make it more expensive, they make it difficult-bordering-on-impossible to build new facilities (which are also m9re costly due to irrational regulations). And it's still cheaper than unsubsidized solar or wind.

"That’s because the industry was every bit as evil in their way as the oil industry is"

Ah, a disgusting combination of personal moral beliefs and mindless polemic. You're as bad as anti-abortionists.

"Oh sure, everyone’s looking forward to those ‘Nothing of value is buried here’ signs popping up all over."

What does that have to do with the difficulty of nuclear waste storage?

"Anyone who remember the 80s and 90s"

I was alive then and remember it well. From your posts, I'm pretty sure you weren't and are getting your information from biased sources.

"Because of all the dead and glowing fish"

I stand corrected. You're getting your information from The Simpsons.

"I wish more people would realise that the fossil fuel industry is actually worse"

Most of us do realize the fossil fuel industry is terrible for the environment as well as bad for their workers and tbeir communities. But only foolish people make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Do you want to reduce or eliminate filthy energy sources like coal? The only realistic option, given today's technology, is nuclear.

No one is going to cripple theor economy because ignorant fearmongers don't like nuclear. The choice isn't between crippling cuts to energy use and climate change because no one is ever going to choose crippling cuts. Nor should they, given there's a readily available solution.

Nuclear can instantly change the equation on imate change, but the willfully ignorant refuse to get out of the way.

[Nige]

Believe it or not something really bad doesn't have to happen often to have an impact.

'And for climate change as well as safety, the answer is clearly yes.'

I'm beginning to think the biggest obstacle is the advocates. The same accusation is made of climate change activists too, though, so who knows? But if the right wing climate change denial machine really latches on the nuclear power as a culture war weapon, it may be doomed completely.

'You’re as bad as anti-abortionists.'

Yes, yes, I'm as bad as this and as bad as that. If the industry profiting off the wanton destruction of the planet isn't evil, then who is?

'from biased sources.'

More that I lived in the shadow of one of those things.

'But only foolish people make the perfect the enemy of the good. '

What like denouncing an entire global movement trying to avert a looming planetary disaster because your pet solution isn't as popular as you'd like? Sorry. I'm being mean, but come on.

'No one is going to cripple theor economy because ignorant fearmongers don’t like nuclear.'

They're going to cripple their economy because rich people are making money wrecking the planet. Neither wrecking the planet nor nuclear power are popular, so, actually, you could be right.

'but the willfully ignorant refuse to get out of the way.'

'Now throw the switch Igor!'

[Nige]

Final word on this: you actually have so much in common with climate change activists. They have also had to overcome fear, ignorance, indifference, misinformation, disinformation, institutional inertia, governmental obstacles, the long reach and deep pockets of fossil fuels, and, of course, internal ideological divisions about the right approaches to advocacy and solutions. Their advantage is: nobody actually wants the planet wrecked. Their disadvantage: people think responding to climate change requires destroying civilisation. Your advantage: people want clean, cheap, renewable power. Your disadvantage: people think its proliferation could destroy the world.

Make of that what you will, but your approach thus far reminds me of how All Lives Matter was used not in solidarity with Black Lives Matter, but in antagonistic opposition. I’m about 60% sure the earnest and sincere pro-nuke crowd are going to get swallowed whole by a Nuclear Reactors Matter. Which is not a good thing.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not the first time the Nige-Nelson discussion on climate have been a good informative read.

[Nelson]

"But if the right wing climate change denial machine really latches on the nuclear power as a culture war weapon, it may be doomed completely."

What does that even mean?

"If the industry profiting off the wanton destruction of the planet isn’t evil"

Fossil fuel companies are providing the product (energy) that consumers want and society requires to function. That isn't evil.

If a cleaner, cheaper, more powerful, and easier (because the inevitable NIMBY lawsuits and length of time necessary to build new nuclear plants is a major deterrent) source of power were allowed to deploy, those "evil" companies would have to switch away from coal or be driven out of business. The reason coal is used is because nuclear is so vilified and lawyer-intensive it's not worth the time and effort, not because energy companies want to pollute the environment. Environmentalists are literally causing the problem they claim to be trying to solve.

"rich people are making money wrecking the planet"

People (rich people included) want to make money. There's nothing wrong with that. If there is a way to do it that is better and cleaner than the methods available today, everyone except those who aren't diversified will grab it with both hands.

Rich people aren't evil, nor are they mindlessly greedy. Nor are they villains determined to destroy the planet. They are people, just the same as every other class of people. Some good, some bad, but most in between.

"Neither wrecking the planet nor nuclear power are popular"

And yet one of them can help solve the other.

"Now throw the switch Igor!"

This isn't a new, unknown technology that irresponsible scientists are about to loose upon the world. It's almost 80-year-old technology that is deeply understood.

"you actually have so much in common with climate change activists."

Probably because I understand and accept the realities of climate change. The difference is I believe that the market and existing, safe, clean technology is the answer, not fearmongering and more and more government mandates. Especially mandates that are unnecessary and based in ignorance and science-denial.

"Their advantage is: nobody actually wants the planet wrecked."

Agreed. That includes climate deniers and fossil fuel companies.

"Their disadvantage: people think responding to climate change requires destroying civilisation."

If refusing to consider nuclear is a prerequisite, that's exactly what is being advocated by environmentalists.

"Your advantage: people want clean, cheap, renewable power."

That's not an advantage to "my position". It's literally what's necessary to slow climate change.

"Your disadvantage: people think its proliferation could destroy the world."

That is a gross overstatement not only of the level of support for that position, but also the level of catastrophe that people believe a meltdown (which has only happened once, at Chernobyl, under the Soviet Union, which was as effective at managing things as communists always are) would entail.

"Make of that what you will, but your approach thus far reminds me of ..."

If you think a data driven, factual, scientific analysis of the safety of nuclear power is analogius to a purely political propoganda war, I can't help you. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between substance and style.

"are going to get swallowed whole by a Nuclear Reactors Matter"

It's not a political pissing contest, it's the future of the planet. Fear that "those guys" will maybe, possibly, potentially create a political issue around pro-nuclear advacacy is as specious as arguments get.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Global Warming Industry Is Corrupt

No Tricks Zone publishes a summary of an article by Dr. Klaus-Dieter Döhler, a natural scientist and environmentalist, and Josef Kowatsch, a nature conservationist, that criticizes the global warming industry in Germany. Their criticisms apply equally to that industry in the U.S.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/08/the-global-warming-industry-is-corrupt.php

[jb]

I think it's fair to say a lot of people on the left (or in the "we should try to do something about global warming" camp) are anti-nuclear in ways that are counterproductive to their goals. The trend in Europe to shut down nuclear capacity seems particularly misguided. We would make much faster progress towards reducing emissions by including a strong component of nuclear energy as part of the overall strategy.

On the other hand, people on the other side of the debate have equally silly and illogical opposition to renewable energy, which has gotten dramatically cheaper and more practical in reason decades.

[Nige]

Nuclear power had been around since the fifties. It's not current climate change activists that somewhow went back and time and magically prevented it from becoming as ubiquitous as fossil fuels, and it's not them now preventing governments embracing it as a solution. It's unpopular and distrusted in a way that is quite profound and difficult, if not impossible, to dislodge.

[jimc5499]

"It’s unpopular and distrusted in a way that is quite profound and difficult, if not impossible, to dislodge."

You might want to look into who made it that way. The same damned clowns who are pushing "climate change". Do a little History research. Why was the US pushed to using foreign oil? Why was the largest part of the Soviet Navy it's submarine fleet? Who kept stirring things up in the Middle East and why?
Why did the KGB fund the "Green Party" and Greenpeace in Europe and the Sierra Club and other environmental groups in the US? It all tracks.

[jb]

You might want to look into who made it that way. The same damned clowns who are pushing “climate change”.

Wow, Greta Thunberg is a lot older than she looks!

[Nige]

‘The same damned clowns who are pushing “climate change”’

Really? I wonder if there was far more powerful competing energy sector that might have played a greater role long before climate change became an established issue.

Ah, yes, the Green Party and Greenpeace, famously decisive voices in US foreign and domestic policy.

‘Why was the largest part of the Soviet Navy it’s submarine fleet?’

Genuinely curious about where this is going. Don’t leave me hanging.

[VinniUSMC]

[nuclear] came out of its heyday in the forties and fiftiesNuclear power had been around since the fifties.

Nuclear power has been around since the 50s, and had it’s heyday in the 40s? Do you even math? Why are you also this stupid?

[Nige]

Oh like in the forties the atom wasn't going to make life better for everyone, when the idea of dying in a global nuclear holocaust hadn't yet taken the shine off.

[Bob from Ohio]

"warming really IS threatening "

72 today in late August in NE Ohio!

I love all this climate change!

[Nige]

See? You're just children, basically.

[Bob from Ohio]

Chicken Little speaks.

[Nige]

Childish people quoting children's stories.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, so you don't know the difference between climate and weather.

[Don Nico]

Clearly you do not either

[Nige]

Oh so you don’t know what climate change even is. Children.

[Nelson]

"72 today in late August in NE Ohio!

I love all this climate change!"

Even the denialist wing of the "climate change hasn't been proved" movement understands the difference between weather and climate. Why don't you?

[Nelson]

"You’d embark on a crash program to nuclearize the economy, using electricity and synthfuels."

I almost never agree with Brett, but this is a subject where he is 100% right. Not about the motives of those who oppose nuclear, he is still completely incapable of honestly characterizing those who don't agree with him socially. But about nuclear power, he is dead-on.

He is also dead right about the massive number of unnecessary regulations and the cost they add to nuclear power. If nuclear power stations were regulated like any other technology involving radioactive materials (like, for example, a shitload of medical devices that hospitals use on a regular basis) the cost per unit would be miniscule.

You can't slow the rate of climate change AND ban nuclear power. Those goals are mutually exclusive unless a radically new technology suddenly appears.

[Nige]

You can't just get people to accept nuclear reactors are safe, either. Just lately there's been nuclear power plants in a war zone and downstream of a blown dam and another just released water into the ocean to near-universal horror. Wow, you want to build more of those going into to a period of climate and social instability! How attractive!

[Nelson]

"You can’t just get people to accept nuclear reactors are safe, either."

Much like you can't get some people to accept that Trump lost the 2020 election. The ignorance of people doesn't have any effect on reality. Anti-nuclear environmentalists are the election deniers of the STEM world.

"Just lately there’s been nuclear power plants in a war zone"

And? I'm waiting for the rest of the horror story. What happened?

"downstream of a blown dam"

Another disaster? Why are you leaving me in suspense? What happened?

"another just released water into the ocean to near-universal horror"

Irrational panic is proof of what? People who actually understand the science keep trying to explain things logically, but the anti-nuclear folks are as immune to logic as climate change deniers.

"Wow, you want to build more of those going into to a period of climate and social instability!"

Climate instability is something that can be planned for, so I'm not sure why you think that's relevant. Social instability won't have any impact on the safety and viability of nuclear power unless there is an armed attack. And in that case, the coal plants that they would replace are equally vulnerable and also have horrifically toxic waste.

Your weird "what-if" fearmongering is exhibit A of irrational opposition to nuclear power.

[Nige]

Sure, keep drawing that kind of equivlance. That's going to win people over. You realise that you have to address peoples' actual real and tangible fears, given the history of nuclear energy in order to address them, right?

'What happened?'

Oh everything turned out fine! Let's do it again!

'What happened?'

Everything turned out fine! Keep rolling them dice!

'Irrational panic is proof of what?'

The way you phrase it is proof you'll never win people over because you have nothing but contempt for them.

'Climate instability is something that can be planned for'

It is very much the opposite of that, by its very nature.

'And in that case, the coal plants that they would replace are equally vulnerable and also have horrifically toxic waste.'

With you 100% there. I acknowledge the double standard, the fear that keeps nuclear power marginalised and the lack of fear that lets fossil fuels kill millons every year via air pollution alone, it's a serious problem.

[Nelson]

“You realise that you have to address peoples’ actual real and tangible fears”

My point is they aren’t real or tangible fears. And there are massive reams of data that prove it. The anti-nuclear folks are as denialist about science as climate change deniers. If you want people to trust the science, you have to do so as well.

“The way you phrase it is proof you’ll never win people over because you have nothing but contempt for them.”

You are correct, I have nothing but contempt for hypocrites. I believe in climate change because it is a provable scientific reality. It’s the same reason I believe nuclear is the best combinations of safety, reliability, and clean energy available.

Climate change can’t be slowed by wind and solar. It isn’t powerful or dependable enough to meet our energy needs. If you really want to slow climate change, nuclear is the only option. And if you really trust science, you wouldn’t believe the anti-nuclear claims.

So do you believe in science or not?

“It is very much the opposite of that, by its very nature.”

You can’t have it both ways. Climate change models are impressively accurate about the effects of climate change. Those models can be used to plan future nuclear plants, given the models.

So do you believe imate change models are accurate or not?

“the fear that keeps nuclear power marginalised’

The irrational fear, intentionally promulgated by environmentalists. Because science is real. Pandering to science deniers, especially the selective deniers who support it when it identifies the threats of climate change but ignore it when it presents a solution they don’t like, is unacceptable.

Science doesn’t care about your feelings or susceptibility to propaganda. Math is cruel like that.

[Nige]

'My point is they aren’t real or tangible fears'

Yes, bit of an oxymoron there, sorry. The difference between peple who don't like nuclear power and people who deny climate change is real is Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, the war in Ukraine and the entire Cold War.

'I have nothing but contempt for hypocrites'

Yes, I too hate people who contradict themselves in some way or other as the most evil people on earth. It's such a useful stance to take, because you can find a contradiction like that in everyone!

'Climate change models are impressively accurate about the effects of climate change.'

And those effects are chaotic and unpredictable.

'The irrational fear, intentionally promulgated by environmentalists.'

Environmentalists have had some successes but I don't thonk they're really that influential. They've been demonising coal, oil and gas even longer and with more evidence and they've barely nudged the needle. It's a bit like animal laboratories blaming the escape of non-native species like mink on animal rights activists.

Feelings sometimes don't care about your science, sad to say, especially if it's feelings about the science that threatened to kill them for a few decades. I think they could be made to care, could be overcome, but honestly at this point the main role of nuclear power is to provide something to butt heads with climate change activists with, so chances seem slim.

[Nelson]

"The difference between peple who don’t like nuclear power and people who deny climate change is real is Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, the war in Ukraine and the entire Cold War."

Fukashima wasn't a failure of the nuclear power plant, it was an earthquale and tsunami that destroyed dozens of buildings and killed hundreds.

Three Mile Island was completely contained, wasn't a meltdown, and didn't impact the surrounding community at all. It was actually an excellent example of the effective ess of safety procedures, which have only gotten better in the last 44 years.

The war in Ukraine? Yiu mean where there have been zero nuclear accidents or failures? How does "nothing has happened" support real fear of nuclear power?

The entire Cold War? Are you trying to falsely equate nuclear weapons with nuclear power plants? They are completely different things.

Chernobyl was a failure in maintainence at a nuclear power plant, resulting in a devastating meltdown. But that is something that is easily (and justifiably) regulated.

So in the entire history of nuclear power on the planet Earth (almost 80 years), there has been one failure of a nuclear power plant? And that's supposed to be accepted as a "real" basis for fear? That's awfully ... weak.

"people who contradict themselves in some way or other"

That's not what a hypocrite is. A hypocrite, for example, is a person who insists that others acknowledge and accept something when it supports their beliefs, but doesn't do the same when it disproves their beliefs.

As a concrete example, scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the validity of climate change. Scientific consensus also overwhelmingly supports the safety of nuclear power plants.

A hypocrite would be someone who insists that the first consensus be accepted and acted upon while the second be rejected and dismissed.

Or, alternatively, that the feelings of people who oppose the first scientific consensus be condemned while the feelings of those who oppose the second consensus be respected.

"And those effects are chaotic and unpredictable."

While the details may fall into a range, the effects are very predictable.

"Environmentalists have had some successes but I don’t thonk they’re really that influential."

Excellent example of handwaving!

"Feelings sometimes don’t care about your science"

And that's bad when discussing climate change, but good when discussing nuclear power?

"especially if it’s feelings about the science that threatened to kill them for a few decades"

Another false equivalence between nuclear weapons and nuclear power. That's awfully dishonest of you.

I still haven't seen you propose one practical, attainable, and effective alternative to nuclear power as a method of reducing the rate of climate change. I'm assuming even you would put "economy-crushing restrictions on transportation, food, and daily life" below nuclear power as a solution, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Nuclear is not scalable, not for us to become predominantly a nuclear country. Waste is an issue; a big one.

I like nuclear power; I think we should have more and be doing research into how to do it better. But come on – nuclear is not the silver bullet any more than that guy below says carbon sequestration is. Quit with this silver bullet stuff. That’s just lazy.

[David Nieporent]

Nuclear is not scalable, not for us to become predominantly a nuclear country. Waste is an issue; a big one.

Waste is a political issue, not a technological one. The solution is simple: pick some place far from people. Put it all there.

[Sarcastr0]

I suppose. But climate change is also a political problem.

[Nige]

That's been the practice, hasn't it? Who cares if a few indigenous tribes develop skyrocketing cancer rates. Plus their land is obviously worthless.

[Sarcastr0]

There are plenty of legit empty places in the US without voiceless populations on them.
Though I believe most of them have some private property rights issues.

[Nige]

They’re all eco-systems, even the desert. It’s not that it shouldn’t be done, I just think it’s best if the full costs be acknowledged. There are toxic waste dumps placed next to population centres all over the world, and there are all those superfund sites in the US – far more immediate issues than the possible future location of waste from hypothetical nuclear power stations, but it’s hard to get anyone to care. Disband the EPA! Toxic waste for everyone!

If safe modern reactors absolutely wiped fossil fuel useage off the planet I would not complain about remote waste storage, but I would want everyone to be clear and open about what’s happening.

[Sarcastr0]

I think we're basically on the same page.

I want more nuclear, both in new builds and in researching improvements. I think it's helpful and we're too leery of it here in the US. But I also think Brett's silver bullet idea of what it would solve is trying to have is anti-climate change cake and eat it too.

[David Nieporent]

Though I believe most of them have some private property rights issues.

That seems to me an appropriate use of eminent domain.

[Sarcastr0]

It does seem more in line with the intended use than the usual way it's used these days.

And thus we are back to political will.

[Don Nico]

"Nuclear is not scalable"
Of course it is, but is does not make for a 100% supply of energy. Could it supply 100% of baseload needs? Maybe, but presently costs are too high. Small Modular Reactors (may be an answer but the economics need to be proven over the next 10 years.
In the US the big progress is that utility can get a siting license that is independent of the kind of "boiler." Gas turbines could be installed immediately, making the site cost chargeable to the customer. Of course the company would hope that the reactor license would be approved so that the carrying costs of its construction could be recovered. The boilers would ideally be SMRs not requiring large conventional construction.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't disagree with anything you said.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who the fuck cares?

[Nige]

‘would involve crashing the economy,’

Economies have been crashed over and over for worse and stupider reasons – but if it does crash it won’t be bcause of environmentalists – it’ll be because the same people who crashed economies before are still allowed to fuck around with entire societies for their personal profit.

Pre-2007 politicians refused to prevent a crash because doing so would be bad for the economy. Maybe these same people warning against action on climate change don't actually have a clue or really care.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's crashing the economy (like in 2007), and then there's utterly decimating the economy (like in Germany in 1945).

It's the second option that is realistically being talked about.

[Nige]

The effects of unchecked climate change on economies will probably be that bad in the medium term, yes.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You have a poor grasp of WWII and/or climate issues.

[Frank Drackman]

In his defense Nige-Bot's constructed from recycled Zima cans.

[Nige]

It could end up being even worse, yes, because when WW2 was over, they could still grow crops and find water.

[Bob from Ohio]

"till grow crops and find water."

Now you are just hysterical. No water anywhere on earth!

[Nige]

Now you're being stupid for effect.

[Tom for equal rights]

Armchair Lawyer 4 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
You have a poor grasp of WWII and/or climate issues."

Armchair - Nige has a very poor grasp of most every subject. deluded believes, disinformed, Gets far too much info from woke science activists.

[Nige]

'Woke' really has become the all-purpose adjective.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige - do you have a better term for in lack of knowledge on the most basic of subjects and the level of disinformation you spew.

[santamonica811]

How about using "uninformed?" Or "ignorant?" The indiscriminate use of "woke" just makes you guys sound [a] nutty and [b] illiterate. I think that was Nige's point.

[Nige]

I know I don’t attach ‘woke’ to a topic and thereby claim it is refuted or discredited and then accuse others of being ignorant.

[Nelson]

"Economies have been crashed over and over for worse and stupider reasons – but if it does crash it won’t be bcause of environmentalists – it’ll be because the same people who crashed economies before are still allowed to fuck around with entire societies for their personal profit."

This is the sort of vague accusation of "e8ch people" doing "bad things" that makes the left economically toxic. Of course it's environmentalists who are driving up the cost of nuclear power. Of all the over-regulated facilities on Earth, nuclear power plants get screwed the hardest. And the nuclear power industry as a whole does more to fight climate change than every wind and solar farm, combined, wbile getting regulated almost to death.

Nuclear power is the safest (and cleanest) source of power on Earth. Bar none. It isn't even close. Even if you factor in every death even tangentially caused by radiation from Chernobyl, the ratio of power generated to deaths for nuclear power through its entire history leaves every other technology in the dust.

Insisting on aggressive goals while demonizing the only source of power that could actually achieve those goals is irrational. And if environmentalists force the goals without acknowledging (and using) nyclear, it will adsolutely crash the economy. And yes, it will be the environmentalists' fault.

And before you try to strawman me, I am a donor and volunteer for several green initiatives in my town. I support environmental causes and reasonable environmental regulations. However, I refuse to jump onboard with anything vaguely dressed up like an environmental cause, especially when they are as stupidly self-defeating as rejecting nuclear as a source of 100% clean power.

[Nige]

‘Of course it’s environmentalists who are driving up the cost of nuclear power. Of all the over-regulated facilities on Earth, nuclear power plants get screwed the hardest.’

I’ll grant you in recent years there have been more environmentalists in positions of political power, but not many, and there’s decades before that to account for. During the seventies and eighties the nuclear power industry was dodgy as fuck, filthy, secretive and constantly covering shit up. The north Irish Sea is still radioactive. That sort of thing might have something to do with it.

‘Nuclear power is the safest (and cleanest)’

If you say so. Most people simply don’t believe you. And in fairness, you won’t be keeping any of the spent uranium rods in your living room will you?

‘And if environmentalists force the goals without acknowledging (and using) nyclear, it will adsolutely crash the economy. And yes, it will be the environmentalists’ fault.’

Sure it will. Every red state could fire up a nuclear power plant just to pwn the libs and nuke the whales or whatever. But they won’t. They literally prefer black lung and non-radioactive sources of pollution-related cancers.

Nuclear evangelists come in all stripes. Can’t fault their passion. They all insist on blaming environmentalists for people not liking the power source assiciated with the threat of the entire world dying in flame and ash and isotopes for several decades, though. Wonder why.

[Nelson]

"I’ll grant you in recent years there have been more environmentalists in positions of political power,"

They don't need to have political power to fearmonger. Look at Three Mile Island in 1979. Anti-nuclear environmentalists used it to demonize and overregulate nuclear power, creating the regulatory environment that we still suffer under today.

Due to their efforts much of America believed that there was a complete meltdown with radioactive contamination spread across the countryside, causing cancer and death for thousands of years. It was sold as proof that nuclear power plants were dangerous. Absolutely none of that was true.

"During the seventies and eighties the nuclear power industry was dodgy as fuck, filthy, secretive and constantly covering shit up."

You'll need to show me some examples of those accusations. Those are the sort of baseless pejoratives often hirled at businesses by anti-capitalists. I'm not saying there weren't bad actors, because there always are. But the entire industry? Highly unlikely.

"The north Irish Sea is still radioactive."

What a great opportunity for environmentalists to document the damages caused by such practices and demonstrate the harms caused by seventy years of releasing low-level radioactive substances into the ocean.

What did they find? They found definitive impacts, right?

"If you say so."

I don't say so, the data says so. It's as close to incontrovertible as math gets.

"Most people simply don’t believe you."

People who deny climate change also refuse to believe scientific consensus, data, and proof. I feel like you are 100% behind the science on climate, but not at all on nuclear power. Either accept scientific consensus or don't.

Climate change is real. So is the safety of nuclear power and it's essential role in fighting climate change.

"And in fairness, you won’t be keeping any of the spent uranium rods in your living room will you?"

I also don't store coal sludge in my living room, because it's toxic. Same with the radioactive waste from hospitals. What's your point?

"Every red state could fire up a nuclear power plant"

No, they can't. The vast majority of regulations are federal, not state. They literally couldn't do what you say.

"just to pwn the libs and nuke the whales or whatever. But they won’t. They literally prefer black lung and non-radioactive sources of pollution-related cancers."

Don't be a dick. I disagree strongly with cultural conservatives, but I don't stoop to their level like you just did.

"They all insist on blaming environmentalists for people not liking the power source assiciated with the threat of the entire world dying in flame and ash and isotopes for several decades, though."

Do you realize you are typing hyperbole as you do it?

Of course it's the fault of environmentalists that people distrust nuclear power. They have intentionally set out to misrepresent the dangers of nuclear power. It didn't happen by accident.

Do you really believe that nuclear power is a "threat of the entire world dying in flame and ash and isotopes for several decades"? That would be ... sad.

[Nige]

'Anti-nuclear environmentalists used it to demonize and overregulate nuclear power'

I should bloody well hope so. Thanks 70s activists!

It's proving surprisingly difficult to find accounts of stuff from the 80s and 90s online, aside from the obvious, here's some recent stuff:

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/nuclear-industry-politics-bribes-corruption-and-lies

'but not at all on nuclear power.'

I know I come across that way, but actually I'm cautiously pro-nuclear, it would be a godsend just as a transitional energy source, I just don't see how you're going to overcome public opposition as profoundly ingrained as the fear and terror of nuclear accidents. No, it's not all rational, but if you're going to refuse to confront it on that level, dismissing it and ridiculing it, I don't think you'll (royal you) get very far.

'Don’t be a dick.'

I'm not! Honestly! There's no pro-nuclear movement on the right beyond the libertarian-leaning types! That might change, of course, and what a prospect low-regulation nuclear power gerneration in red states would be.

'Do you realize you are typing hyperbole as you do it?'

So long as you think that description of the fear is hyperbolic, you just won't get it.

'Do you really believe that nuclear power is a “threat of the entire world dying in flame and ash and isotopes for several decades”? That would be … sad.'

I believe that's the spectre that hangs over nuclear power that you're never going to handwave away.

[Nelson]

"There’s no pro-nuclear movement on the right beyond the libertarian-leaning types!"

That is demonstrably untrue.

"that description of the fear is hyperbolic"

Yes, it is. Because the fear isn't justified by data and analysis. It's feelings, not facts, that have been intentionally manipulated by a group of hypocrites.

"I believe that’s the spectre that hangs over nuclear power that you’re never going to handwave away."

If you can't (or won't) distinguish between handwaving (unsupported faux-concern) and hard facts, you aren't being a serious person.

[Nige]

Is it? Good luck to them.

'It’s feelings,'

That's my point. Contempt for feelings isn't going to help when 'feelings' are your biggest obstacle.

Oh, I'm sorry. Keep pretending the Cold War never happned, then. Good luck!

[Nelson]

You'll really have to explain why you keep mentioning the Cold War. It's completely irrelevant to nuclear power.

[Sarcastr0]

We don’t have the political will. Worldwide. Though the denial from the GOP is second to no one in the world stage.

It’ll be what it’ll be. Between geoengineering and resilience tech, doom is not assured; misery is.

Which is why national reductions even if marginal are more than deck chairs.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Says the Rich Man North of Richmond in-between shopping trips for his new gas guzzler commuter vehicle!

[Krayt]

Misery is only assured when government tries to control the economy.

The counterintuitive observation is a free people will counter issues faster than they become a problem, and life will continue to improve.

I see plenty of threats to smash this or that business, with attendant enrichment of politicians. I see little amelioration efforts, planting massive numbers of trees and burying them, or other things.

Always just "solutitions" indistinguishible from corrupt governments getting in the way, until paid to get back out of the way.

Curious, that.

[Nige]

'The counterintuitive observation is a free people will counter issues faster than they become a problem'

Isn't that what's happening and what you are opposing?

'Always just “solutitions” indistinguishible from corrupt governments getting in the way, until paid to get back out of the way.'

Governments subsidise fossil fuel indistries to the tune of trillions every year - so I agree, stopping that corruption is a vital step.

[Davedave]

Why do you believe all this absurd conspiracy crap, rather than the climate science, Nige? You're as batshit as BCD etc, just in the opposite direction. Both kinds of insanity will kill billions if allowed to pass.

[Nige]

What conspiracy? What are you on about? You're even weirder than the straight-up climate change deniers - climate change is real let's not do anything about it!

[Davedave]

You keep making up absurd shit that rejects the scientific consensus. And then you spread weird conspiracy theories like 'trillions in fossil fuel subsidies' which have zero basis in fact.

The scientific consensus is not only on what is happening, but on what we need to do about it. When you reject the latter half in favour of what you want to believe, you're just being a more intellectual version of BCD.

We have been over this before, and you refuse to accept what the IPCC has to say because you don't like those facts. It's every bit as stupid and nuts as the Trump-traitors' bullshit about 'election interference' or whatever.

[Nige]

I haven’t said a single word about a scientific consensus.

The subsidies are public information:https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281

‘and you refuse to accept what the IPCC has to say’

No I have refused to accept your obviously bowdlerised and drastically truncated version, the same way I reject Kazinski’s self-refuting decontextualised claims about what it says.

This business with the subsidies is frankly characteristic of both of you in relation to the topic of the IPCC Report.

[Kazinski]

Tax deductions are not subsidies, they are a reduction in taxes.

And most of the "subsidies" are bullshit.

"Explicit subsidies (undercharging for supply costs) have more than doubled since 2020 but are still only 18 percent of the total subsidy, while nearly 60 percent is due to undercharging for global warming and local air pollution."

They said if the auto wasn't invented NY city would be waste deep in horseshit, that's a subsidy from the oil companies to NY.

If there wasn't automobiles suburbs wouldn't be possible, that's the oil companies subsidizing everyone who lives in a suburb, and its their cars doing the polluting not the oil companies, the oil companies don't own the power plants either, a lot of them are owned by the government.

Oil companies don't own the airlines that people get on to go on vacation, they subsidize people vacations by providing the fuel that would make it impossible to travel without.

You take everything you do on a daily or weekly basis and calculate the effort and expense to accomplish that without fossil fuels, and compare it to what it actually costs you, and then you will see where the subsidies really are.

[Sarcastr0]

Tax deductions are absolutely subsidies. Economically there is no functional difference.

As to your paeon to the automobile, it’s all counterfactuals in service of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Nige]

'And most of the “subsidies” are bullshit.'

Not really.

'They said if the auto wasn’t invented NY city would be waste deep in horseshit,'

Amazing that they still haven't invented multiple types of public transit systems that don't require horses.

'If there wasn’t automobiles suburbs wouldn’t be possible,'

Which gives you suburban sprawl, eating up land, straining infrastructure, creating long commutes, enforcing car dependency.

'and its their cars doing the polluting not the oil companies,

Oh please.

'and then you will see where the subsidies really are.'

Can I add on all the environmental destruction caused directly by fossil fuels and the corruption and the cosying up with or propping up authoritarian regimes and the associated murders and human rights abuses, and assorted wars of conquest resulting in explotation and oppression and ongoing conflicts? What about those US cancer corridors and sacrifice zones?

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 13 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Tax deductions are absolutely subsidies. Economically there is no functional difference."

That is stupid even by your standards. Using your logic of economics, a business should be paying income tax on gross income instead of net income.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
‘And most of the “subsidies” are bullshit.’

Nige - Kaz' statement is correct - The alleged subsidies are BS. Takes a highly distorted view of basic economic concepts to believe those are actually subsidies. Unfortunately the echo chamber repeats the false claim so frequently that leftist with no understanding of economic concepts lack the ability to recognize the absurdity of the claims

[Nige]

Take that, liberal eco-socialist IMF.

[Krayt]

Subsidizing fossil fuels is interference, and should not happen, either, this side of a major war, end even then maybe not.

The issue is not whether ther is or is not a problem -- you have no inherent right to pollute what is not yours, including shared resources. The issue is in the types of proposed solutions, always coincidentally like synoptic gospels with corruption behavior.

It is not a coincidence that the same folks with a drum beat for command and control based on 1970s ecological issues like resource shortage and running out of landfill room, have now adopted pollution as the reason for command and control, and finally, the ultimate pollution, global warming.

[Nige]

'Subsidizing fossil fuels is interference, and should not happen, either, this side of a major war, end even then maybe not.'

Well that's great, join the campaign to Just Stop Oil.

'The issue is in the types of proposed solutions'

The solutions are fairly well understood, though some of them require optimism about future tech development, though not unrealistic optimism. The issue is implementation.

'It is not a coincidence'

Even if that were the case - and it really isn't - you know what's lacking? Viable market based solutions! ANY solutions from the right! You can't complain about solutions when you have adopted an approach that refuses to even accept reality.

[Kazinski]

The government isn't subsidizing fossil fuels, its the other way around, fossil fuels are subsidizing the government.

Exxon Mobil makes 9 cents a gallon on the gasoline it sells, whereas the federal gas tax is double that, and the state gas taxes average 33 cents a gallon.

I used to work in the Federal Tax group in Texaco IT before it merged with Chevron, I supported the Oil Depletion and Intangible Drilling cost systems and in the early 90's at least they didn't even amount to a deduction of a billion, let alone trillions.

Our whole global economy runs on fossil fuels, billions of people would starve if we quit using fossil fuels. 9/10's of the wealth of the world is due to fossil fuels.

Just who is subsidizing who?

[Sarcastr0]

This is silly. Oil subsidies occur further down the gasoline supply line.

And also don't look at net profits for your metric on gas company subsidies.

It's also not a competition between tax revenues and subsidies; that's silly.

Your whole response trying to say the oil industry isn't heavily subsidized is utterly off point.

[Nige]

'Our whole global economy runs on fossil fuels, billions of people would starve if we quit using fossil fuels. 9/10’s of the wealth of the world is due to fossil fuels.'

Weren't we fucking idiots to ignore the clear warnings signs and become so utterly dependant on something that's basically crack to the world economy and the world's health.

[Sarcastr0]

Markets are great at what they are good at. They are not good at long-term thinking. Science and slow-burn issues like the climate.

But this is pearls before swine. You, who calls government fundamentally a protection racket, have nothing but ideology and 'trust me I've seen plenty of anecdotes' to back up your argument. Because you're an idealogue and not much else.

Hayek was smart, and his general theme of humility before the market was correct.
But in the specific, Keynes was proven right by the response to the Great Depression, and subsequent downturns as well. Even the GOP is into pump priming and stimulative spending...when their guy is in office.

[jb]

I think markets are pretty great. But we've known about the limitations of markets to manage common resources since at least 1833.

[Brett Bellmore]

And we've known since the first efforts at planned economies that governments aren't actually any better at managing common resources. They're just better at getting away with doing a lousy job of it, because they can shoot people.

[Nige]

If only private companies could shoot people, everything would be fine.

[VinniUSMC]

Of course that's your "understanding" of what Brett wrote. Moron.

[Nige]

Of course that’s your “understanding” of what I wrote. Mouse.

[jb]

There's lots of market interventions that aren't "planned economies". Controlling the negative externalities of economic activity makes markets work better, not worse.

[bernard11]

Right.

It is an amazing fact that those who scream the loudest about "free markets" have the least grasp of how they work, and when they don't.

[bernard11]

And we’ve known since the first efforts at planned economies that governments aren’t actually any better at managing common resources.

No. We haven't. This is pure ideology talking.

[Don Nico]

"misery is."
Only if we insist on the expansion of the US and EU attack on the use of baseload sources of energy.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, stamping your foot and saying 'No, U;' with zero other engagement is about the height of the anti-climate change side of the debate.

You are the creme de la crop, sir!

[Don Nico]

Your reply is incomprehensible, S_0. You are the one who is stamping your foot because you know so little about European energy policies.
Germany for example has an unsustainable energy policy based on the most unreliable energy source and reliance on buying Russian gas, Polish coal and French nuclear power.
By the way, my comment has nothing to do with "climate change" pro or con. Yours is just the usual argument by mistatement of others' positions.
Maybe that makes you the creme de la crap.

[Tom for equal rights]

Don - As an example of the unstainable energy policy of Germany is the european continent is currently experiencing 20th straight day with electric generation from wind running less than 15% of normal.

That wind doldrum is across most of the european continent
The Feb 2021 texas freeze had a 7 day period of little or no wind across the north american continent.

Those facts blows a complete hole in the belief the world can be powered via renewable energy - makes a complete falisy of Marc Jacobson 's study claiming 100% reliability with his claimed every 30sec test in his model

[Nelson]

"the only genuinely effective ways to reverse climate change would involve crashing the economy"

That's only true if you exclude nuclear. Include nuclear, eapecially early so the phase-out of coal and NG happens early for electricity generation, and it's still hard, but not impossible. The problem is the people dedicated to Malthusian projections are also hysterical about nuclear (and are probably the same Chicken Littles who think GMOs are dangerous).

You can't have carbon emission reduction at global scales without a full-throated endorsement of nuclear or an unexpected new technology (not impossible, but higjly unlikely in the short term).

Climate change is a problem that will take decades to fix because, like any massive object, it has an immense amount of inertia built up (yes, I'm mixing sciences. Or metaphors. Or both). We don't have the technology necessary to fix it quickly.

The Malthusians can't have both. Either we reject nuclear or we slow the rate of climate change to just a few multiples above historic rates. It's impossible to do both.

[Nige]

‘The problem is the people dedicated to Malthusian projections are also hysterical about nuclear’

The problem is a nuclear reactor explosion rendered a thirty kilometre zone uninhabitable. Now, don’t get me wrong, fossil fuels have actually rendered far more areas uninhabitable or practically devoid of life and given far more people cancers and lymphomas and lung disease, but then again fossil fuels are ubiquitous, nuclear power plants are not.

[Nelson]

"The problem is a nuclear reactor explosion rendered a thirty kilometre zone uninhabitable."

A nuclear explosion, you say? Was it, though? Or was it a hydrogen explosion resulting from structural damage due to an earthquake and a tsunami? Fukushima was a disaster, but it was the result of a natural disaster. The plant didn't fail, it was destroyed by a catastrophic natural event.

To you it was a failure that shows nuclear power plants are dangerous in the absence of a catastrophic natural disaster ... why?

"fossil fuels have actually rendered far more areas uninhabitable or practically devoid of life and given far more people cancers and lymphomas and lung disease"

Yes. And accelerate climate change. You are making my points for me.

"but then again fossil fuels are ubiquitous, nuclear power plants are not."

And?

Follow your thought to the end. If nuclear plants are safer than fossil fuel plants and nuclear is clean energy while fossil fuel plants contribute to climate change and no other clean energy source can handle the energy needs of America, then ...

How would you finish that sentence?

[Nige]

‘but it was the result of a natural disaster.’

Yeah, good thing we’re entering into a period of natural stability where natural disasters will be rare and infrequent.

‘You are making my points for me.’

We are probably in broad agreement except for the sticky point of the reason for and the significance of the unpopularity of nuclear power, which is a distraction, yes, but I expect climate change deniers will latch on to it with more frequency as time goes on.

‘How would you finish that sentence?’

…then you’d better find a way of overcoming popular oppostion to nuclear power AND opposition from the competing fossil fuel industry, which is, if anything, more formidable. PROVING to people it’s safer is neccesary, but not sufficent. And to be honest, climate change activists have enough brick walls to bang their heads against as it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Anyway, the point here is NOT that nuclear power is perfectly, 100.00000000% safe. What is?

It's that it's every bit as safe as solar or wind, and enormously more reliable. Even taking into account rare accidents.

[Nige]

Taking into account how little of it there actually is compared to other sources of power, you mean.

Like I said, fossil fuels have wreaked infinitely more environmental destruction and wholesale death than multiple Chernobyls. That doesn't mean somehow Chernobyl isn't somehow scarier. Probably a Cold War hangover, I dunno. More wars have been fought over oil than with nukes, but one is about all we could manage if it came to it, I suppose.

[Brett Bellmore]

“The problem is a nuclear reactor explosion rendered a thirty kilometre zone uninhabitable.”

Give me a break. The radiation level in most of the Fukashima exclusion zone is within the range you’ll naturally find in some areas of the world. Why, in places it gets as high as 20 mSv. 20 mSv, the horror!

You know how high it is in Ramsar, Iran, where people have lived for millennia without trouble? About 130 mSv!

It’s not that the area is actually uninhabitable, far from it. Its that allowable radiation exposure levels were long ago, at a time when we knew much less about radiological health, set at unrealistically low levels. They made highly “conservative’ assumptions about the safety of radiation, and then never revised them when we learned more.

Most of our nuclear exposure regulations are wildly too restrictive, based on current knowledge.

[Nige]

I was talking about the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, sorry for not being clear.

I wouldn't trust a right-wing libertarian-type's opinion on regulations any more than I'd trust a cat's opinion on the correct height for storing fish bowls, but agree current regs may not reflect current standards.

[Davedave]

Wow, a far right conspiracy theorist claims far right conspiracy theories are true based on cherrypicking and twisting words. Whodathunkit?!

The ‘source’ document doesn’t claim anything of the sort, of course.

[Kazinski]

Some right winger inserted that chart on page 6?

It was an an authoritarian, no doubt there.

[Davedave]

No, you're just cherrypicking. It says that without developing new zero-net-emission technology, those things must happen.

[Kazinski]

Where does it say that technologies that don't exist will save us from those consequences?

What it says is exactly the opposite. page 1:
"The two big challenges we face with an all electric future
are flying and shipping. Although there are lots of new
ideas about electric planes, they won’t be operating at
commercial scales within 30 years, so zero emissions
means that for some period, we’ll all stop using aeroplanes.
"In addition, obeying the law of our Climate Change
Act requires that we stop doing anything that causes
emissions regardless of its energy source. This requires
that we stop eating beef and lamb -

Page 4:
"Incremental technologies can be deployed rapidly, but
breakthrough technologies can’t. We’re concerned that
most plans for dealing with climate change depend on
breakthrough technologies - so won’t deliver in time."

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, the proposal is to reduce us to the living standard of mediaeval serfs, and then, some time after that, maybe lift us back up again. We're just supposed to trust that our descendants will, some day, be allowed to be comfortable again.

[Davedave]

Typical conspiracy-theory nuttiness there, Brett. Because, in fact, it doesn't say anything of the sort, you've just chosen to believe that in the face of contrary evidence.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's literally citing the language saying just that: That the plan is to reduce us all to pre-industrial revolution living standards, and then permit us to be better off IF hypothetical breakthroughs arrive some time later.

On the bright side, I hear the bug ration is due to be increased from 100gm/day to 70gm/day.

[Nige]

Yeah it sounds terrible if you completely ignore everything else on those pages and invent some additional stupid bullshit.

[santamonica811]

Um, going from a ration of 100x/day to 70x/day (of anything) would be a reduction, not an increase, yes?

[Nige]

The bug rations don’t really weigh anything. The big rations aren't real. But I kind of expect sooner or later they’ll be eating bugs as a protest against the non-existent plan to get everyone to eat bugs.

[Kazinski]

A little rich claiming quoting a government funded (UK) organization studying the path to net zero in 2050 is a conspiracy theory:

“UK FIRES is a research programme sponsored by the UK Government, aiming to support a 20% cut in the UK’s true emissions by 2050 by placing Resource Eficiency at the heart of the UK’s Future Industrial Strategy.”

If its a conspiracy its a government conspiracy:
Page 1:
"Executive Summary
We can’t wait for breakthrough technologies to deliver net-zero emissions by 2050. Instead, we can
plan to respond to climate change using today’s technologies with incremental change. This will
reveal many opportunities for growth but requires a public discussion about future lifestyles.

So Dave, don't try to avoid a public discussion about future lifestyles, because its required.

[Nige]

You're not discussing it, though.

[Kazinski]

Here's my discussion: I'm not stopping eating beef, or flying, or driving my car anyplace I want to go.

You do what you want to do.

[Nige]

Good for you. I’m going to keep advocating for societal change before things get too shitty.

[Davedave]

Cherrypicking. It says other things elsewhere that you are choosing to ignore. Lying by omission.

[Mr. Bumble]

Has zero-net-emissions been achieved anywhere?

[Kazinski]

Its been proposed that some brave foolhardy country go completely net zero first. Some country like say Spain. The French might be a better choice with all their nuclear power but the French will riot at the drop of a hat, and many hats will be dropped.

India had proposed a different solution than net zero, achieve global carbon per capita parity first, and when we reach the same carbon emissions they have per capita, then call them and we can start on next steps.

[Nige]

'achieve global carbon per capita parity first'

I am in sympathy with countries who contributed the least bearing the brunt but this is fucking stupid.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 1 day ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"I am in sympathy with countries who contributed the least bearing the brunt but this is fucking stupid."

Nige - you should marc jacobson road map to 100% renewable energy in 145 countries (he has various versions of that study , the latest being 2022).
That is basically what Jacobson envisions with his road map study. All the african countries and the Indian subcontinent, will very little increase in per capita electric usage.

[Kazinski]

No Dave, I am quoting from the executive summary, the main points they want to convey.

The links above tell me where it says we don't have to stop flying for at least a generation, or beef and lamb will still be on the menu.

[Nige]

No beef, lamb or flights on a dead world, as they say. The question is do you ignore reality or work to create alternatives?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've proposed an alternative: Go all in for the only reliable source of energy we have that's both safe and carbon neutral: Fission power. What you can power with electricity, do, and synthfuels for transport, rather than toxic and heavy batteries.

It's what you'd do if you wanted to decarbonize and DIDN'T want to reduce almost everybody to poverty.

[Nige]

No it's what you do if you still lived in the fifites and believed in better living through atoms.

[Sarcastr0]

And an alternative for my financial planning is to go all-in on buying stock in one company, and hope it pays off in time.

A responsible leader never goes all-in.

[Nige]

I love how you leave out literally half of that page.

[Nige]

and the entire next page.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Realistically, there is a "different" way. And that is to rapidly ramp up very cheap energy production.

Realistic fusion energy (Or an alternative of very broad solar) would allow for direct removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

That should be the aim.

[Nige]

This is like saying the aim of WW2 should be to defeat the Axis powers. THE major project of climate change action is cheaper, cleaner, renewable energy sources. The aim of Net Zero is not, as Kazinski is trying to suggest, that all energy production be stopped, but that current energy production be replaced.

[Mr. Bumble]

So I'll ask again, has zero-net-emissions been achieved anywhere? Is it likely to be anytime soon?

[Nige]

If net zero emissions had been achieved we would hardly be facing the difficulties we are now. It’s only ‘likely’ if politicians start putting their citizens’ welfare ahead of fossil fuel profits.

[Kazinski]

There are fossil fuel profits because there are hundreds of millions of enthusiastic fossil fuel consumers. Most of the time I go to the gas station I have to wait in a line.

I see families driving around on outings, Sr. Citizens going shopping, young people going to concerts, in fact now I'm seeing a lot of Burners going to Burning man in RV's, panel vans, rental trucks, burning tons of gas.

[Nige]

Same with drugs, to be honest.

Yes. The US is a ridiculously car-dependant society.

Not sure what your point is. If these things weren't true we would not be having these problems.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...to be honest."
That would quite a novel experience for you.

[Nige]

Look, as they say, who's talking.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say the goal of "Net Zero" is to have "Net Zero" carbon emissions.

Not go into geoengineering.

[Nige]

Yes. By replacing carbon intensive energy sources with carbin neutral energy sources.

What does geo-engineering have to do with anything? If you want to remove carbon directly from the atmosphere, restore forests, jungles, wetlands and grasslands. At a bare minimum stop destroying them. They’re the most efficient way of storing carbon, especially now the seas are heating up and acidifying, and no Net Zero proponent would oppose that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"What does geo-engineering have to do with anything"

Sigh...

The way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is....to remove carbon carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Cool it down, crash out the CO2 as a solid, put the rest back. Store the CO2, or react it with calcium (forming limestone). Repeat.

That's geoengineering, and is the most direct way to remove CO2. The one big issue with it is...it's very energy intensive. If you had an energy source that was very cheap, on scale, and didn't emit CO2...this would be a viable way to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

And nothing else would need to change.

[Mr. Bumble]

Or you could realize that CO2 is not a pollutant but is the equivalent of O2 to plant life on which we depend for food and oxygen.

[Nige]

Or you could grow the fuck up.

[Magister]

If there were no oxygen in the atmosphere, we and animals would die. If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, plants would die. To pretend that anywhere in the middle is a place where we should move in a direction you favor is the environmental equivalent of the Laffer curve.

[Kazinski]

Sure but CO2 is at only 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. You'd have to increase it 25x to reach even 1%.

Oxygen is 20%.

And Nitrogen which is poisonous is 80%, nitrogen is so poisonous that Alabama is looking into using it for executions.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh why don't you grow up? Everyone knows that at 400 parts per million CO2 is dangerous (except of course to plants which love it and has led to a 30% increase in plant cover worldwide).

[Magister]

I didn't say that there should be equal amounts. It is true that 0% of either would be disastrous for life on Earth. The Laffer curve reference is to the belief that there is one optimal ratio, and that the optimal ratio is in the direction you want it to be; originally a simple talking point for tax rates, but now apparently good for CO2.

Bumble is sure the fact that increased plant cover is only good; compare growths in lakes where there is excessive fertilizer runoff if you really need a clue as to why that's not necessarily good.

[Mr. Bumble]

Magister:
Why are you conflating fertilizer runoff with atmospheric CO2 levels?

[Magister]

Bumble is not very bright. The point, Bumble, is that the increase in plant coverage is not necessarily a sign of a healthy ecosystem or anything good.

[Nige]

‘Everyone knows that at 400 parts per million CO2 is dangerous’

Yes.

Wish the concern for plants would translate to a consciousness of the state of biodiversity at the moment.

[Nelson]

Excellent use of Laffer Curve as a pejorative!

[Nige]

No, the most direct way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmoshere is to stop generating it. Once that happens, it drops, almost immediately. And I've already pointed out the best way to remove it and store it right now. There may be proposed tech options but they'll never match the scale and efficency of lots of plants and wetlands and cooler oceans.

[Mr. Bumble]

So please do your part and stop exhaling.

[Nige]

Run along to watch your cartoons, dear. Maybe Captain Planet will have a positive effect.

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone saying the approach should be one thing is wrong.

Carbon capture, resiliency studies, renewable energy, reduction of fossil fuels, nuclear, geoengineering: all should be in the mix. There are no silver bullets; all that is clear is that this is something we are not confronting with the zeal we should because one party has tied their identity to preventing any motion.

[OtisAH]

Every single year that passes without meaningful and sustained efforts to address climate change, which is largely due to the people who oppose meaningful efforts to address climate change, the efforts necessary to mitigate climate change become more drastic. Which, ironically, reduces the chances that any meaningful and sustained efforts to address climate change will initiate.

“That won’t happen in my lifetime” was never going to remain true for everyone.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's primarily due to the people who want to "address climate change monomaniacally focusing on approaches guaranteed to produce widespread poverty.

[OtisAH]

No, Brett, it’s exactly as I said.

[Randal]

No, it's due to your side denying that climate change was even a thing for 30 years until, like, yesterday.

[Kazinski]

I don't deny its getting modestly warmer. The worldwide average temperature has gone from 57f to 58.8 in 143 years since 1880.

Someone walking outside in the morning can't tell the difference between 57f and 59f reliably. And you claim the planets burning based on that.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-surface-temperature-comparison/

[Randal]

You obviously don't understand how the climate works. The concern isn't that people are going to get uncomfortably hot.

[John F. Carr]

Hot people are this summer's climate catastrophe according to American media. Whatever bad weather is in the news is the latest climate catastrophe.

Thankfully, and a bit surprisingly, you can still get a weather report from the National Weather Service without a climate change editorial spliced in.

[Nige]

'Whatever bad weather is in the news is the latest climate catastrophe.'

Fucking duh.

Except they're more a sign of catastrophes to come. The catastrophes haven't started yet.

[Nige]

And yet you claim to have read the IPCC report.

[Nige]

'It’s primarily due'

You're a member of the political party in the richest country in the world that won't even admit climate change - something that is pretty much guaranteed to wreck the standards of living for billions of people - exists. Self reflection is in order here, perhaps.

[Krayt]

Standards of living are wrecked for most of the planet already due to corruption. The best possible answer for them would be to end the corruption then the relatively minor problem of global warming can be addressed.

To put not too fine a point on it, global warming is less of a problem to day to day life than corruption and dictatorship and overbearing government.

Regarding quality of life:
Freedom for all + GW, for the average yokel >> than continued dictatorship or corruption for most + pristine environment

We won't ever have the first half of the former. The rest is just people waving around Pokemon cards saying I beat you!

[Nige]

'To put not too fine a point on it, global warming is less of a problem to day to day life than corruption and dictatorship and overbearing government.'

Why? It's worse in some places than others, and it's not ideal, but generally people get by. Can't get by if your fields turn to desert or your town gets washed away.

This is the flip side of communists whose first step in dealing with climate change is always 'overthrow capitalism.'

[Kazinski]

Except none of that's happening, nor does the IPCC claim its happening because of climate change when there are floods and droughts..

[Nige]

'Except none of that’s happening,'

I used the future conditional.

We went through this last time. All I had to do was point to the place in your link that directy contradicted what you claimed about droughts and floods. Like most times you post a link with claims.

[Tom for equal rights]

Marc Jacobson road map to 100% renewables by 2050 is another example of deluded thinking. He relies on a lot of deception to make it appear possible. He claims to run multiple 30sec tests in his models to prove his system will be reliable.

When looking at the raw source data for electric generation by source in the various countries, it painfully obvious that there are frequent periods of little or no wind across continents for 5-10 days at a time. 4 hour battery storage aint going to cut it.

[Nige]

Oh no better keep guzzling poison instead.

[Don Nico]

Net zero is not happening. By 2050 Nigeria will be the third most populous country on the planet. Nigeria has very abundant coal reserves and has been clear that it will use them. As for the rest of the developing world, their CO2 footprint will increase .

[Davedave]

Nigeria (or whoever else) won't spend more money digging up coal if other options are cheaper. And solar is already pretty much there.

[Tom for equal rights]

DaveDave – I presume you are basing your comment that solar is almost there (as far as cost being cheaper) is based on lazard’s Levelized cost of energy LCOE studies.

If so, you should be aware of the limitations of the LCOE computation A) it only includes the direct costs of each source of electric generation. B) it omits the all the costs of maintaining the reliability of the entire grid, frequency issues, down time, storage costs etc

C) The LCOE studies fail to compare apples to apples. The supply of side of the equation fills three separate buckets of demand. 1) base generation, 2) intermediate generation, and 3) peak generation.

Wind and solar can only fill the intermediate generation bucket. Wind and solar can not fill the base bucket due to the intermedicy of wind and solar nor can they fill the peak bucket, due to the intermedicy of wind and solar generation. The intermediate generation bucket is the least costly bucket to fill. the peak generation bucket is by far the most expensive.

Thus if you want to compare the LCOE of wind and solar, you need to compare the LCOE of the intermediate generation bucket of gas or coal generation . In summary, the current comparison using lazard LCOE is deceptive.

[Davedave]

No, I'm basing it on solar power getting cheaper and cheaper. You can use whatever bullshit obfuscation you want, but none of it matters if solar is cheap enough.

[Tom for equal rights]

Davedave 31 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"No, I’m basing it on solar power getting cheaper and cheaper. You can use whatever bullshit obfuscation you want, but none of it matters if solar is cheap enough."

How cheap is solar at night ?
How cheap is solar during the winter in Minnesota or Montana when solar generates approx 5%-8% of capacity

Your methodology only includes the cost of when solar is working .Obfuscation is when you deny the total cost of providing electricity when needed.

[Davedave]

It doesn’t matter, as long as solar panels are cheap enough. You have enough to get the power you need during the sunny days, and do some inefficient thing to store it one way or another. You can make up whatever bullshit you like, but alternative facts aren’t actually an alternative to basic logic.

[Tom for equal rights]

Davedave 31 mins ago Flag Comment Mute User Davedave 10 mins ago (edited) Flag Comment Mute User It doesn’t matter, as long as solar panels are cheap enough. You have enough to get the power you need during the sunny days, and do some inefficient thing to store it one way or another. You can make up whatever bullshit you like, but alternative facts aren’t actually an alternative to basic logic.”

Dave its the total cost – not the cost of one piece of the puzzle.

Its quite telling that you were unable to respond to any of the actual facts I pointed out. Its good indication that you really have only a superficial understanding of renewables ./ grid operations and costs - talking points only perhaps.

[Davedave]

I think your level of understanding is exemplified by your inability to manage to copy and paste correctly.

You clearly have still not understood the point, so I will repeat it once again: if solar panels are cheap enough, then nothing else matters. They are very nearly that cheap already, and costs continue to decline.

[Tom for equal rights]

Fully understood your point, though its obvious you neglected to understand that its total costs that matter, not the isolated cost of only one component.

Nico makes a valid point which you need to comprehend

Don Nico 38 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
The LCOE numbers are only part of the economics of energy generation. As the fraction of energy supplied by wind and solar increase, the system costs increase rapidly making the LCOE a highly inaccurate metric metric of the total cost of energy from diverse energy generation sources.

[Life of Brian]

if solar panels are cheap enough, then nothing else matters.

Not even the land required to house them? That's a new one.

[Kazinski]

Solar isn't cheaper, and its easy to prove.

The higher a percentage solar is of power production, the higher electricity rates are.

In the third world where they don't have power infrastructure the new power infrastructure is coal or gas not solar. For instance Cambodia has only 290mw total grid scale solar capacity, which of course only runs 10 hours a day max, so the average output is only 120/mwh. One coal plant can produce 400mwh, 24 hours a day.

You never see solar on any homes in Cambodia, because without subsidies it doesn't make economic sense. And that's in a country where brown outs are frequent and expected. Diesel generators are what businesses use to supplement the grid, not solar.

[Tom for equal rights]

Kaz - As I noted above and as Don Nico mentioned below, using the LCOE for the costs of various electric generation leads to erroneous conclusions, especially by advocates that have very superficial understanding of electric generation. My post above touches on many of the reasons for the misconceptions,

Who cares if solar is cheaper when it is producing nothing

Northern Europe is currently 19 days into a period where electric generation from wind is producing less than 10% of capacity.

As you correctly allude to, the overall costs of electric generation is higher , the greater the penetration of renewables due to the additional costs of maintaining electric generation.

So what if the marginal cost of solar is cheaper, if the total costs are higher. That is a point that the advocates dont grasp.

[Nige]

'because without subsidies it doesn’t make economic sense.'

Especially when you can ignore the negative externalities of oil and coal and gas, which also get massive subsidies.

There was a time when some countries were electrified, and some were not. There was even a time when parts of countries were electrified and others were not. Somehow that was not taken as a sign that electrification wouldn't work.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
‘because without subsidies it doesn’t make economic sense.’

Especially when you can ignore the negative externalities of oil and coal and gas, which also get massive subsidies.

Nige - You have a highly distorted understanding of basic economic concepts - get out of your echo chamber and learn some basic economic facts

[Nige]

If economics led us to this place, what use are economics?

[Don Nico]

The LCOE numbers are only part of the economics of energy generation. As the fraction of energy supplied by wind and solar increase, the system costs increase rapidly making the LCOE a highly inaccurate metric metric of the total cost of energy from diverse energy generation sources.

[Nige]

Plenty of climate change and environmental activists in Nigeria, some of them rather famously got murdered to protect an oil company whose pipeline was killing people and destroying a river delta. People don’t actually want to get poisoned by pollution or have their country deforested or rendered uninhabitable after a few decades, believe it or not.

Fossil fuel companies will unquestionably push developing third world markets to squeeze what wealth they can before climate change becomes so undeniable even they have to change or go hide in their bunkers.

[Davedave]

Again with the conspiracy theories, huh? All the fault of evil (((corporations))). You and BCD really aren't so different. He's just more honest with himself about what he believes.

[Nige]

Holy shit. It’s well-known historical incident. It’s a world famous scandal. Ken Saro-Wiwa? Diplomats were recalled? Economic sanctions were considered? Shell settled for millions out of court? Has your brain been completely eaten by worms?

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2017/11/investigate-shell-for-complicity-in-murder-rape-and-torture/

[Tom for equal rights]

Don - I will add to your comment is that Jacobson 100% renewable plan assumes the per capita energy use for all the Africa countries rising only modestly (or just slight per capital increases ) . Most of the per capita energy use in African countries is less than 5% of the industrialized world's per capita energy usage. Just another example of the unrealistic goals of net zero

[Davedave]

Whoops, wrong place.

[Krayt]

Perfect place for random topics.

[Kazinski]

As was foretold Kevin McCarthy says that an impeachment inquiry is probably the next step when the summer recess is over:
“ House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Sunday that an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden is a “natural step forward” following Republican probes into the business dealings of the president and his family.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna102050

It’s way to early for an impeachment vote, but a formal inquiry will allow them to get whatever documents they need to prove their case.

And sure there might be some court cases needed if there’s resistance to some of the demands, but the last Congress did a good job flattening the laws so even the devil couldn’t hide.

[Commenter_XY]

Kazinski,

This was inevitable. The impeachment inquiry is coming, and POTUS Biden's eventual impeachment is coming. The House can call it whatever they want (it is political, not legal), but the bottom line is this is payback. Assuming he doesn't croak first, POTUS Biden will not be removed from office by the Senate. Besides, would you want a POTUS Harris? 🙂

I don't think it will be over after the impeachment, either. It will get worse.

[apedad]

Payback isn't a good political strategy.

It makes good headlines on Fox and (temporarily) soothes some fragile egos but otherwise does nothing for the country.

[Kazinski]

If it was payback I wouldn’t support it. There is credible evidence that Joe Biden, as VP at least, was selling influence and performing favors to enrich himself and his family.

Evidence that much of which he and Hunter have provided.

I think its important that its investigated, and the DOJ has shown it isn’t interested.

And we aren't at impeachment yet, they are going to do an investigation and they need authority from the house to investigate.

If they don't find the goods they shouldn't impeach.

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP: the Clintons and Bidens did big crimes and must be impeached and tried.

Also the GOP: any attempt to trie Trump is political persecution.

This is why no one listens to you.

[Kleppe]

"Also the GOP: any attempt to trie Trump is political persecution."

If you don't want people calling Trump's charges political the first thing I would do is not twist and contort the law (or invent entirely novel theories of law) in order to try him.

"Here's a thing nobody has ever been prosecuted for before. Nobody's above the law!" - Your ilk

[grb]

Kazinski : “There is credible evidence that Joe Biden, as VP at least, was selling influence and performing favors to enrich himself and his family”

No there isn’t. The only example you ever produce is Shokin, and that’s a complete freak’n joke. You’ll need get around the fact that Biden’s actions were by White House orders, per White House policy, per State Department policy, in conjunction with action by the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, and following a bipartisan consensus of the Senate.

You’ll need to explain the mechanism by which Biden (upon being bribed) managed to secretly take over the entire U.S. government - but that’s just the beginning of your problems. You’ll also have to explain how this fantasy bribe brought condemnation of Shokin throughout the entire western world.

The Shokin Conspiracy meme is good enough for the marks, gulls and dupes who read the Right’s gutter news, but can’t stand a second’s scrutiny in the bright of day. Try building an impeachment on that and you’ll be humiliated. And what else do you have? Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

[Kazinski]

No, there is also the independent FD1023 that alleges Biden coerced Burisma into paying 10m in bribes to himself and Hunter, 5m each. We know from Hunters laptop he got his 5m, from a corrupt oligarch who paid most of the money when he was a fugitive.

Then there is all of the China cash, millions that Hunter admits he received and didn't pay taxes on. Hunter also alleges he was giving Joe 10%, as well as paying all of Joes bills.

Then there is all the cash payments from foreign sources, they have suspicious transactions reports for, but no rational explanation of what the payments were for, no legitimate rational explanation I should say.

[David Nieporent]

The FD1023 does not "allege" any such thing. It alleges that someone told the informant that they had paid such sums. The informant was not shown any evidence, and in fact the person who told the informant that also said that nobody would ever be able to find the evidence.

We do not "know from Hunters laptop he got his 5m." That's a complete fabrication.

Hunter also did not "allege[] he was giving Joe 10%"; that's also a complete fabrication.

Then there is all the cash payments from foreign sources, they have suspicious transactions reports for, but no rational explanation of what the payments were for, no legitimate rational explanation I should say.

Again: a "suspicious [activity] report" is not evidence of anything wrongful, has nothing to do with Joe Biden, and the "rational explanation" is payments for business transactions.

[Kleppe]

"You’ll need get around the fact that Biden’s actions were by White House orders"

I'm not sure "my boss was gonna do it anyway" makes it not bribery. Honestly, I can't think of a better bribe to accept than one where the desired outcome aligns with existing U.S. foreign policy.

[Nige]

So Joe Biden had no connection with his son's business and played no significant role in formulating that policy, and the policy itself had no direct effect on Hunter Biden's business. That is certainly the way to do corruption right, I guess.

[David Nieporent]

If it was payback I wouldn’t support it. There is credible evidence that Joe Biden, as VP at least, was selling influence and performing favors to enrich himself and his family.

There is no evidence of any sort that Joe Biden was doing any such thing as VP (if for no other reason than that vice presidents don't have any power!) You can be sure that if there was even one shred of evidence, it would have been on Fox/Newsmax/OAN/Breitbart/The Federalist/etc. 24/7 for the last few months. In fact, there's such a lack of evidence about Joe Biden doing that that they have to keep talking about the Biden family to obscure that fact.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's one piece of evidence, although it's from Biden's time as President.

"In late December and early January, the first couple, their daughter Ashley and grandkids Natalie and Hunter stayed seven days for free as “guests” at the beachfront St. Croix home of businesspeople Bill and Connie Neville.

The arrangement turned heads because the home typically is a VRBO rental and because the Nevilles just weeks earlier gained access to Biden’s first state dinner honoring French President Emmanuel Macron, joining about 300 guests including many billionaires and political and cultural powerbrokers."

Oh wait...he did that as VP too...

[jb]

That shows evidence of unjust enrichment, not of selling influence or performing favors.

It's funny--even when folks on the other side were complaining about Thomas accepting this sort of thing, the complaint was an apparent conflict of interest not an actual quid-pro-quo. But roughly the exact same scenario with someone from the left, and the conservative troll army suddenly thinks it's (a) not okay, and (b) somehow serves as direct evidence of influence peddling.

Clowns.

[Armchair Lawyer]

LOL.

It is funny, how not a single liberal has demanded Biden resign over this. Despite the clear ethical lapse. And the business before Biden...

[Sarcastr0]

Are you demanding Biden resign over this?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm demanding you be consistent and for you to demand Biden resign over this, if you demanded Thomas resign over similar situations.

But don't let that stop you from dodging.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t demand Thomas resign, you master class in projection.

[OtisAH]

Funny how AL himself won’t demand Biden resign “over this” but insists that “Democrats” do.

[jb]

Eh, I didn't demand Thomas resign either.

Assuming all the facts are as described, I think they're pretty analogous situations and that there should be clearer ethical standards beyond just reporting gifts like these as well.

But if your best argument is "look how hypocritical liberals are for thinking Thomas should resign but Biden shouldn't for the exact same set of facts" it says something about your own belief system for having basically the exact opposite take about both circumstances.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Alas, they aren't the same exact situation.

Thomas complied with his ethical obligations, as described to him by his ethics official.

Biden did not. And continues not to.

[jb]

So just to be clear: your only problem with Biden here is his failure to disclose, not the gifts themselves?

(Also, who's to say Biden didn't get the same advice since the circumstances in at least some of the cases seem pretty similar?)

[Magister]

You have persuaded me that Joe Biden should recuse from any Supreme Court cases he is judging that involve the Nevilles, and also that his lifetime appointment to the Presidency should be immediately rescinded, since obviously the Constitution meant to specify that Presidents can only hold office during good Behavior.

[grb]

OK, you're half way home : Now do the "selling influence and performing favors to enrich himself and his family” part.

And, yes, I think every politician (or SCOUS Justice/politician) should refuse any perks from the wealthy and (at a minimum) completely disclose them. A standard I read by a government ethics advisor was persuasive : If your "friend" wasn't a friend before taking office, you have no right accepting freebies from him. That would cover Harlan Crow and (I suspect) the Nevilles.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Free family vacation for invitation to state dinner?

No.. No criticism? No demand Biden resign? Didn't you demand Thomas resign?

[Randal]

Biden was at least transparent about it. The whole kerfuffle with Thomas was his failure to disclose.

(Well, not the whole kerfuffle, there were also fuffles about free rent and tuition and cruises and whatnot.)

Then you get to accountability. Biden's politically accountable. (This was the point you guys made about Trump's various unjust enrichments and emoluments.) Thomas isn't accountable at all. Hence the calls for a SCOTUS code of conduct.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Biden wasn't transparent about it. He actually deliberately left it off his ethics disclosure forms, which were actually mandated at the time.

[Randal]

Like Thomas, there was no requirement to disclose. But unlike Thomas, they were transparent about it in other ways. They issued press releases... with photos! Biden wasn't trying to keep it a secret like Thomas was.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There actually was a requirement to disclose.

[Randal]

There actually was a requirement to disclose.

According to the opinion of a random NY Post contributor, maybe. Not according to the Office of Government Ethics.

[Nige]

This is a perfectly valid criticism of Biden, and I am one hundred percent in agreement that it should be addressed. BUT Trump took frequent holidays at taxpayers' expense to HIS OWN resort where people could pay exorbitant sums TO HIM just to hang out and be close to him, and all the while people were piling in to his Trump Hotel in Washington to get access and curry favour with him and his family, who, by the way, he was employing in his administration. Talk about taking the beam out of your own eye first.

[grb]

Armchair Lawyer : “Didn’t you demand Thomas resign?”

No, I did not. This kind of conduct is ubiquitous in the political world (albeit on a monstrously larger scale with Thomas). It deserves to be dragged out into the light and given as much disapprobation as possible, but no side can take things much further without being gross hypocrites.

As an example, Joe Biden has a loser son who made a ton of easy money trading off his last name. After much frenzied effort, the Right has come up with two things :

1. The “Shokin Conspiracy” – a pathetic joke that can’t take a minute’s worth of honest review.

2. A few instances where Hunter got biz associates a meet & greet with daddy.

And that’s it after five years. I can list dozens of things from the last administration that move the Corruption Meter much farther. Yet that seems to be all you have.

Let’s look at your faux-gottya, Armchair : You can take every single state dinner during every single presidency of the modern era and find campaign contributors. Since when did this become evidence of rampant corruptions or grounds for impeachment?

Since such penny-ante stuff was the only “dirt” you can find on Joe Biden, that’s when……

[jb]

"Free family vacation for invitation to state dinner?"

Sure, if you have some evidence of the quid pro quo that would be bad. The only thing you're missing is the evidence rather than the inference.

[Nige]

'Here’s one piece of evidence'

The walls are closing in. I'm so glad the issue of massively wealthy people getting cosy with politicians is suddenly a bipartisan issue! Were you all asleep during the Trump presidency?

[Reallynotbob]

Let me see if I track this argument. You're saying:

Joe Biden stayed at the posh home of wealthy campaign donors whom he also invited to a state dinner in Washington on a different occasion.

I have some bad news about politics for you.... And this barely moves the dial on corruption.

[Nige]

If it wasnt payback it wouldn't be happening.

[Mr. Bumble]

So Congressional Democrats were wrong to impeach Trump twice?

[Dr. Ed 2]

YES!

[Moderation4ever]

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. The Republicans went after President Clinton with a weak case and strengthen his hand. There is no case to go after President Biden and an impeachment will just bring this out. MAGA Republicans will be happy, but the American people will see a House that is not functional enough to do its assigned job and instead has wasted time. An impeachment will guarantee Biden's second term and will cost Speaker McCarthy his majority.

[Brett Bellmore]

They had an absurdly strong case on guilt, what they had was a weak case on "Democrats giving a damn".

[grb]

Brett Bellmore "....a weak case on “Democrats giving a damn”."

More to the point, the American public wasn't interested in an impeachment who sole foundation was a handful of BJs. Mind you. this was after five years of Ken Starr failing to find any other grounds against Clinton. Guess what? People noticed.

Roughly three-in-ten or fewer Americans supported impeaching Clinton throughout autumn 1998 and even into mid-December, just before the House did so anyway.

In contrast, Gallup found fifty-two percent of Americans wanted their senators to vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment, 45% preferred a not guilty vote and 3% were unsure.

In the first impeachment, Pew found a 46% plurality of U.S. adults say Trump did something wrong regarding Ukraine and that it was enough to justify his removal from office, according to the Center’s survey. Another 28% say Trump did something wrong but that it was not enough to warrant his removal, while 25% say he did nothing wrong.

To be fair, you can find polls where the numbers swing a few points either way and they all reflect a roughly even split in popular opinion. But they also reflect the difference between real issues (using U.S. foreign policy for personal gain and trying to steal an election) and consensual sex, however sordid.

[Davedave]

"a handful of BJs"

Is sex education in the US really that lacking? It's not a handful...

[grb]

OK: I'll award a touché for that (however pedantic)

[Nige]

About the oral sex? No, they didn't. Pity MeToo was a few decades down the road. But hey, now you Christian family values guys who impeached Clinton over oral sex voted for a guy who had unsafe sex with a porn star the night his wife was giving birth I guess it's moot.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Those who forget history "

His VP lost the next election.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : “Those who forget history ”

Presidential candidates from the party that just held the White House two terms usually face ugly odds. It's similar to the fate a president's party faces in the first midterms. After every drubbing we hear endless analysis of something almost as certain as day following night.

(if you remember your history, that is)

[Bob from Ohio]

The president before Clinton didn't have this problem. The people ratified his administration.

The original claim here that the impeachment helped the Democrats ["strengthen his hand"] is just false.

[not guilty]

"The president before Clinton didn’t have this problem. The people ratified his administration."

Uh, no. The people soundly repudiated the Bush I administration in November 1992.

[Krayt]

Payback is a terrible strategy. When Democrats latched onto it and refused to give up, already there were calls for the Republicans, first chance they got, to impeach a Democratic president.

And the Republicans got their special prosecutor under Clinton, who, in the words of both sides, depending on who was being gored, "fearlessly went therever the facts lead."

"Wait. Stop. Don't," sighed Willy Wonka, knowing the stupid kids were not listening.

[Michael P]

There are tactical reasons not to impeach Biden, but a lot of his Cabinet and many high-level political appointees are eligible. Remove them from office and make them ineligible for future office -- or make a lot of Dem Senators explain why they won't even skim the surface of the Swamp.

[Brett Bellmore]

They don't have to explain diddly squat so long as most media outlets are in the tank for them.

[grb]

Also, none of them committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", so there's that.

Also : Is there anything more hilarious than watching Trump supporters talk about the "swamp"? It's been generations since Americans have seen a presidential administration as grotesquely corrupt as Trump's...

[Bob from Ohio]

“An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

[Nige]

It'd be like Republicans had finally given up completely on even token governance in favour of bullshit vendettas.

[Bob from Ohio]

They have 1/2 of Congress. Can't "govern" from that position.

[Nige]

Of course they can, but that would require the slightest hint of co-operation with Democrats not being radioactive to the base.

[Nige]

So long as the media won't uncritically repeat your lies, or at least not repeat them loud enough and often enough and even, occasionally, have the cheek to question them.

[Tom for equal rights]

Brett Bellmore 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
They don’t have to explain diddly squat so long as most media outlets are in the tank for them."

That sums up why numerous commentators are completely unaware of the level of the biden family corruption - that or intentional denial

[bernard11]

Fucking laughable, Brett.

You don't like the reporting by the media, so you claim they are "in the tank" for the Democrats.

Meanwhile, you rely for your "information" on all sorts of sources that not only don't care about facts, but are happy to make some up. But they are not "in the tank." Is that right?

What a joke you have become.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why did Jack Smiths team meet with the WH before indicting Trump?

[apedad]

I dunno. . . .

The entire world hates you and is conspiring to make you grouchy?

[Dr. Ed 2]

RICO!!!!

[David Nieporent]

To talk about the NCAA basketball tournament.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why are LLM degrees not REQUIRED of law professors?

The JD is really a second bachelor's degree and every other professional school requires terminal degrees, which it definitely is not. Even with medicine, which doesn't have degrees beyond the MD, it has board certifications and such.

It's not like (most) law schools aren't part of a larger university, although I don't think they are still the cash cows they were in the 20th Century.

[Kazinski]

Cause its not rocket science.

I'm glad society is making steps to move away from degrees as a marker of intelligence and accomplishment. A lot of times show me a PhD and I will show you someone that can't function in the real world.

[David Welker]

Are they incapable of tying their shoes? Maybe they can't function because they can't eat?

Wait a minute, if they can't function, how are they still alive?

I think maybe you are exaggerating.

[Kazinski]

Slightly. And certainly there are exceptions, my daughter has a doctorate and she competent in every thing she does. My father in law was calculus professor and while brilliant was in constant risk of burning something down, driving off a cliff, electrocuting himself, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any bets on how Mark Meadows motion to remove his Georgia case to Federal court will be decided?

[loki13]

If I had to bet, I'd bet that it won't get removed. Based purely on the motion practice so far and my understanding of the precedent, particularly the 11th Cir. and (pre-11th) 5th Cir. precedent.

But I also don't think this is a slam dunk. I don't think a decision either way would be completely indefensible at this point given the standard, although I do think that the state prosecutors have the stronger argument. But we'll see.

[not guilty]

I expect that Mark Meadows's heaviest lift will be showing that he has a colorable federal defense as to the conduct he is charged with. In Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9 (1926), the Supreme Court ordered remand to state court because the defendants did not not negative the possibility that they were doing other acts than official acts at the time and on the occasion alleged by the state, or make it clear and specific that whatever was done by them leading to the prosecution was done under color of their federal official duty. "In order to justify so exceptional a procedure, the person seeking [removal to federal court] should be candid, specific and positive in explaining his relation to the transaction growing out of which he has been indicated, and in showing that his relation to it was confined to his acts as an officer." Id., at 35.

The conduct that Meadows is charged with -- assisting then-President Trump's attempts to interfere with state election results -- was outside the scope of his official duties. Trump's conduct has been adjudicated not to be within the outer perimeter of his presidential duties, such that Trump is suable for damages. Judge Amit Mehta opined in Thompson v. Trump, 590 F. Supp. 3d 46, 82 (D.D.C. 2022):

The Office of the President has no preference for who occupies it. Article II of the Constitution, which defines the powers and duties of the President, is agnostic as to whether a sitting President is elected to a new term. So, too, is federal statutory law. A function of the presidency therefore is not to secure or perpetuate incumbency. Plaintiffs’ allegations against President Trump accuse him of doing just that: devoting his last weeks in office to continuing his term as President of the United States through the Electoral College vote and certification process, even though he did not prevail in the general election.

The judge identified several averments of the complaints which detailed conduct beyond the pale of presidential duties:

Among his first alleged acts following the general election were tweets criticizing state officials for not doing enough to enable him to prevail in their states. Swalwell Compl. ¶ 36 (criticizing the governors of Arizona and Georgia and saying, "If they were with us, we would have already won both"). The President also directly contacted local election officials and state legislators in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia to allegedly pressure them to overturn their election results. Id. ¶¶ 37–54. These efforts included urging local Michigan officials to reverse their certification of election results, id. ¶ 38, and saying to Georgia's Secretary of State, "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have," id. ¶ 53. He would later call that Georgia state official an "enemy of the people." Thompson Compl. ¶ 47. President Trump also filed multiple lawsuits in jurisdictions in which he did not prevail. Id. ¶ 36. Those suits plainly were directed at securing incumbency. They, like his tweets and direct outreach to state election officials, were not official acts.

Id., at 82-83. If Trump was engaged in unofficial acts, for which he is not immune, then Meadows's facilitation of those acts can rise no higher.

[jb]

Hmm, I’m not so sure. Wouldn’t Meadows have to be involved in the specific acts that were outside Trump’s role as President. (i.e., just because Meadows helped Trump with some election-related stuff and Trump did some election-related stuff that was outside his role as President does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Meadows was helping Trump with non-President stuff.)

Edited to add: I basically agree with loki that there's at least decent arguments on both sides of this point. Predictions at that point seem to be mostly getting in the head of this particular judge.

[loki13]

Right. To me, the issue isn't whether I think that Meadows, et al., were engaged in official duties- I don't think that they were.

Instead, I think that it's whether they have a colorable claim that this conduct is within a ... heh ... penumbra of protection. In other words, it's not a question of whether or not they were engaged in 100% official duties, it's whether or not the immunity protects this outermost area and whether this is a colorable defense.

And that's ... arguable. Again, I still think the state prosecutors have the better argument, but I can see the possibility of a colorable defense, even if that defense will fail.

[OtisAH]

I think it all comes down to how broadly he can get the judge to view what he was up to.

[not guilty]

This judge seems to be a straight shooter. I am pleased that he is moving the case along expeditiously.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I would expect the Chief of Staff of a President to be at least more familiar with the Constitution than most of the fools around here.

There is no Constitutional authority for a President or his CoS to be involved in any aspect of a State election.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Caplan v. Trump is a (short) complaint that seeks declaratory judgment on the basis of the 14th Amendment Section 3 to disqualify Trump from running for president. Here is the operative text.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

IANAL. Yet, the complaint seems amateurish to me at best.

Caplan almost certainly does not have standing.

A Republican primary contender probably does have standing because he is harmed by the presence of the disqualified Trump in the run-up to the primary elections.

Was it even worthwhile for the Caplan to pay the $ 402.00 to file this complaint?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Was it even worthwhile for the Caplan to pay the $ 402.00 to file this complaint?"

Pretty cheap to get some nice advertising of your political bona fides.

[not guilty]

I have doubts about Mr. Caplan's Article III standing. We're not in Orly Taitz territory, but I don't see that he has pled that he has an interest or has suffered an injury distinct from the public at large.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good news Vaxxies, it's almost time to renew your subscription to Johnson & Johnson and for your Sacred Public Health Experts to rake in their royalties!

I'm so happy for you all! President Biden even said he was gonna pay for it! So that means you won't even have to pay for it!

[David Nieporent]

You know, I understand the MAGA opposition to so-called lockdowns (note: there were no actual lockdowns in the U.S.). And I kinda understand the objections to mask requirements, though the reaction was absurdly overblown. I do not get the scientifically illiterate objection to vaccination.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey remember when The Science said it was okay to protest for Black Lives during a pandemic, but NOT for election integrity and that everyone else should stay home and locked down?

lol I remember, good times good times

[David Nieporent]

No.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/Epidemiologists-coronavirus-protests-quarantine.html

"Are Protests Dangerous? What Experts Say May Depend on Who’s Protesting What"

lol ScIEnCE

[jb]

That article does raise some hypocrisy and political bias by various folks. I think basically all the scientists in the article basically agree that the science was the same for both sets of protests, though.

But regardless of whether or not these particular people were biased lefty hypocrites, that doesn't tell us anything about vaccines. I think some of the concerns about, e.g., vaccines in children have some merit but not really sure how right wing America got to wholesale rejection of Covid vaccines as a result.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and therein lies your problem. Selective memory.

[Randal]

I also don't remember anything I didn't read in the NY Post because it's too silly to care about.

[Krayt]

Science never said protesting was safe. What a handful of cowardly scientists afraid of being cancelled said was, “In light of centuries of oppression, the number of deaths from that exceeds covid breaches from protesting, so it’s ok.”

Of course, this can apply to other things, like gun control, where, over the long run, loss of freedom due to a disarmed populace vastly outweights gun deaths. But I don’t think they want to go there.

[Nige]

'But I don’t think they want to go there.'

Ever since Sandy Hook, 'all these murdered children are worth it' has been the only Republican line on guns.

[hoppy025]

Ever since the civil rights movement, the Democrat line on guns has been "all these murdered and raped white people is worth it"

[David Nieporent]

What a handful of cowardly scientists

There was a big "open letter" signed by something like 1,000 "health care professionals" that MAGA people love to cite. But if you looked more closely, only a handful had any SME. Many were just nurses or even medical students.

(Not that there's anything wrong with nurses. But they do not speak for "science.")

[Blackstone]

But the problem with how you think is your assumption that there are many people who have lost their freedom because they were disarmed. I doubt that’s mainly the case. If you think you can protect yourself with a gun from a powerful despot you will only suceed jn your own demise. It isn’t confiscation of guns that creates totalitarian regimes. It’s the ability of people to be hornswoggled by deceptive people who somehow finagle a large voice in society. If these charlatans are sufficiently evil, you will become their subject.

[Nige]

'Science never said protesting was safe.'

Protesting is often quite dangerous, scientists agree!

[grb]

David Nieporent : "I do not get the scientifically illiterate objection to vaccination"

It seems bizarre at first glance, but look at it from BCD's perspective:

1. His handlers decided there were a few polling points to gain in going antivaxx (without reason).
2. They told BravoCharlieDelta to go anti-vaxx (without reason).
3. He obeyed (without reason)

What could be simpler?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Speaking of obeying, are you masked up?

[Kazinski]

For a large segment of the population vaccines are more of a risk than covid, most specifically young males under 35. Getting a potentially fatal myocardial infection, as opposed to a bad cold or flu seems like an undue risk to me.

Being a Senior Citizen I've been vaccinated 3 times with no problems, but I only got the 3rd vaccine to avoid having to get a PCR test when I went to Greece. But I still had to get tested before I came back to the US in 2022. But I'm done with more vaccines. Being double vaccinated didn't keep me from getting covid in Turkey, but there are worse things than having covid across the street from a nice beach and scores of open air restaurants, fresh squeezed orange and pomegranate juice yards away. I took my time recuperating.

My wife, who's much younger developed tinnitus, of course its more likely the effect of long covid than the vaccine, but the CDC is investigating.

[Nige]

Reckon about 7,000 under-35s dead of covid in the US. How many have died of the vaccines? How many now have long covid?

[Kazinski]

We know that's a count of people who died with covid not of covid, so its a wild overcount. The CDC reports 6200 of death linked to the vaccine which is probably a wild under count.

[Sarcastr0]

No that with not of thing is and always was a lie.

People who die of Covid have cause of death as heart failure because that’s how they died, but Covid was the cause.
And some unscrupulous right wingers took that and spun it into heart attacks being put down as Covid.

Never happens. You fell for another one Kaz.

[Kazinski]

Well who should I believe, You or the NY Times?

“The official number is probably an exaggeration because it includes some people who had the virus when they died even though it was not the underlying cause of death,” Leonhardt writes, noting that even the CDC’s own data shows that almost one-third of recent official Covid deaths have fallen into this category.”

https://unherd.com/thepost/did-the-new-york-times-just-admit-covid-deaths-were-overcounted/ (link to original article embedded)

Here is an "amusing" anecdote:
"A man who died in a motorcycle crash was counted as a COVID-19 death in Florida, according to a new report from FOX 35 Orlando.

According to the report, Orange County Health Officer Dr. Raul Pino was asked whether two coronavirus victims in their 20s had any underlying medical conditions that could have potentially made them more susceptible to the virus.

Pino's answer was that one of the two people who was listed as a COVID death actually died in a motorcycle crash. Despite health officials knowing the man died in a motorcycle crash, it is unclear whether or not his death was removed from the overall count in the state.

Dr. Pino tells FOX 35 that one "could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash."

[David Nieporent]

“The official number is probably an exaggeration because it includes some people who had the virus when they died even though it was not the underlying cause of death,” Leonhardt writes, noting that even the CDC’s own data shows that almost one-third of recent official Covid deaths have fallen into this category.”

Sigh. What. Does. The. Word. "Recent." Mean. To. You?

[Kazinski]

Last 3 years, as used in a sentence: “Kansas City Chiefs, Los Angeles Rams, and Tampa Bay Bucs are the most recent Superbowl winners.”

Did the CDC only start screwing up facts recently?

[Randal]

There are almost zero “recent” COVID deaths. It’s surprising that not more of them are related to some comorbidity.

Is the point.

You should read that whole NYT article, not just some cherrypicked quotes as spun by unherd.com.

[Sarcastr0]

You read something you want to believe, you should be more skeptical. Not zero skepticism or critical thinking.

How many predictions have you made in the past couple of months that have turned out to be wrong?

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and out of context it could refer to the last century: "Charles III, Elizabeth II, and George VI are the most recent British monarchs." But in context, if you go look, the CDC was talking about the last few months.

As for the overall pandemic, for every anecdote about some guy on a motorcycle, there are scores of people who died without ever being tested and thus who were not listed as COVID deaths. The best practice for assessing such deaths is to look at excess deaths, and by that measure COVID deaths have always (until very recently) been undercounted, not over.

[Life of Brian]

There are almost zero “recent” COVID deaths.

Um, well. Since 1) historic guidelines were loosy-goosy enough to encompass a person who a) had COVID (or the doctor even suspected they had COVID*) and b) died; and 2) we're no longer testing very much at all for COVID, what in the world would you expect but for tabulated "COVID deaths" to plummet?

* We'll save healthcare provider financial incentives to overcount for a later round, if that angle has slipped your mind as well.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck man doctors are gonna lie so I guess we can't trust anything medical ever!

[Life of Brian]

Fuck man doctors are gonna lie

On the other hand, the freely acknowledged, thoroughly documented, and indisputably ample CMS financial assistance programs I've walked through in detail here multiple times over the past couple of years don't lie at all. Math is math.

Which is why you immediately jumped to bitter snark -- it's literally all you have.

[Randal]

We’ll save healthcare provider financial incentives to overcount for a later round

Fuck waiting, let’s go! You are incredibly retarded again for raising this again. Insurance coverage is not a nefarious “financial incentive” for healthcare providers.

You could just as easily say that healthcare providers have financial incentives to overcount strokes, heart attacks, embolisms, and water on the knee, since Medicare pays for treatment for those afflictions too.

What a maroon. And I’ve told you this before. You don’t seem to care. But I like making fun of you in public so it’s fine.

[Life of Brian]

Insurance coverage is not a nefarious “financial incentive” for healthcare providers.

You never cease to amaze me, my friend. I guess you've never seen a rake you don't joyously and vigorously stomp on just to see what happens.

For at least the third or fourth time now, the funds in question are not "insurance" or anything of the sort, but per-admission supplemental payments on TOP of the payment for the actual services provided. As the article mentions, the first round of cash-from-helicopters came out to an extra $77k per admitted patient with a COVID diagnosis, and the second round a "mere" $50k each.

One of the guv'ment's associated press releases is here, confirming that: "The distribution uses a simple formula to determine what each hospital receives: hospitals are paid a fixed amount per COVID-19 inpatient admission, with an additional amount taking into account their Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments."

I know from plenty of experience that you can't possibly just apologize for getting way to far out over your skis on something you don't (and after this many times, apparently don't care to) understand, so I guess the coin flip is between puffing yourself up and saying something even more ridiculous to try to distract from the current round of egg on your face, or just slinking silently away. Time will tell.

[Sarcastr0]

"COVID-19 inpatient admission" which has what to do with your posited fraud at scale as to death determinations?

[Life of Brian]

“COVID-19 inpatient admission” which has what to do with

I know critical thinking is out of vogue these days, dude, but come on.

There was an indisputable financial incentive for hospitals to tag patients as COVID positive. Once they were tagged COVID positive and they died, they were able to be tagged as a COVID death.

(And just to make sure everyone in the equation had their own non-overlapping perverse incentive, there was ANOTHER helicopter load of cash doled out to families to cover funeral services of their loved ones, but ONLY if they submitted "an official death certificate that shows the death [territorial/temporal stuff omitted] was attributed to COVID-19.") No skin off the doc's back to list COVID somewhere on the death certificate to stop the shrill phone calls from the family just wanting their slice of the pie, and hey -- they were positive, right?)

[Randal]

Sorry Brian, this version of the conspiracy theory is even more ludicrous than the Medicare version. At least with the Medicare-reimbursement theory, the money is a financial incentive in some sense. I mean, we do have an overdiagnosis problem in American healthcare for this reason, it’s just not COVID-specific. That’s why I had to hedge with the word “nefarious.”

But the COVID aid payments aren’t even a financial incentive! They can only be used to reimburse COVID-related losses. They aren’t like shareholder disbursements. Anything not used specifically for covering unanticipated coronavirus costs must be reimbursed back to the government.

Now you’re into insurance fraud territory. You have a financial incentive to burn your house down since you’ll get hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments! I guess you could look at that as a financial incentive, if you’re very retarded indeed.

https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/provider-relief/terms-conditions-provider-relief-30-b.pdf

[Randal]

Who's silently slinking away now! What a slithy little tove.

[Life of Brian]

Sorry Brian, this version of the conspiracy theory

Ah, good -- multiple-handful confetti distraction. Thanks for not disappointing.

I've related the same story consistently here and for years prior, despite your repeated attempts to turn it into something else.

And no conspiracy predicted or even required. Just people responding rationally to financial incentives placed in front of them: "Hey folks -- here's $10 BILLION dollars, and we're gonna divvy it up pro rata among all of you according to how many 'special' people each of you tell us you had." To believe that didn't trigger a race to the bottom requires a... special sort of naivety that you apparently have no reserve in sporting. More power to ya.

But the COVID aid payments aren’t even a financial incentive! They can only be used to reimburse COVID-related losses. They aren’t like shareholder disbursements. Anything not used specifically for covering unanticipated coronavirus costs must be reimbursed back to the government.

Now you're just stringing together wishful sets of words. No losses at all -- much less proof of same -- were required by the program. Funds awarded equaled total helicopter fund divided by total reported headcount, as shown from multiple sources that you haven't bothered to dispute.

Feel free to post some actual evidence to the contrary. We both know you can't.

Now you’re into insurance fraud territory.

Again, not insurance. And again, the standards at the time didn't even require a positive test. Completely and utterly unauditable, assuming they even bothered to audit. Again, your naivety is touching.

[Randal]

What an ostrich response.

Feel free to post some actual evidence to the contrary. We both know you can’t.

I posted the evidence. It's called a link. You click on them!

Here's a selection:

The Recipient certifies that the Payment will only be used to prevent, prepare for, and
respond to coronavirus, and that the Payment shall reimburse the Recipient only for
health care related expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to coronavirus.

Or is that "string of a set of words" too much for you to understand?

I really thought you were going to come back with something better than pure ignorance and avoidance!

[David Nieporent]

We know that’s a count of people who died with covid not of covid, so its a wild overcount. The CDC reports 6200 of death linked to the vaccine which is probably a wild under count.

This is BCD level insanity. No, we don't know either of those things, but I love how the actual data is a "wild overcount" while something you pulled 100% out of your ass is "probably a wild undercount."

[Nige]

'We know'

We absolutely know no such thing.

6200

Global or US? 13.5 billion doses worldwide. 270 million people vaccinated in the US. That's pretty good for an emergency medicine rolled out in the middle of a deadly pandemic that's killed nearly 7 million people.

[Reallynotbob]

Creation of the mRNA Covid vaccine was possibly the single best thing to come out of the Trump years. It was difficult, required government support in addition to private sector effort, cutting-edge, proved to be safe, and is spectacularly effective at keeping people alive. Why Trump didn't claim generational-level victory over a virus at warp speed (pun intended) is beyond me.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

First the Atlantic, then the New York Times, and now even Saint Bernie Sanders has come out against democracy to save our Sacred Democracy.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4173983-bernie-sanders-pans-progressive-democratic-primary-against-biden/

I guess it's the Paradox of Democracy - Sometimes you have to be tyrannical to save Democracy from Democracy!

[Reallynotbob]

You literally just read the link, didn't you?
The actual article says he panned the primary *challengers* against Biden. foreheadsmack.gif

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right, so he didn't want the Democrats to be able to vote for their leader. Saving Democracy was just too important.

[NvEric]

Monday ?
Stand your ground Patriots.
Non-Violent Action has tools for everyday people to resist the coming turmoil.
https://www.aeinstein.org

[Sarcastr0]

"Stand your ground Patriots."
::link to nonviolence resource::

Thanks for this.
But the right-wing change rhetoric is fundamentally violent these days. Here and elsewhere.

Stochastic terrorism or violent keyboard whining, no other options. At least not at the moment.

[Nige]

This looks like spam.

[Sarcastr0]

Doubt that website is paying for spammers.

And NvEric has posted human like typing before.

But who knows!

[Nige]

When a human voluntarily sounds like spam, the human needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

No, sorry, that's unfair, it's the humans who generate the actual spam that are bad.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

More or less violent than the Democrat Terror PreDawn Murder Raids on 1776 Patriots?

[Michael P]

Don't forget to punch a fascist during the two minutes hate!

And dodge the bullets on your way downtown. If you live in an area with a Soros prosecutor, they probably have a policy of letting murderers go free, although written in more opaque words.

[Sarcastr0]

Dems bad. They are what 1984 is about and also are responsible for gun crimes.

And don’t forget the punchings!

You are too full up with partisan spite to make a coherent or compelling rejoinder.

[Michael P]

Leftists violently protested Trump since the day he took office. In 2020, leftists organized a summer of burning, looting, murdering and lying in attempts to prevent his re-election. Violent crime rates have remained elevated since then, thanks to the policies of Soros prosecutors and other lefties. But you are so blinkered that the only thing you can think about is right-wing rhetoric that is mostly in your own imagination.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, sure. Portland is burned down and rebuilt daily.

leftists organized a summer of burning, looting, murdering and lying in attempts to prevent his re-election.
This is the kind of melodramatic conspiratorial delusion that makes people want to gun down folks for having an LGBT flag. BLM, which was not responsible for the riots, was not motivated by getting Trump out of office, you sad angry deceived little man.

But you are so blinkered that the only thing you can think about is right-wing rhetoric that is mostly in your own imagination.
I hear about shooting liberals, either all together or as one particular cohort, multiple times a week on this website.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, you do have a credibility problem at this point, but it's not yet so bad that you can magically make facts go away by stating them.

[Michael P]

Stopped clock: 2, Sarcastr0: 1. When he's having a good day.

[Sarcastr0]

You think Antifa and BLM are well organized violent leftist conspiracies. Alongside the nonviolent leftist conspiracies of the media, Hollywood, big business, high-tech, education, and the GOP.

You think we live in a political thriller. My continually pointing out that we do not is not really an issue with *my* credibility.

[Life of Brian]

You think we live in a political thriller.

*cough* insurRECtion *cough*

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sarcastro defends BLM and Antifa violence. It doesn’t count because it wasn’t organized. But that tightly choreographed insurrection that 90% of the crowd had no idea was happening was more violence than the Battle of Antietam.

He lives consistent standards.

[Nige]

Sarcastro has never once defended so-called BLM or antifa violence. No Democratic politician has for that matter, either. Trump has promised to pardon all the Jan 6th defendants if elected.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hey you come in saying I've said shit I have not said. Again.

Well, new policy: muted for the day.

You continually show you have no idea what I think; your imagined Sarcastro is just too much easier to get angry at.

[Life of Brian]

Every accusation's a confession, whiny scaredycat.

[Randal]

Hm. I don't think you know what that means.

[Nige]

You do know that crime is way way down, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

Wrong.

[Nige]

In your heart, crime is always up.

[Frank Drackman]

Not in Jacksonville FL (too soon?)

[Reallynotbob]

I'm just happy even FranKKK Drackman knows the Jacksonville shooting was a crime. It brings a tear... *sniff*

[David Nieporent]

I have been reliably told that only third world countries prosecute former leaders.

French former President Nicolas Sarkozy to go on trial over Libya financing for 2007 campaign

[Mr. Bumble]

France is a world unto itself.

[Michael P]

This isn't Sarkozy's first rodeo. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56237818

[Krayt]

Hooray, US lead the way?

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's a little bit of a difference between prosecuting a former leader who has retired from public life for activities over 15 years ago...

And prosecuting your major political opponent who is running against you right now.

[David Nieporent]

But Trump is only running for office because he was facing prosecution. Otherwise he'd just be a former leader who had retired from public life, like every other president of the last 150 years who lost a reelection bid.

[Life of Brian]

But Trump is only running for office because he was facing prosecution.

Citation badly needed, but of course not forthcoming.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That may be your opinion, but it seems very unlikely IMO that Trump planned on just retiring in 2020 if he lost.

[Josh R]

Could be, and it's also true that going after your main political rival is very dangerous. However, what Trump did in 2021 and January of 2021 was so egregious, going after him is justified even though he is the main political rival.

[Brett Bellmore]

If it was so damned egregious, then they should have charged him criminally with insurrection, and prosecuted him, and not have waited several years for the 2024 campaigns to start.

A conviction for insurrection carries disqualification as a penalty, and they claim he's guilty of insurrection. So, why haven't they CHARGED HIM WITH IT?

Because then he gets due process, and they've got a lousy legal case for him actually being guilty of any criminal offense that actually carries disqualification as a penalty, is why. So they're desperate to get the consequences of such a conviction, without ever affording him the due process of a trial.

[Josh R]

He could very well be not be guilty of insurrection. Nonetheless, attempting to steal an election is still egregious. The Senate should have convicted and disqualified him, but most Republicans (who know better) were too afraid of the electoral consequences.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"A conviction for insurrection carries disqualification as a penalty, and they claim he’s guilty of insurrection. So, why haven’t they CHARGED HIM WITH IT?"

You have a serious problem with being a conspiratorial dipshit, and conflating the people you're ranting about.

[Sarcastr0]

Words as they are commonly used are not defined in the criminal code.

How this argument passed the test to let loose on even the weirdos who post here I do not know.

[Mr. Bumble]

So what does “insurrection” mean as used in the 14th Amendment and what authority declared Jan. 6 to be one?

[Life of Brian]

Words as they are commonly used are not defined in the criminal code.

Exactly. Which is why the ivory tower mob is jumping on the latest bandwagon and desperately trying to come up with a way to use their own subjective definition of "insurrection" to DQ Trump from running for office.

Hopefully even you can see the problem with that sort of approach -- over the long haul, not just the one-off situation in front of you.

[Sarcastr0]

"the ivory tower mob" of conservative originalists on of whom is a Conspirator here.
That has zilch to do with Brett claiming that prosecutions means there was no insurrection.

As to the paper you're waiving around like a bloody shirt. It was too long for me to read all of it, but I didn't find much flaw in their historical analysis, (though I'm no expert).

I'm also not very concerned any of that academic stuff is going to have much practical upshot, are you? Or are you just into complaining and pretending everyone who writes or says something bad about Trump are all from the same ideology? Or are you just being contrary?

[Life of Brian]

“the ivory tower mob” of conservative originalists on of whom is a Conspirator here.

Hmmm... is that like how some people think saying "hey, I have a black friend!" is just supposed to shut down the conversation on whether they're a racist?

As to the paper you’re waiving around like a bloody shirt [rest of rant clipped for brevity]

Who are you confusing me with?

[Sarcastr0]

Your comment above. About disqualifying Trump for the insurrection.

The seminal paper is by among others Will Baude.

There was a post on the VC about it.

[Life of Brian]

The seminal paper is by among others Will Baude.

There was a post on the VC about it.

Of course there was. But since I haven't been "waving it around" or really said much of anything about it, the most charitable conclusion is that you must be confusing me with someone else.

[Sarcastr0]

You are taking about the ivory tower mob but don’t mean the author of the paper they are all on about,

You are bad at being a weasel. But you keep trying.

[Life of Brian]

You are taking about the ivory tower mob but don’t mean the author of the paper they are all on about

Unlike you apparently, I read and think for myself and thus am well aware that this theory first popped up just a couple of weeks after Jan. 6. So no, I wasn't referring to Baude et al.'s latest effort or any other particular one.

Feel free to keep digging if that's what floats your boat, but I'll just point out in my final keystrokes on the subject that -- as is too often the case -- you're doing exactly, precisely what you huffily accused bevis of in your little hissy fit earlier today.

[Reallynotbob]

Consider that Trump assumed he wouldn't be prosecuted for *anything* for precisely that reason.

You could literally make this argument verbatim if Trump shot a police officer to death in cold blood.

[not guilty]

Is Israel a third world country?

[Ben_]

Strong showing by strawmen here.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The Biden Bribery Train Continues!

Next up. Did you know that one of the perks of being POTUS is free vacations? That's right, you can freely accept VRBO rentals from "friends" worth more than $10,000 a week, just in exchange for giving the "friend" access to a state dinner. Or even just a little access. Your friend doesn't even need to be at the rental, they can just give your secret service a key.

And who doesn't love free vacations. Bonus, you don't have to pay taxes on the unreported gift!

It's good to be POTUS. Biden's probably racked up $50,000+ worth of free vacations this way.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/18/biden-omits-free-vacations-from-financial-forms/

[Sarcastr0]

Before engaging with the content, one must note that you, who claim Thomas did nothing wrong, and indeed lament his persecution, have zero standing here.

[Mr. Bumble]

So says the Big Kahuna of zero standing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Imagine how utterly delusional you must be to think you're the decider of who and who doesn't get to speak on an anonymous commenting forum.

Just plain delusional.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think you're the decider or who or who doesn't "have standing"?

Are you for real?

[Michael P]

On the one hand, Clarence Thomas didn't violate the reporting rules or ethical standards that were actually in place.

On the other hand, Biden clearly recognized his reporting obligations and didn't report these gifts.

On the gripping hand, shut up, S_0 explained.

[Sarcastr0]

Clarence Thomas didn’t violate the reporting rules or ethical standards that were actually in place.

That isn't clear, actually.
But if your issue is the formal adherence to reporting requirements, you're really picking your goalpost carefully. And in a way that makes it hard to sustain anything like actual outrage.

Though I'm sure you have it in you to rage at Biden passing gas.

[Michael P]

You might as well explicitly declare your superiority to the rule of law. We can all see what you really mean.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, hating the rule of law is basically what I said, you have it right.

Or, maybe, I explicitly didn't say shit about the actual issue yet, just pointed out AL's massive toolish hypocrisy in bringing this up.

[David Nieporent]

Clarence Thomas did indeed violate the reporting rules. We've been through this before. Even if one assumes that the trips weren't required to be disclosed, the sale of his mother's residence was indisputably so required.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Link required to the relevant regulations.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, like David Never-Potent will provide one

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Recognizing that the likes of Frank Drackman and Armchair Lawyer are the primary consumers of the academic stylings of Federalist Society law professors makes me eager to observe the next phase of the modern American culture war (and the replacement of so many bigoted, worthless, obsolete Republicans).

[David Nieporent]

5 U.S.C. § 13104.

This was discussed extensively here at the VC several months ago; surprising that you missed it. Both the text of the statute and the disclosure form instructions make clear that all real estate transactions over $1,000 other than ones involving one's personal residence must be disclosed.

The sale of his mother's residence was (a) a real estate transaction; (b) over $1,000; and (c) not involving his personal residence.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Like you give a fuck?

Just like you didn't care the last time this was brought up, or the time before that, etc.

[Randal]

Biden wasn't obligated to report these, for similar reasons that Thomas wasn't required to report some (but not all) of his Harlan gifts: they count as hospitality.

Yes, you can find some "experts" saying that they probably shouldn't count, but you could find the same thing with Thomas. Seems like reporting requirements are pretty vague across the board.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro in other words.

"OMG, since you didn't criticize Thomas for accepting a Thanksgiving dinner with his personal friend of 20+ years, who he's had Thanksgiving with on a regular basis, you can't possible criticize Biden just because he accepted a free vacation for weeks to the Caribbean from this guy he met once or twice!"

It's almost like there are different ethical guidelines here, different disclosure standards, and items differentiate the cases in major ways.

But ignore all that. We know you will.

[Sarcastr0]

You can criticize Biden, you can't do so without having a massive double standard.

Or, I suppose, lying about what Thomas did. I forgot you could also lie like a liar.

My bad.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh, there's a double standard going on here.

I notice you carefully haven't criticized Biden at all. Let alone demand he resign.

Funny that...

[Sarcastr0]

I haven't read the linked article yet, nor checked on other sources other than the NY Post to see if it's legit.

I'll get to it, but your massive hypocricy was immediately notable.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Still noticing the complete lack of any demand for Biden to resign....

[Armchair Lawyer]

Still no demand for Biden to resign.

Stunning silence from the liberals on this.

[Sarcastr0]

You're so far up your own ass you have no idea how fucking nuts it is for a President to resign over this.

Or, rather, you don't care. You are fishing for a double standard. Except that's not going to work well when your double standard is so massive it blocks out any attack on anyone else's character you cuold try and make.

Well, you will try. And you will be laughed at. And you will try and pretend you're taking the high road of righteousness while those fucking Dems have no standards.

And no one will buy it. I suspect, not even you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

All that crap about Thomas...

And we see worse behavior from Biden. And not a peep.

Surprise.

[Randal]

I don’t see anything about the Nevilles paying for Biden’s mom’s rent, or putting Hunter Jr. through prep school, or travelling around the world, or attending vacation parties full of corruption opportunities.

Biden was very up-front about these trips, they were highly publicized. Not any kind of secret, like we saw with Thomas.

Anyway, I don’t remember seeing many (any?) calls for Thomas to resign. Just for ethics reforms, and maybe a few for recusals. I would be happy for ethics reforms in this case too: Biden should be required to disclose these gifts.

[Sarcastr0]

"you will try and pretend you’re taking the high road of righteousness while those fucking Dems have no standards.

And no one will buy it. I suspect, not even you."

[Nige]

'And we see worse behavior from Biden.'

That's asking a lot of the incredibly weak material you're working with.

[Nige]

Maybe you can't hear it over the echoes of your own screams for Trump to resign when he almost daily engaged in unethical behaviours that were ten times worse than what Biden is accused of here.

[OtisAH]

And yet you still haven’t noticed there isn’t a single bit of evidence showing an offense worthy of resignation. Go figure.

[Nige]

I suppose we could all unite behind the idea of better, stronger regulation and reporting of gifts to politicians and public servants? Anyone? No?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I think every politician and every bureaucrat should be required to have full transparency to their financial activities.

We should get to see everything and not have to rely upon old self reports with vague ranges so they can hide their graft and corruption.

Every person in government should be fully transparent. Emails, meetings, finances, conversations, everything. We have the technology.

There's no reason why I can't go online and see what that tyrant IRS Democrat is saying about my tax returns to her Democrat peers in meetings, status reports, emails and phone transcripts. I should also be able to see her political and union activities.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I cant believe you actually thought you'd get defenders of the political class. The only people who are hated more than the political class are their Democrat Goons that work in the federal agencies.

The only people that will defend them are bootlickers like you and Sarcastr0

[Reallynotbob]

Something something tax returns....

[Armchair Lawyer]

We actually DO have those regulations for the Executive Branch.

Biden just has been not reporting it properly, as he's supposed to do.

Free...money...

[Nige]

Did anyone tell Trump about them?

[Sarcastr0]

So I looked into this.

And surprise! It's a nothinburger. Reporting in the NY Post and the like, it was a 1-2 day story and that's it.
The linked story has opinions from GOP ethics people this should be reported, scanty discussion of the specific material requirements involved, and certainly no discussion about resignation. That's an AL special addition.

And it's not been covered since then. By anyone. Not even the NY Post.

AL, you have not discovered big crimes. Or even anything like what Thomas has done.

I'm not sure if you don't know or don't care.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So I looked into this.
And surprise! It’s a nothinburger. "

This is art.

[OtisAH]

Proof you know fuck all about art the same as you know fuck all about everything else.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bob's only goal here is to be a moron. He's imminently qualified and his on-the-job performance metrics are impeccable.

[Sarcastr0]

I supported it right after what you quoted, Bob.

You've gotten really shallow lately. You've always had a moral screw loose, but you were never this lazy.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I do enjoy the double standards on display here....

[Frank Drackman]

Be easier to believe in Climate Change if Parkinsonian Joe wasn't jetting everywhere in Air Farce 1 (remember when Barry Hussein Osama couldn't return from the "Global Warming" conference in Brussels due to Andrews AFB being closed for a Blizzard) same with John Lurch Kerry, what do you think those jets run on? Coal?? and you A-holes wouldn't like Coal either.
and that 67' Vette of his, I know somebody starts it once in a while, no Catalytic Converters in 1967, no AIR injection, only "Clean Air Device" was a PCV valve which has probably been bypassed, unless the Valve Seats have been hardened you have to add Lead to the tank with every fill up, and he's telling me to buy an EV?
Eff-You (Kinder/Gentler Frank back from Sabbatical) "Brandon"

Frank

[OtisAH]

“I don’t believe in climate change because people fly in jet airplanes.”

Yep, sounds stupid no matter who writes it.

[Frank Drackman]

There's about a million reasons (HT L. Gaga)
(#1: it's not happening, #2: it's not happening, usw, #999,999 it's not happening, #1,000,000: it's not happening)
and if it was happening, (it's not, just like we're not running out of Oil) at least Jimmuh Cartuh turned down the Thermostat in the Winter and wore a sweater, Parkinsonian Joe jets 20,000 mile round trip to offend disaster victims, he could have done that by Zoom from the Oval Orifice.

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

X

[Longtobefree]

XY

[apedad]

I knew BCD was missing a chromosome!

[Frank Drackman]

Explains your extra one.

[John F. Carr]

A school district in the Boston suburbs announced that students could no longer get food deliveries during the school day. They had been using Grubhub and the like to get something better than the school served. If administators had simply said "this is too disruptive, stop", I could understand that. But the policy is in the name of "equity" and out of a concern that the pizza being delivered may not be as nutritious as the locally sourced organic vegetable sludge served in the cafeteria.

All students are entitled to free locally sourced organic vegetable sludge. I believe the free lunch policy is statewide with districts deciding what to serve.

I remember a pre-pandemic story from a rich town in Fairfield County, Connecticut. A school ended a policy allowing parent to come into school to eat lunch with their kids. That was never an option when I was in school.

[Brett Bellmore]

My son's (charter) high school has lunches by a rotating selection of local restaurants. Panda Express, Chik fil a, Papa John's, and so forth. Saves them the trouble of having a cafeteria, they just need a spare room.

And the kids actually like the food. Why not? They place their orders the week before, so they're getting to eat what they want.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s “Chick-Fil-A” BTW (and delicious), so Fried Chicken Filets, Chinese, Pizza, No wonder so many kids today are fat (redacted), oops, Kinder/Gentler, Kinder/Gentler… “Overweight”, “Big Boned”, Of course playing video games all day doesn't help either (we got a cheap knockoff "Pong" game circa 1976, played it about 5 minutes)
Highlight of my Pubic Screw-el lunches in the 70’s was “Pizza Day” (Wednesday I think) where you got a lukewarm slize of a Totino’s cheese pizza (still love those) nobody got fat eating that garbage…

Frank

[OtisAH]

I didn’t say you couldn’t make it stupider. I just said it’s a stupid thing to say no matter who says it.

[Reallynotbob]

And you pay extra for this? None of those options are healthful.

[Sarcastr0]

My HS in the 90s had the same policy about outside food during school lunch.

This is not new, (including the equity/fairness part as well as the nutrition) just more right wing scrambling for outrage about schools. Now from some suburb of Boston.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the rot was already setting in, in the 90's.

My HS in the 70's didn't have any policy against outside food, (Or just wandering off to find something to eat.) but since the food was cooked in house by otherwise retired grandmothers, why would anyone have wanted outside food?

[Sarcastr0]

Same energy as ‘the best James Bond is whatever was playing when I was 16 years old.’

You hate change, and you don’t like how people noticed it’s shitty for Douglas when Brittany can pay to get pizza delivered and he can’t. Avoidably shitty.

You may not care about that kind of stuff – the richer deserve to lord it over the poorer in your aristocratic world. But it’s not ‘rot’ that folks nowadays don't care to allow that nonsense.

[Bob from Ohio]

Only the rich can afford GrubHub, it is known.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? I don't CARE if it's shitty for Douglas when Brittany can pay to get pizza delivered, and he can't. I. Just. Don't. Care.

Any more than I care that it's shitty for Douglas that he has crooked teeth, and Brittany's parents could afford to get her braces, so you think Brittany should have to wait until she gets out of HS to get that overbite corrected. Any more that I care it's shitty for Douglas that he has to hitch a ride home in his neighbor's rusty pickup truck, and Brittany's dad drops by in the BMW.

Since when did you get the idea that there's some moral imperative to bring everybody down to a common denominator level of existence, so that the people have less won't have their precious feelings hurt? That's the very rot I was referring to, in case you didn't figure it out.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t CARE if it’s shitty for Douglas when Brittany can pay to get pizza delivered, and he can’t. I. Just. Don’t. Care.

I am aware. This empathy failure why you should not be making educational policy for children. Or really any policy at all.

If you think 'you can't get Uber Eats' is bringing everyone down to some lower common denominator of existence, your sense of entitlement has encompassed all other moral sentiments.

[Commenter_XY]

It isn't the empathy fail; it is your compulsion of others that is the issue.

[Reallynotbob]

Pssst, Brett. It's not about whether Dougie and Brit get the same privileges.

Public education is supposed to be this generation's investment in the workers of 15 years from now. We need them literate, numerate, healthy, and for bonus points versed in American civics. The "equity" issue correctly identifies the problem with allowing students to self-select for highly-processed and bad habit forming foods. How is it possible that those below the poverty line are obese? It's not because they're getting the "vegetable sludge" as you leadingly call it.

Why would we not use our school lunch policies to promote healthy behaviors? It's not the nanny state any more than having to *go* to school is. There's a purpose.

[David Nieporent]

Why would we not use our school lunch policies to promote healthy behaviors? It’s not the nanny state any more than having to *go* to school is. There’s a purpose.

I mean, that's literally the nanny state. ("But we have good reasons for doing it" doesn't make it not the nanny state.)

[Sarcastr0]

Similarly 'this is the nanny state' doesn't say much about whether it's good or bad, if this is your definition.

(to be fair I don't have a clear definition myself; it's just one of those labels that caught on)

[Reallynotbob]

Well there we have it, everybody: the mere existence of public schools constitutes "nanny state."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Is it shitty when Brittany can arrive to school in her parent's lambo, but Douglas has to ride the school bus?

[Mr. Bumble]

You really think Brittany would be attending the same school as Douglas?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Did you have an actual point with your response, or are you just too stupid to substitute a ‘fancy car’ for the lambo and engage with the actual question?

[theobromophile]

Boston still buses kids from the inner city to nice suburbs. It has 40B requirements to build "affordable housing," which hits the area between 128 and 495 particularly hard. Then there are the A Better Chance houses. Don't forget parents who will rent a tiny, old apartment in a nice town to get their kid the best education possible.

So yes, Brittany and Douglas could very well be at the same school.

[Sarcastr0]

It is shitty, but it is not avoidably shitty.

[Mr. Bumble]

So will you be offering space in your new condo to illegals or did you buy it to escape from them? Be offering any of them a ride when you get your new wheels?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Why isn't it avoidable?

Surely the school could implement a policy of not allowing children to be dropped off by a private vehicle worth more than $30k?

I generally appreciate your side of an argument more than the arguments of the numerous dipshits who sadly populate this site, but in this case you're just egregiously wrong.

Income disparity is not a school's responsibility to police.

[Mr. Bumble]

30K? Haven't looked at car prices in a while?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How about you just shut the fuck up?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm being a bit facile, but there's a cost benefit involved here.

The cost to the lunch restriction seems minimal as compared to the cost to mandate everyone use school busses.

Maybe that's a status quo bias, but if so I would venture it's one shared by most parents, and so an important factor in the viability of the policy.

I've been egregiously wrong before, and I'll be so again! This is my opinion, but I will admit it's not something I've thought deeply about.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Same energy as ‘the best James Bond is whatever was playing when I was 16 years old."

Doesn't work for me : The worst James Bond was playing when I was 16 years old. Roger Moore was an unmitigated disaster....

[Sarcastr0]

I'm a Brosnam man and danged if I don't love his wacky technological antics.

[grb]

Purist here : Sean all the way. That said, with any actor the series seems to start gritty & realistic before drifting towards parody, with evermore fancy gadgets and extravagant Bondish villains.

These days the alternate Bonds are better than Bond himself. Charlize Theron played an excellent Bond in Atomic Blonde. Tom Cruise does a pretty good Bond-like-thing sans the sex. MI7 had Rebecca Ferguson, Hayley Atwell, Vanessa Kirby, and Pom Klementieff - but still managed to generate zero heat. That took an effort.

[Mr. Bumble]

Times change. When I was in grammar school there were no school lunches. There were a handful of students who brought lunch to school because there was no one at home during the day. The rest of us went home for lunch. In high school we had open lunches where you could leave school to get lunch where ever you liked.

[John F. Carr]

My elementary school was a mile from home. The middle school was seven miles from home.

[OtisAH]

Your complaint over a change at a school district you don’t attend or have any children at is because you don’t like the reason they gave for the change? Same change, different reason, you’re cool. But because they said “equity” you have a problem with it? That’s silly. And a little sad.

[David Nieporent]

This is a dumb criticism. Everyone here criticizes policies that don't impact them personally; there's nothing "silly" about that.

And criticizing those policies for being motivated by bad reasons is eminently reasonable. If a school cancelled its drama program because there wasn't sufficient student interest, perfectly reasonable. If a school cancelled its drama program because they spent the drama budget on building a domed stadium for the football team, worthy of criticism.

[OtisAH]

It’s silly and sad and I stand by that. Carr is fine with “it’s disruptive” but not “equity.” What is a greater cause of disruptiveness than a lack of equity?

[David Nieporent]

What is a greater cause of disruptiveness than a lack of equity?

Almost anything.

Some kids bring whatever they want from home; others are stuck with the school lunches. Is that equity? No. Does anyone care except DEI fanatics? No.

The potential "disruption" here is literal: hordes of random delivery people wandering onto school grounds to bring food to people. That would likely be disruptive even if entirely "equitable."

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know that I agree with you on this one that it's only DEI fanatics who care.

It's an easily avoidable avenue for childish pettiness.
If you asked me some decades ago if I thought eliminating new avenues would be effective, I'd have said no. But there's a consensus among educators that such lifts do help.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t know that I agree with you on this one that it’s only DEI fanatics who care.

No, I meant caring that some people bring lunches and some eat school-provided lunches.

Or, at least, I've never heard anyone suggest that people be banned from bringing their own lunches because it's unfair to some people.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. Sorry, missed that nuance. That makes sense, and seems right.

[OtisAH]

“Almost anything” causes disruptiveness more than inequity? Most of the revolutions in world history had their roots in inequity. Even the one initiated by wealthy British landowners.

[Nige]

'may not be as nutritious as the locally sourced organic vegetable sludge served in the cafeteria.'

If you have specific complaints about the standard of food in the cafeteria by all means make them, otherwise who cares? Try to keep your arguments straight the next time childhood obesity comes up.

[Krayt]

It’s one thing to say, oh, you are poor. Here is some government-supplied stuff.

And another to say, sorry, government-supplied stuff is the only thing you get.

This is why I am opposed to “single payer” medical care. I used to live in the NL, you could buy better care if you could afford it, unlike Canada (or the UK, unless you were rich).

It’s as if Social Security said, “Ok, here is your monthly stipend. But it is now illegal to use your own saved money. You live at the government level.”

[Nige]

It's school. They've all sort of rules. Of all the school rule complaints I've read about this is the stupidest. 'The rich will be forced to eat with the poors! Wah!'

[David Nieporent]

The equity debate is more fundamental than that: it's about the idea that everything must be leveled down (because it's a lot easier than leveling up).

For example, since we're talking about a Boston area school district, Cambridge decided a couple of years ago that nobody should be allowed to take algebra in middle school because it was unfair to those who were less prepared.

[Nige]

See, that's a way more valid complaint.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think it's a step function; more a continuum.

Demonstrating equity has a benefit, and demonstrating inequity has a cost. When making educational policy, take those into account as well as any other costs/benefits.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Double (Dumbfuck) Twins have spoken.

[Nige]

The 'thanks for showing us who you really are' guy has blurted.

[Ben_]

Democrats always do whatever they can get away with to make Americans' lives worse.

[Sarcastr0]

Democrats could have you taken out and get away with it. But they don't.

What does that say about what you provide for Americans' livers?

[Ben_]

Posting your murder fantasies is bad, Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry you don’t get jokes.

[Ben_]

Democrats think murder of people who are not like them is a hilarious topic, and jokes about it are clever.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

An FBI whistleblower said the reason the FBI is banning anyone from seeing the missing 11,000 hours of J6 footage is because it would show how many Fed Operatives where in the Capitol that day committing crimes and insurrecting.

Now, why do the people who immediately discredit every O'Keefe undercover video because of the slightest edit do not discredit the J6 narrative when there is 11,000 hours of footage being hidden from the public by the Federals?

[David Nieporent]

The FBI cannot ban anyone from seeing the footage. Kevin McCarthy has all footage, and can do what he wants with it.

And you realize that every time you say "the Federals" it just makes you sound like even more of a loon than usual?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey remember when I posted that police body cam footage of Ruby Freeman confessing to election fraud and y’all where like “Is that every second of footage and all context provided?” but then you don’t give a shit when 11,000 hours of J6 is being hidden from the public after whistleblower reports claiming it shows Federals insurrecting?

[David Nieporent]

Hey, remember when you posted body cam footage of Ruby Freeman accusing the Trump team of fraud, and you pretended she was confessing to fraud?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol wow that’s delusional

[grb]

Voltage!

[Brett Bellmore]

If somebody has invented a stupider rhetorical tactic than responding to arguments with random words like "voltage", I've yet to encounter it. Even "Whataboutism" at least makes some vestigial sense.

[loki13]

Spamming stupid links to things that are not credible is not an “argument.”

I appreciate the “voltage” because I know that it’s the person I put on ignore for continually spamming sources that are total BS.

This isn’t facebook. You don’t have an obligation to forward whatever dreck you come across just because you are gullible.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If I only read state-approved news, loki, I'd be a masked-up vaxxhole just like you.

[John F. Carr]

What's the frequency, Brett?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “If somebody has invented a stupider rhetorical tactic than responding to arguments with random words like “voltage”, I’ve yet to encounter it”

Oh really? Maybe you need a deep dive into the background of the term. BravoCharlieDelta recently had a long string of comments where he bragged about lying, his skill in lying, the effectiveness of lying, and how he regularly lies in these comments. He had his own precious term for this strategy – something like “high voltage” or “stray voltage”

So instead of killing the messenger, Brett, maybe you should turn your attention to the source. Because “voltage” is BCD’s own word and lying is his own stratagem. I have zero cause to apologize for calling out BravoCharlieDelta’s bullshit with his own damn term.

[loki13]

Well, from what I understand, only someone with a, what, 160 IQ could possibly be able to lie so effectively.

Oh .... oh .....

[OtisAH]

I like the part where the idiot thinks he’s effective.

[Magister]

Two weeks ago in a Monday open thread, BCD's manifesto:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/14/monday-open-thread-13/?comments=true#comment-10196625

"Stray voltage" is described a few comments after the "manifesto".

[David Nieporent]

If somebody has invented a stupider rhetorical tactic than responding to arguments with random words like “voltage”, I’ve yet to encounter it. Even “Whataboutism” at least makes some vestigial sense.

As always, you don't actually understand what's going on. When caught in a lie a few weeks ago, BCD expressly said that it was deliberate on his part, that he was adopting something he read in a ten-year old story about former Obama advisor David Plouffe in which Plouffe adopted a strategy he called "stray voltage" — deliberately being controversial to call public attention to some issue that the White House wanted to be addressed.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Lesson # 10,468,884 in how vapid American politics has become. CBD gets more attention on this political-legal board than every congressperson added together does.

[Commenter_XY]

Now I know where 'Voltage' comes from! I have been reading that and wondering to myself, "WTF is that?". Now I know. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

BCD admitted to lying on purpose. This mockery and disengagement is the least we can do.

[Nige]

It was his own coinage, when he used it to describe the way he deliberately lies to be provocative and interesting and get attention because he's lonely or something.

[grb]

Well, his mommy's basement is probably a dark & lonely place.

[bevis the lumberjack]

And yeah, the “voltage” thing comes across as pretty dumb. Although as political jokes go it puts the “dear god” thing to shame.

There may be some really dumb stuff on the right here as well but I don’t see it.

[Nige]

The centrist has decided that both the outrageous and stupid lies and the catch-phrase that mocks the outrageous and stupid lies are equally bad.

[grb]

Nige : “The centrist has decided…..”

Two points :

1. When dealing with a Bevis post, “Centrist” must always be capitalized – perhaps even bold text.

2. Also, don’t forget the little trademark symbol. I’m sure Bevis holds legal title to the term.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Attorney Weiss Colluded With DOJ To Thwart Congressional Questioning, Emails Show

https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/28/exclusive-u-s-attorney-weiss-colluded-with-doj-to-thwart-congressional-questioning-emails-show/

Whose going to jail for Obstruction of Justice? lol who are we kidding? Democrats can do whatever they want to whomever they want.

[David Nieporent]

Since I know most people don't bother to read BCD's dreck, I took the public service step of doing it for everyone: as is 1,000% expected, it's entirely bullshit.

1) "Colluded with DOJ" is literally gibberish, since Weiss is part of DOJ. One cannot collude with oneself.
2) Nothing in the emails even exists in the same solar system as "thwarting" anything.
3) Of course, nothing in the article describes anything even remotely constitutes "obstruction of justice."

Here's what happened: Jim "What sexual abuse? I didn't see anything?" Jordan sent some inquiries to Weiss. The DOJ office responsible for dealing with Congress drafted some of the responses. (On one occasion, Jordan sent an inquiry to Garland, and Weiss responded on Garland's behalf.) That's the "scandal" here, which is to say that there's no scandal here.

And this is all about the lie by loons like Jordan that Weiss and/or Garland lied about Weiss's authority, even though we know that they did not.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't have the legal genius of David Never-potent, but I think I heard somewhere that under the Special Prosecutor law the Special Prosecutor was supposed to come from outside DOJ, is that correct, go ahead, show I'm an asshole,

Frank

[David Nieporent]

No, it's not correct. (There is no "special prosecutor law.") There is a regulation that provides that one way to appoint a special counsel is to appoint him from outside the department. That is not the only way, and it's why Durham and Huber were also properly (if absurdly) appointed from within DOJ to be special counsels during the Trump administration.

[Frank Drackman]

thanks for that display of Non-genius, David Non-Potent.

[Randal]

Does that mean you're an asshole?

[Mr. Bumble]

Merrick Garland Appoints Federal Prosecutor David Weiss To Oversee David Weiss

https://www.dailywire.com/news/merrick-garland-appoints-federal-prosecutor-david-weiss-to-oversee-david-weiss

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do you get if you're an avowed Black Supremacist Democrat Affirmative Action Harvard Grad?

A prestigious job in the Democrat DOJ Division of Civil Rights so you can target White people.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/10/28/blacks-seek-an-end-to-abuse/

"Dr. Richard King reveals that at the core of the human brain is the "locus coeruleus" which is a structure that is Black because it contains large amounts of (neuro) melanin which is essential for its operation."

"Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin--that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities."

" Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities--something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards."

[David Nieporent]

Hey, BCD found something incredibly stupid that a college student said 30 years ago. I wonder if he noticed this guy calling himself BCD who's been saying virulently racist and antisemitic things at the VC a bit more recently?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Imagine looking around at the state of the world and saying to yourself “Wow, blacks really are superior to Whites!”.

Could you just imagine how mind-blowingly stupid you’d have to be to actually believe that?

What does being mind-blowingly stupid get you in the Federal Government? Promoted.

[Jerry B.]

Ad hominem much?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

saying virulently racist and antisemitic things at the VC

Careful . . . neither the Volokh Conspirators nor their right-wing fans like it when someone notes the ceaseless bigotry that animates this white, male, conservative blog.

[Bob from Ohio]

"college student said 30 years ago"

Do you ever get tired of carrying water for the Democrats?

If a white had said that about whites she would already have been fired and you know it.

[Frank Drackman]

This is from the Pubic Broadcasting System, so take it with a ton of Salt,
"A special counsel is an attorney appointed to investigate, and possibly prosecute, a case in which the Justice Department perceives itself as having a conflict or where it’s deemed to be in the public interest to have someone outside the government come in and take responsibility for a matter."

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/merrick-garland-appoints-federal-prosecutor-david-weiss-to-oversee-david-weiss

[Frank Drackman]

When Hunter Biden walks, will he get his gun back?

[Moderation4ever]

He did not seem to need it as he discarded it several days after the purchase. Too bad more people don't do likewise.

[Frank Drackman]

Buy an expensive handgun and just leave it where some Moppet can pick it up and blow some kid with a bunch of apostrophe's in his name's head off? Wow, can I get some of what you're smoking? for my Glaucoma of course!

[Mr. Bumble]

"He did not seem to need it as he discarded it several days after the purchase."
HE did no such thing and was pissed when he found out that his brother's widow (the one he was fucking) did.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who is R.L. Peters and why was he and his son getting millions of dollars from the CCP?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did anyone else notice that as soon as Sarcastr0 dropped off David Neiropont showed up?

Must've been a shift change at Eglin AFB. lol

[grb]

How do I get on the schedule!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're already on a schedule... for your meds.

[grb]

Are you becoming grumpier with each new indictment?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Not really. Every new indictment by a vote rigger just ends up making his polls bigger.

[Jerry B.]

Per the BBC, the Trump campaign has raised over $7 million since his Georgia indictment, mostly from sales of mug shot merch.

[Sarcastr0]

Thank goodness he won't be in the poorhouse.

The fact that the GOP is full of spite-spenders is well known. It's why they got the main part of the grifter flock these days. Trump among them.

[loki13]

The sad fact is that grifters don't succeed unless they have marks.

At a certain point, "I want to believe," isn't just a poster from the X-Files, but the rallying cry for a significant portion of the GOP base.

[OtisAH]

The “entirety” of the MAGA base. Do not buy into tales of anonymous MAGA and their concern-expressing. Near every one of them were among the 70 million who voted for Turnip in 2020. And near every one of them will vote for him again.

[ReaderY]

In any situation where somebody responds to somebody else’s behavior with disgust or revulsion, but that behavior does not actually cause physical harm, it is always open to the person doing the allegedly disgusting behavior to claim to be a victim of animosity and prejudice, to claim the feeling of revulsion is nothing but bigotry. But it also, in our current society, always equally open to the person who feels disgusted to claim that the person doing the allegedly disgusting behavior is harassing and engaging in an act which itself bogotry. The feeling of disgust, an emotion, gets interprwted intellectually depending on ideology.

Thus those who dress in drag claim that people opposed to it are bigots, but it’s open to the opponents to say that they are being harassed and mocked. People who oppose people dressing in blackface claim that the people doing so are harassing and mocking them, but it’s open to the people dressing in blackface to say that the people opposed to it are bigots.

The same is true with other conduct. Just as it’s open to transgender people to say that people who feel their privacy is violated by people with the opposite gender parts hanging out in their bathrooms and showers are bigots, it’s equally open to voyeurs to claim that what sexually attracts them is natural and normal, that they’ve been unfairly oppressed, and the people who feel their privacy is violated by them hanging out in bathrooms and showers doing their natiral and normal thing are bigots acting out of hatred.

The consequences of this are far-reaching. It’s open to segregationists to claim that a black person sitting in the front of the bus mocks them and is engaging in an act of racial harassment, their sense of disgust, they can argue, is as natural and normat as a black person’s disgust at seeing a white person in blackface.

In general, the idea that senses of disgust caused by violations of things that might be regarded as privacy might instead be reflections of bigotry and hatred, generally operates to the detriment of privacy.

And so far as constitutional analysis is concerned, both sides can claim to be rational, to the extent rational basis applies.

[NOVA Lawyer]

In any situation where somebody responds to somebody else’s behavior with disgust or revulsion, but that behavior does not actually cause physical harm, it is always open to the person doing the allegedly disgusting behavior to claim to be a victim of animosity and prejudice, to claim the feeling of revulsion is nothing but bigotry

Anybody at any time can claim anything. This is a lot of words with no content.

The consequences of this are far-reaching. It’s open to segregationists to claim that a black person sitting in the front of the bus mocks them and is engaging in an act of racial harassment, their sense of disgust, they can argue, is as natural and normal as a black person’s disgust at seeing a white person in blackface.

They can argue anything they like, but the two things aren't remotely analogous, despite you apparently believing they are.

And so far as constitutional analysis is concerned, both sides can claim to be rational, to the extent rational basis applies.

That's a very nice example of a non sequitur.

Whatever grand theory you thought you were presenting here today, is gibberish.

Perhaps what you wanted to say is:

The emotion of disgust has no moral (and certainly no legal) valence, though it is quite human to equate one's disgust with evil or "bad". Therefore, disgust, while often effective as a rhetorical device, is not useful in rational argument and should play no part in law making or legal analysis. And you are worried that too many people think that their disgust reveals some objective, universal truth when, in fact, it does not. And this worry of yours is pronounced because you see people trying to enshrine their feelings of disgust into law when, in reality, disgust is an emotion that, except in cases where it acts as evolutionarily ingrained intuition about germ theory, primarily reflects cultural values and idiosyncrasies of the individual's past and personality rather than any universal moral truths.

[hoppy025]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4174681-florida-democrat-desantis-has-blood-on-his-hands-after-jacksonville-shooting/

Fuck these stupid and ignorant blacks (I know, oxymoron). When they rile blacks up to commit street crime or "mostly peaceful" protests, nary a peep. But when whites espouse conservatism in a race-neutral way, then suddenly they have "blood on their hands."

Fuck these people. They never will see themselves as Americans, but always on the outside, and will never stop demanding our money. Fuck them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog of America’s Vestigial Racists.

Powered, of course, by the Federalist Society.

[Randal]

Do you think he was being actually if inappropriately funny, or he just doesn't know what an oxymoron is? Knowing hoppy...

[hoppy025]

I do, but I made a mistake. It was supposed to be "redundant"

[M L]

Last week someone noted that this judge made a legal ruling that he had no authority to make, and that he had made up his mind before the trial, making it a sham trial. The judge only listened to experts who were critical of lockdown rules. Basically the judge didn’t like COVID rules and set out to use his position to block them.

It’s somewhat compelling. I think maybe we should start handing out prison sentences to judges on a regular basis, who have a political agenda and issue rulings that they don’t have the authority to issue. _______________

Judge who struck down government rules that children must wear COVID masks in German schools is given two-year sentence for ‘perverting the law’
Dettmar was also temporarily suspended in 2021, losing 25 per cent of his salary
On Wednesday he was sentenced to two years’ probation for obstructing justice
On Wednesday, a judge ruled that Dettmar has now been sentenced to two years' probation for obstruction of justice - a decision that will deprive the judge of both his role and pension.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12445777/Judge-struck-government-rules-children-wear-COVID-masks-German-schools-given-two-year-sentence-perverting-law.html

[Nige]

What is it about people who breaks laws being punished or indicted that makes the right so eager to punish people who haven't broken laws?

[hoppy025]

Because the "laws" you leftists make suck. in your eyes, it's wrong to punish people for breaking laws against abortion or homosexual sodomy, because those are important human rights, but punishing blacks for rioting is wrong, because they have a right to riot.

[M L]

Last week some people were baffled and didn't know what I was talking about, when I noted that all the cases and investigations into Burisma and its executive were expeditiously wrapped up and closed by Shokin's successor months after his firing. So here's the link. It seems awareness of the basic facts is in short supply, and I haven't even followed this story for several years.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/8947

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10161

[grb]

M L : (Shokin bullshit)

Some quotes from the story linked below :

1. “Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Kyiv-based Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), told RFE/RL that Shokin “dumped important criminal investigations on corruption associated with [former President Viktor] Yanukovych, including the Burisma case.”

2. "For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand. “There was no pressure from anyone from the United States” to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015,” he added."

3. “Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin’s office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them”

4. "But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired. They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform"

5. “The amazing thing is not that he was sacked but that it has taken so long,” Aslund said. “Petro Poroshenko appointed Shokin to the role in February 2015. From the outset, he stood out by causing great damage even to Ukraine’s substandard legal system.”

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html

You know the Right can't find anything on Biden when Shokin is the best they can do....

[M L]

I mean, that's interesting to know what "AntAC" and others are saying. Maybe there's some truth to it.

Anyway, congratulations to Burisma and Zlochevskiy for getting everything wrapped up with a bow after Shokin was fired. And apparently with the help of Hunter and Blue Star.

I wouldn't know what "the right can find" or if this is "the best they can do," just thought people seemed to not know about this one little piece of the story.

[Sarcastr0]

Question-begging plus sarcastic condescension...what was your plan with this comment?

[grb]

M L : “seemed to not know about this one little piece of the story”

The refugee of insipid conspiracy-mongering since time immemorial. There is always some “little piece” you can find (or manufacturer) if you’re willing to ignore a mountain of countering facts.

And that’s why your Shokin bullshit will never be ready for prime time. Oh, it’s good enough to roil the faithful, enrage the believers, and astound the credulous. But it’s worthless for anything more than gulling willful dupes.

Let’s say McCarthy gives it a go: What happens when Biden produces dozens of witnesses proving Shokin’s firing was official White House policy long before his actions. Dozens more testifying it was official State Department policy. Dozens more testifying it was an objective throughout the western world. Dozen more testifying to Shokin’s grotesque corruption.

It would be the most humiliating debacle in modern political history. Shokin’s firing works for you, ML, because you don’t give a shit about the facts. That’s a bit harder to pull off it a setting where both sides have to present and prove their case.

[M L]

Again, Biden/Obama/UN/IMF/CIA/whoever wanted Shokin fired because he wasn't investigating Burisma hard enough . . . his investigation was too . . . dormant.

But then, shortly after he got fired, all of those cases were closed.

So either this narrative is wrong, or Biden and the alphabet soup bois misjudged and got snookered or something? Who knows. Case closed, as they say.

[grb]

M L : "...the alphabet soup bois misjudged...."

In a way, that's partially correct. There seemed to be a belief in the U.S. and Europe that Shokin was the only thing preventing a clean Ukrainian justice system. And that's pretty understandable given how monstrously corrupt he was. After all, how often does a prosecutor's main deputies get busted with guns, multiple passports and bags of diamonds in their houses? (You might want to wander off the ideological reservation and look that up, ML. Spoiler Alert: Shokin saw his deputies freed, their diamonds returned, and all inquires into their extortion & shakedowns quashed)

But the successor to Shokin wasn't the savoir the West expected. Less corrupt than Shokin by a large margin, but corrupt still. You can see Ukraine continues to fight that battle today, with Zelensky dismissing multiple officials found to be on the take.

But none were loathed in Ukraine as much as Shokin. Every anti-corruption group in the country demanded his ouster. There were street demonstration in the capital against the prosecutor alone. When he was fired, the Kiev Post said he was one of most hated men in all of Ukraine.

1. A true Right-Wing hero!
2. Plenty more witnesses there for Biden's defense, eh?

[M L]

It’s too bad Biden wasn’t more successful in his efforts to ramp up criminal investigations into the company where Biden Jr. was sitting on the board, and instead precipitated a hasty end to such investigations. That must have been disappointing for him. Oh well, can’t win em all!

[NOVA Lawyer]

If that's your legitimate (sarcastic, snarky) takeaway, you are a moron.

It was never Biden's initiative. And nobody was particularly obsessed with Burisma the way you currently are or imagine others to have been at the time. The primary purpose of replacing Shokin was not Burisma, it was his overarching corruption. Burisma was just one of many cases in which he was corrupt. So, no, replacing one very corrupt prosecutor did not fix everything. But it also didn't result in more corruption vis a vis Burisma, which is what the Hunter obsessed GOPers in Congress (or you) would have to show. And, quite clearly, they haven't. You haven't. But you love the narrative, so damn the facts.

[Nige]

'Again, Biden/Obama/UN/IMF/CIA/whoever wanted Shokin fired because he wasn’t investigating Burisma hard enough'

....what?

[Sarcastr0]

ML sometimes slips into a bad parody of right-wing talk show bloviators. Been a thing for years.

[M L]

That's been the explanation. Yes Shokin was investigating Burisma, a company widely considered to be at the core of corruption in Ukraine, and its owner. But the investigation was "dormant" and he wasn't doing "enough" so that's why the entire "international community" became so obsessed over this one guy in some random country.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Burisma, a company widely considered to be at the core of corruption in Ukraine"

Um, no. Just because Republicans have become obsessed with it, it was just another company in Ukraine which was full of corrupt companies with close tie to political leaders.

Check out this 2016 article from Forbes which mentions lots and lots of oligarchs and corrupt companies, but neither Burisma nor Zlochevsky are mentioned in the article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/10/14/how-corruption-corrodes-ukraines-economy/?sh=1d14cdfe124e

They were not "at the core of Ukrainian corruption." They are just at the core of your Biden delusions.

[grb]

M L : (Shokin bullshit)

Some quotes from the story linked below :

1. "As we have reported more than once last year, Biden traveled to Kyiv as vice president and warned Ukraine’s then-president, Petro Poroshenko, that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees until Ukraine removed its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, who was widely viewed as corrupt. At the time, the international community and anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine were also calling for Shokin to be removed from office for his failure to aggressively prosecute corruption."

2. "Under the new regime, Shokin became prosecutor general in early 2015. But he failed “to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,” according to testimony that John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

3. "But, as we said, the evidence shows Biden was carrying out U.S. policy, and the United States was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin."

4. In February 2016, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption. That same month, a “reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,” according to a Jan. 3, 2017, Congressional Research Service report. “After President Poroshenko complained that Shokin was taking too long to clean up corruption even within the [Prosecutor General’s Office] itself, he asked for Shokin’s resignation,” the CRS report said. Shokin submitted his resignation in February 2016 and was removed a month later."

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

[grb]

M L : (Shokin bullshit)

Some quotes from the story linked below :

1. "European and US officials pressed Ukraine to sack Viktor Shokin, the country’s former prosecutor-general, months before Joe Biden, the former US vice-president, personally intervened to force his removal, people involved in the talks said. Mr Biden did not act unilaterally nor did he instigate the push against Mr Shokin, despite suggestions to the contrary by supporters of US president Donald Trump, people familiar with the matter said. "

2. "EU diplomats working on Ukraine at the time have, however, told the FT that they were looking for ways to persuade Kiev to remove Mr Shokin well before Mr Biden entered the picture. The push for Mr Shokin’s removal was part of an international effort to bolster Ukraine’s institutions following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the armed conflict in the eastern part of the country."

3.  "Prominent Republican senators, including Rob Portman of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, were on a similar push at the time, calling for “urgent reforms to the prosecutor-general’s office and judiciary” in an early 2016 letter to Mr Poroshenko."

4.  "A Poroshenko government adviser added: “Everyone was pushing for Shokin’s resignation, not just Biden. The difference was Biden came with an amount of money Ukraine found hard to ignore. If the Europeans had had that leverage, they would have used it.” 

https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

[Michael Ejercito]

Impeach FJB

[Sarcastr0]

If you've given up on engaging, why post?

[Kenneth Almquist]

Thanks for finding some better sources of information than M L, who linked to Burisma press releases.

[M L]

A Burisma press release in the Kyiv post cited for the claim that these cases were closed. Are you disputing that the cases were closed? Are you disputing that their American attorney said the things he's quoted as saying? Here’s a different article.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10044

Citing factcheck.org is the leftwing equivalent of citing townhall.com or something.

[M L]

Right. So I take it your point here is something like this:

What Biden did may look bad, but he didn't do it for a corrupt reason. Here's all these other reasons for his action, and all these other people who were saying the same thing and wanted the same thing.

That's fine. Maybe, Hunter's soft-corrupt actions here were just an extraordinarily poorly timed coincidence that created an appearance of impropriety. An appearance which Joe was remarkably careless about. You are kind of jumping way ahead of what I'm talking about to these larger issues, which is fine.

[Nige]

‘What Biden did may look bad, but he didn’t do it for a corrupt reason’

Plus the contortions you have to go through to make it ‘look bad’ are agonising, stop, you’ll hurt yourself.

But it's all you got instead of evidence.

[grb]

M L : “What Biden did may look bad…”

Wrong once again, ML. What Biden did was follow the anti-corruption policy of his President and State Department. Only in your wackjob imagination does that “look bad”.

To the anti-corruption groups in Ukraine, it was something to heartily cheer. To the a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators concerned about a clean government in that country, it was news worth applauding. This includes Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who joined other Republicans and Democrats to write a letter on the issue back then.

In a interview last year, he described the letter thus: “The whole world, by the way, including the Ukranian caucus, which I signed the letter, the whole world felt that this that Sholkin wasn’t doing a [good] enough job. So we were saying hey you’ve … got to rid yourself of corruption.”

Biden’s effort also didn’t look bad to our European allies, who’d been urging Ukraine to cleanup its corrupt prosecutor’s office before the U.S. got involved. It also looked great to major financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF.

Of course, not everyone was happy to see Shokin go. A few weeks back, the Republican were telling everyone Devon Archer would be their star witness on the Bidens. He was, just not the way they wanted:

“Mr. Archer also undercut another Republican argument that the elder Mr. Biden had pressured Ukrainian officials in 2016 to fire Viktor Shokin, the former prosecutor general of Ukraine, because he was investigating the company. On the contrary, Mr. Archer said, he heard from associates in D.C., that Burisma had Mr. Shokin “under control” and that his replacement could be more damaging to the company”

Makes sense. Shokin had played around with an investigation then shut it down before Hunter had anything to do with Burisma – almost certainty after the kind of payoff he was famous for. He had refused to cooperate with an English inquiry into the company, insuring its failure. He never charged a single oligarch during his time in office and was known to be easily bought. No wonder Burisma wanted him kept in place. (note: there are plenty of people available to testify on these things in the GOP decides to commit national suicide by pretending their bullshit tale is real).

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/us/politics/biden-devon-archer-testimony.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male,
fringe conservative
blog has operated
for no more than

TEN (10)

days without publishing
a vile racial slur; it has
published racial slurs
on at least

TWENTY-SEVEN (27)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
27 different discussions,
not 27 racial slurs; many
of those discussions
featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the incessant, disgusting stream of
gay-bashing, misogynist, antisemitic,
Islamophobic, and immigrant-hating
slurs and other bigoted content
presented daily at this conservative
blog, which is presented by members
of the Federalist Society for
Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this ugly right-wing intolerance and stale conservative thinking, here is something worthwhile.

(This one is good, too.)

[Moderation4ever]

On a Sunday talk show Vivek Ramaswamy suggested he would have handled the VP's responsibility differently on January 6th, asking for single-day voting, paper ballots and government-issued IDs to verify a voter's identity, before he would have certified the election. I wonder how Mr. Ramaswamy and other of like mind would think if in the run up to the 2024 election VP Kamala Harris stated that she would only certify the election result if states accepted her demands for how the election should be run? The VP's job in the election is ceremonial and nothing else. He either certifies the results as determined by the states or passes the job to somebody else. As most of the Republican Presidential candidates stated Mike Pence did the right thing.

[David Nieporent]

Vivek Ramaswamy has two modes to respond to any question:

1) ChatGPT mode, in which he generates a buzzword-filled response based on the statements that other GOP figures have made on the topic.
2) I-don't-know-anything-about-this-and-have-put-absolutely-no-thought-into-it-and-am-just-saying-whatever-comes-into-my-head mode.

[Frank Drackman]

and Vivi-section Rami-Swammy probably spends more money on his hair in a month than you make in a year. (and it shows!) You guys just hate it when a Brother/Bhai leaves the Cotton/Rubber Tree Plantation....

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"single-day voting, paper ballots and government-issued IDs to verify a voter’s identity"

Are all fine policies, but any VP who'd demand that they be implemented before he'd count the EC votes ought to be beaten with a rubber chicken, or something equally embarrassing, and then ejected from the chambers.

Ramaswamy is not, IMO, an actual conservative. He's a who knows what, wearing a carefully crafted fake conservative mask.

Crafted by a focus group of people who have nothing but contempt for conservatives, at that.

[jb]

"Ramaswamy is not, IMO, an actual conservative. He’s a who knows what, wearing a carefully crafted fake conservative mask.

Crafted by a focus group of people who have nothing but contempt for conservatives, at that."

Minus the focus groups, that's basically a description of Trump. Ramaswamy isn't a conservative, he's a post-Trump Republican.

[grb]

jb : “Minus the focus groups, that’s basically a description of Trump”

True, but you ignore an distinction critical to Brett : Trump is entertaining. In his brat-child theatrics, Trump scorns all the groups Brett loathes. I can’t say this for certain, but I bet Brett slapped his knees with joy whenever Trump wiped his lard ass on a political or civic institution that strayed within reach.

To be a true “conservative” leader these days, you must provide pro-wrestling-style thrills. After all, the average right-wing consumer demands those libs be owned with with real style and flair. By now, that’s pretty much the entire point of the whole ideology. And Trump delivered that entertainment value to Brett.

This guy with the funny name? Not so much…

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually I mostly rolled my eyes at Trump, and I was mortally afraid when he was elected that he'd pivot, and try to govern from the center. He was very much a lesser evil vote for me.

Thankfully, the Democrats had nuked all their bridges to him from orbit, and so that didn't happen.

He still might attempt that if reelected, if Democrats still control Congress. Where he could get away with it, like that bump stock ban, he did pivot.

The chief difference here is that Trump, whether or not he was sincere, was fairly accurately targeting what a large faction of Republicans actually want, while Ramaswamy seems to be precisely targeting what a progressive would tend to THINK those Republicans want.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not one for counterfactuals, but I am extremely sure that if he somehow won the primary, you would come around. Wouldn’t take long either.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I probably would, because however sus I find Ramaswamy, the Democrats are categorically guaranteed to nominate somebody much worse.

[Sarcastr0]

This exact blind logic rationalizes voting for Hitler.

You realize this is you tossing your moral compass in the trash, yes?

[Brett Bellmore]

You realize this is just you not liking what my moral compass tells me about the Democratic party, yes?

[theobromophile]

He's the Presidential candidate equivalent of Kelly Craft, the (thankfully) failed GOP primary candidate for Governor of Kentucky. Neither seem to grasp the deeper logic of conservatism and instead say what other political types say and the base wants to hear.

[OtisAH]

Ramaswamey got all the praise that didn’t go to Haley last Thursday and lost a couple points in the next polls.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Haters like Loki will say this video isn't real and isn't approved by the State Department.

https://videy.co/v?id=v1gYiuNk

[David Nieporent]

Surprisingly, the DC judge hearing one of Trump's many prosecutions did not adopt his suggestion that his trial be postponed until 2026 (!). She selected March 2024, based on the amount of time needed to prepare for the trial.

I assume that they were doing Trump's bidding, but it's very nearly legal malpractice (in a colloquial sense, not necessarily in an actionable sense) for his lawyers to have made that proposal. There was no way in hell that they were going to postpone the trial until then. 2½ years is not even a remotely reasonable suggestion, and all it does is cause a judge to dismiss you out of hand.

(Some people think the best way to negotiate is to pick an outrageous position in the hopes that the compromise notion of splitting the difference will then redound in their favor. That may work, but only very rarely.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The avowed Trump hater selected the day before Super Tuesday.

Total coincidence and totally not election interference by Democrats.

[David Nieporent]

"election interference"

You're like a five year old who just heard a curse word and runs around gleefully repeating it, not understanding what it means.

That is correct, it is not "election interference."

[OtisAH]

There’s no election to interfere with, idiot. “Super Tuesday” is for the primaries, which are run by parties to determine who will represent the parties in the next election. And even if there was something called “primary interference” this wouldn’t be it since MAGA intends on nominating Turnip no matter what. If anything his trial will make his nomination almost unanimous.

[Bob from Ohio]

A primary is also a state run election. Its done at a state controlled polling location , using state printed ballots and the results counted by state officials.

[Mr. Bumble]

So are all elections (except for purely local elections like mayor or school board). What's the point?

[David Nieporent]

Note the bad faith of the argument anyway. It basically says that Trump should have immunity from prosecution for the next eighteen months months — and of course if he does prevail in November 2024 (g-d forbid), they'll argue separately that he should have immunity from prosecution until January 20, 2029.

This is not an argument about the "election." This is an argument that Trump should never have to be held accountable.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He will not win, it doesn't matter how many real humans vote for him.

The elections are way too fortified for another outsider to ever win again.

[OtisAH]

The idiot thinks the former President of the United States is an outsider because the idiot is an idiot.

[Mr. Bumble]

How do you equate a trial start date with immunity?

[David Nieporent]

If you can't be prosecuted, then you are immune from conviction or punishment.

[Mr. Bumble]

No one is saying he can't be prosecuted only that his right to effective counsel requires more time than the government wants to allow.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they do seem absolutely determined to make sure it happens right before Super Tuesday. Nothing at all to do with politics, I'm sure.

[Sarcastr0]

They. Probably meet in smoke filled rooms. Maybe wear robes.

Dude, we don’t live in a political thriller. Sometimes things just happen and libs aren't even involved!!

[David Nieporent]

It doesn't have anything to do with politics; the argument doesn't even make sense. By Super Tuesday (if not already!) the GOP primaries will be over. How will his trial affect them?

Not to mention that since you're a deranged conspiracy theorist, we all know that if it were pushed later you'd be claiming that "they" deliberately waited until Trump secured the nomination to try him, to prevent the voters from picking someone else after his conviction.

And you'd claim it was too close to the November election.

There is no time when Trump would be prosecuted that you would accept as not being politically timed.

[OtisAH]

The trial is 7 months from now dummy.

[apedad]

"Once scheduled, defense attorney John Lauro told the judge that Trump's defense team would abide by her ruling but that they would, "not be able to provide adequate representation."

"I feel the need to put that on the record," Lauro said.

Judge Chutkan said that she understood Lauro’s position but then added that she would issue an order with a pre-trial schedule.

There was a brief discussion in the courtroom of whether the defense team planned on polling citizens of the District of Columbia in an effort to determine whether to submit a motion for a change of venue."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trial-trump

"(P)olling citizens of the District of Columbia in an effort to determine whether to submit a motion for a change of venue."

IANAL so - is that a thing?

Have other Defendants done this?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is reportedly squawking that he will appeal Judge Chutkan’s scheduling decision, which is not appealable as of right. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/28/us/politics/trump-trial-date-jan-6.html Trump would be limited to seeking a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1651.

Three conditions must be satisfied before a writ of mandamus may issue. First, “the party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires. Second, the petitioner must satisfy the burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Third, even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). Trump is just blowing smoke.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the volume of material turned over to the defense so far (reportedly 12.8 million pages and 44,000 hours of video) would you be ready to defend a client in 7 months?

[Ridgeway]

I am surprised nobody has brought up how quickly Trump is morphing into Kim Jong-il, with his sleek 6' 3", 215 lb frame, and recent club-championship-winning 67 at Bedminster. Everything sunny everywhere all the time!

[Mr. Bumble]

Get back to us when he starts taking pitty pat steps like a certain "President" who looks like Tim Conway's old man character when he walks.

[Ridgeway]

With those aviator sunglasses, it is more like Mr. Magoo trying to look hip.

We are doomed.

[Magister]

Three years ago?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/14/trump-unsteady-walk-down-west-point-ramp

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, unlike Biden he wasn't wearing Sketchers but leather soled big boy shoes.

[Nige]

Trump - He Wears Shoes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Biden - he wears sneakers.

[Nige]

Election's in the bag with slogans like these.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is it so hard to believe he shot a 67?

[Estragon]

You can believe it if you want to; as someone who golfs- I can say unequivocally that a 77 year old amateur is not shooting a legit 67 on this plane of existence.

I have come around to the idea that these obvious lies are kind of a loyalty test. If you’re willing to accept that guy shot a 67, you will believe anything.

Do you also believe he’s 6-3 215?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I don't golf so I only asked why is it so hard to believe.

That's all.

[Estragon]

If Arnold Palmer himself, god rest his soul, were to come back to life at age 77 he’d have trouble breaking 80, let alone shooting 67. It’s obviously not impossible, in a metaphysical sense. But there ain’t no way.

[SRG2]

And now you've been told, do you still think he shot a 67?

And do you think he's around 215lbs?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump and his handlers figure Trump's supporters are dumb enough to believe that guy weighs 215 pounds (or are deplorable enough to argue it is true despite knowing it's at least 280 pounds
of
pure bullshit).

Mostly, they're right.

[Frank Drackman]

How much did Hilary Rodman weigh in 0-16 when she couldn't go out in Pubic without Dr. Strangeglove Sunglasses, and had more near death encounters than Jimmuh Cartuh???? (Proof there's a Surpreme Being, he's making Jimmuh pay for his life of fuck ups*)
As a passer of the gas, I've become a bit of a "weight/bodyfat guesser" over the years, because body fat % is one of the main factors in predicting recovery from anesthesia (I'd explain it but most of the Conspiracy are Scientific Illiterates who think the Periodic Table is where they sell Tampons)
"45" looks about 235, Christ Christie is 315, Hilary Rodman, 185.
Frank "5'10 OK, 5'8.5", 140lbs, OK, 145)

Frank

* OK, Airline Deregulation was a good thing, leaves First Class to those who deserve it.

[SRG2]

Frankie, enough with the whataboutism

[grb]

SRG2 : And now you’ve been told, do you still think he shot a 67?

I bet there's audio of Trump talking to the club’s pro: “I just need you to find 10 strokes.”

[Frank Drackman]

Ever played a round?? (OK, I've only played a few, and not sure if Guantanamo counts) there's alot of room for "Adjustments"
("Winter Rules" I think Judge Schmayles called it in "Caddyshack")

Frank

[Estragon]

The drack attack makes a decent point— winter rules are a thing. Why they would play winter rules in august is a different question of course.

It’s just so silly. If he had just come out and said I shot 85 or whatever… that’s still impressive! Golf is hard!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My brother who is an avid golfer and a not a Trump hater had said the only way a 67 was legit was if it was incorporating his handicap and that he would've shot 5 under his handicap (or some other detail like that.) He also suggested that Trump probably had favorable tee and pin positions.

With that being said, Trump at some level probably believes he shot a 67, but I doubt a neutral observer would agree.

[grb]

Trump's most ardent defenders regularly say he's too mentally ill to understand reality. That's weird...

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Great News Vaxxies!

Data collection for COVID-19 vaccines concluded on June 30, 2023.

https://vsafe.cdc.gov/covid/en/

With no or unreliable data, that means The Science will say the modRNA are safe! Just in time for new boosters! So be ready to Boost to the Maxx!

Sincerely,
A Non-GMO Organic 1776 Pureblood

[Magister]

You can still report to VAERS, the system that has been around for 30+ years.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The same system the CDC often said was unreliable and untrustworthy?

That one?

https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/v-safe-how-everyday-people-help-the-cdc-track-covid-vaccine-safety-with-their-phones/

[SRG2]

BCD: suppose that every death from whatever cause within 2 weeks of a vaccination is in a database with 100% accuracy. The database is reliable in that you can count exactly how many people died in that fortnight. But it is not a reliable source for concluding that this number is the same as the number of people who died from side-effects of the vaccine. Duh.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

First, SRG2, the CDC declared that for the first two weeks after getting vaccinated you are considered not "fully vaccinated".

Secondly, that's your argument not the CDC's. Which is weird because I provided a source and yet you still ignorantly insisted on bootlicking and whitewashing for the elites at the CDC.

[David Nieporent]

You know that "elite" is a good thing, right?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is great when these Republican hayseeds call educated, reasoning Americans (especially those residing in strong, modern communities) "elites" -- it demonstrates that they have enough self-awareness to recognize that their betters are their betters.

[Frank Drackman]

The Irony of Coach Sandusky calling anybody a "Hayseed" (Jeez-yus, can you use an anymore dated insult, what are you gonna call us next, "Jacobites"??
And anyone who thinks he's "better" than anyone else is a fucking idiot, the Jacksonville Murderer thought White Peoples were better than Blacks,
Oh, just heard of a "Mass Shooting" at Chapel Hill, obviously gonna be another Pudgy white virgin...

Frank

[SRG2]

BCD: "Suppose"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good news Bootlickers!

The National Archives confirms there are 5,400 illegal Biden emails about gardening, shopping and recipes but since they're good Federals, there will be some oopsie doodles and nothing incriminating will ever be released.

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/national-archives-acknowledges-5400-biden-pseudonym-emails-faces-lawsuit

[David Nieporent]

The National Archives confirms there are 5,400 illegal Biden emails about gardening, shopping and recipes but since they’re good Federals, there will be some oopsie doodles and nothing incriminating will ever be released.

Don't forget about all the molested children in the basement of that pizza place!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Haters like Sarcastr0 will say this is a fake mugshot of Fauci.

https://i.imgur.com/2TRKcV9.jpg

[grb]

Haters like Sarcastr0 will be right. And you'll still be a crude and obvious liar. Voltage!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/22/fact-check-online-claim-faucis-arrest-false/3497070001/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The mugshot was taken recently, grb.

D'uh.

[Magister]

More recent debunking?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/may/04/facebook-posts/dr-anthony-fauci-wasnt-arrested-despite-recurring/

"Recurring social media claims", so there may not be one for each specific claim. But if you weren't just interested in spamming lies, you could figure it out all by yourself. That you won't find any report of it in mainstream reputable news outlets is definitive, no matter how hard you want to pretend that they won't report such an arrest if it actually happened. D'uh.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You can see the mugshot for yourself. It's literally right there. Un-fucking-real.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : D’uh.

Voltage!

[Randal]

Wow you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Not much voltage down there at the bottom. Just a bit of static cling.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Look at all those idiots trying to debooooonk my mugshot evidence. lol stupid morons

[Randal]

It's not even worth debunking. But it is worth ridiculing. Ridonculous!

[Ben_]

Democrats: Biden never directly took bribes. All the bribery money went to his family.

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1696153236023955830

That’s the defense they’ve settled on.

[Nige]

In other words: you completely failed to prove a single one of the claims made about links between Hunter Biden's business and Joe Biden.

[David Nieporent]

So far, after months of this idiocy, they've come up with nothing about Joe Biden beyond an anonymous person telling the FBI that someone from Ukraine told him that Biden had received a bribe, but also told him that the bribe was so well-hidden that nobody would be able to find it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny the things you'll believe and not believe.

[David Nieporent]

Are you saying that Comer has more evidence but is just choosing to keep quiet about it?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Comer is not a lawyer.

If I recall correctly, he has a degree in Kentucky agriculture, resembling Devin Nunes' degree in cow-milking (with a minor in immigration law evasion).

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, and my Degree was in "Poultry Science" (It's a real thing, those Chickens don't Kill/Process/Cook themselves)
https://agriculture.auburn.edu/research/poul/
and don't want to Brag, but when Chick-Fil-A needs Poultry Scientists, they wear Orange/Blue.
So what, you don't drink milk? eat Chocolate?, Eat Cheese?? (I know you cut it all the time)
All from a disgraced former (mediocre) Foo-bawl Coach with a P.E. degree from East Dumbfuck State (you insult people's degrees, I'll insult yours)
Oh, and you have a big nose and stupid hair,

Frank "No third trimester Addling!"

[Frank Drackman]

This is the current Freshman Auburn Poultry Science Curriculum, pretty much the same as when I started in 1981 (Chickens haven’t changed much) CHEM 1030 Fundamentals Chemistry I 3 CHEM 1040 Fundamental Chemistry II 3 CHEM 1031 Fundamental Chemistry I Laboratory 1 CHEM 1041 Fundamental Chemistry II Laboratory 1 BIOL 1020 Principles of Biology 3 BIOL 1030 Organismal Biology 3 BIOL 1021 Principles of Biology Laboratory 1 BIOL 1031 Organismal Biology Laboratory 1 POUL 1000 Introductory Poultry Science 3 ENGL 1100 English Composition I 3 MATH 1610 Calculus I 4 Core Fine Arts 3 Core Social Science 3 15 17

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

No, I'm saying the "anonymous person" you referred to is a long time confidential source that the FBI has found to be extremely credible.

[David Nieporent]

You're quite selective in when you choose to accept what the FBI is saying. But you completely missed the point: as with Christopher Steele, the FBI's source has no firsthand knowledge. He's (or she's, I guess) just passing on what someone told him. While we have no ability to assess his credibility one way or the other, even if we assume he's 100% telling the truth, all that proves is that someone actually said it to him. Not that it actually happened.

[jb]

The defense is that they weren't bribes, and part of the proof of that is that there wasn't a payment to Joe Biden.

Another part of the proof of that is that there was no quid pro quo.

If the only standard for "Politican X is taking bribes" is that "someone in that person's family got paid by a foreign entity" then Trump is orders of magnitude (billions of dollars vs. millions) more guilty than Biden. That's not whataboutism, it's proof that the "evidence" for Biden's corruption is laughable.

[David Nieporent]

McCarthy starts to plot Biden impeachment strategy while GOP skeptics remain

And one GOP lawmaker, granted anonymity to speak more freely, offered an even blunter assessment: “There’s no evidence that Joe Biden got money, or that Joe Biden, you know, agreed to do something so that Hunter could get money. There’s just no evidence of that. And they can’t impeach without that evidence. And I don’t I don’t think the evidence exists.”

[Michael Ejercito]

Fuck Joe Biden.

Impeach FJB.

[Ben_]

Bribes paid to Biden family, Biden leverages US aid dollars to help the people who paid the bribes:

https://nypost.com/2023/08/25/fired-ukraine-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-says-he-believes-bidens-were-bribed/

There are records of both the payments and the subsequent actions by Biden.

"An FBI informant file released publicly last month said that Zlochevsky claimed in 2016 that he was “coerced” into paying $5 million apiece in bribes to Joe and Hunter Biden in exchange for Shokin’s ouster."

There’s no mystery here at all, only a question of what percentage of Democrats are corrupt enough to keep pretending they don’t see it.

[Nige]

The mystery is why you keep falling for this shit.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot stumbling on the truth for a change (that Brute-Force Robot Calculating), yes, if Parkinsonian Joe had gotten $10,000,000,000 in bribes he'd have done something stupidly Parkinsonian Joe-ish, like deposit it in his Passbook account, buy Savings bonds, and he can be bought for way less than that,

Frank

[grb]

Ben_ : “An FBI informant file released publicly last month said that Zlochevsky claimed in 2016 that he was “coerced” into paying $5 million apiece in bribes to Joe and Hunter Biden in exchange for Shokin’s ouster.”

It’s amazing how gullible some people are. Who wants to bet Ben_ hasn’t already been sold the Brooklyn Bridge three times over. Two points:

1. Why would Burmisa pay ten million dollars to get Joe Biden to follow publicly-held White House and State Department policy? Seems pretty generous.

2. Why would Burmisa pay ten million dollars to get Joe Biden to go after Shokin, when the prosecutor was bought lock, stock, and barrel for a fraction of the price? After all, that’s what Shokin was known for: Being easily bought. Seems kinda wasteful.

Of course Ben_ believes this nonsense not because he’s an imbecile (though that helps) but because this tripe is the only thing anyone can “find” on Joe Biden. So Ben_ is all in on crap a small child could see thru.

As Dylan said: When ya ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose

[Ben_]

They paid bribes, Biden acted.

Your storytelling is just a lame attempt to distract.

[grb]

Why would Burmisa pay the Bidens ten million dollars to follow White House and State Department policy on Shokin? You don't have a prayer of answering that question.

[Frank Drackman]

Why wouldn't they? Maybe to get in good with Joe in case they needed help in case of, I don't know, Roosh-a invaded them?? Wow! nobody saw that coming! Roosha Invading You-Crane's the best thing that's happened to You-Crane since, umm forever (nothing ever good seems to happen for You-Crane)

Frank

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There was a memo released that showed the State Department policy was to give them the loan unconditionally.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/hdfeds-urged-biden-give-ukraine-loan-guarantee-he

Why don't you know this?

[Ben_]

"Why don’t you know this?"

Outright lying makes the story more distracting. They think deceiving the public is clever.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. We went over this a few days ago.

1) It's not a memo.
2) It doesn't say what you and disgraced ex-journalist John Solomon claim it says.
3) And it expressly says exactly the opposite of "unconditionally."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You just make up lies and assert them as fact.

Why do you do that? Is it your job? Are you an Air Force Cognitive Infrastructure Manager down at Eglin? Why is the Air Force even out there protecting the Federal Elites?

Is it because the Air Force is notoriously full of homosexuals?

[David Nieporent]

The word "conditions" is expressly used repeatedly in the email.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Were any of the conditions firing that prosecutor?

No, right?

[David Nieporent]

None of them used the name Shokin or said the words "fire him," but the conditions included both "Anti-Corruption" and "Rule of Law (prosecutor general's office)" and specified that they needed to "further strengthen the PGO" and expressly set forth that the conditions still needed to be drafted/revised.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do these words mean to you:

"The IPC concluded that (1) Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third
guarantee and (2) Ukraine has an economic need for the guarantee and it is in our strategic interest to provide
one. As such, the IPC recommends moving forward with a third loan guarantee for Ukraine in the near‐term,
noting State/F’s preference to issue the guarantee as late as possible to allow more clarity on the budget
context and Embassy Kyiv and Treasury’s assessment that Ukraine needs the guarantee by end‐2015. "

Especially the bolded parts.

[Nige]

‘They paid bribes,’

That went from hearsay to established fact in record time.

[M L]

New York Times 10/6/2012

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html

There is a bipartisan consensus that voting by mail, whatever its impact, is more easily abused than other forms. In a 2005 report signed by President Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, who served as secretary of state under the first President George Bush, the Commission on Federal Election Reform concluded, “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

On the most basic level, absentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honor system.

“Absentee voting is to voting in person,” Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has written, “as a take-home exam is to a proctored one.”

Fraud Easier Via Mail

Election administrators have a shorthand name for a central weakness of voting by mail. They call it granny farming.

“The problem,” said Murray A. Greenberg, a former county attorney in Miami, “is really with the collection of absentee ballots at the senior citizen centers.” In Florida, people affiliated with political campaigns “help people vote absentee,” he said. “And help is in quotation marks.”

Voters in nursing homes can be subjected to subtle pressure, outright intimidation or fraud. The secrecy of their voting is easily compromised. And their ballots can be intercepted both coming and going.

The problem is not limited to the elderly, of course. Absentee ballots also make it much easier to buy and sell votes. In recent years, courts have invalidated mayoral elections in Illinois and Indiana because of fraudulent absentee ballots.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're committing a felony in Fulton County with that post.

[Frank Drackman]

Fulton County's safe for white peoples, just make sure you're gone by sundown.

[Frank Drackman]

Before the 2000 erection I got Florida absentee ballots for the couple who had lived in the house before me, another Navy Doc. I used the new fangled E-mail to see if he wanted me to forward the ballots to him in Guam, "Nah, just mark them both for Bush" but required me signing his name, his wife's name, (Under Penalty of Perjury!) and getting a witness signature ("Seymour Butz" I believe)
Few weeks later he emailed that he'd gotten his ballots in Guam, so for me not to worry, so I didn't send them in (or did I???) not like a few absentee votes mattered in 2000

Frank

[grb]

Frank diversifies his act! Previously known only for incoherence, poor grammar and crude bigotry, he now tries his hand as obvious fabulist.

No doubt he'll treat us to stories of magic unicorns, fierce dragons and fantastical space odysseys going forward. If he can learn basic English, it might even be entertaining.....

[Frank Drackman]

Hey it happened,
sorry if some of us have interesting lives.

[OtisAH]

If you actually led an interesting life you’d be out in the real world making an ass of yourself everyday rather than doing it here.

[apedad]

I wouldn't underestimate Frank D's ability to make an ass of him-, her-, hir-, zir-, or xyrself in public.

He / She / They / Xe is/are multi-talented!

[theobromophile]

Cynically, mail-in voting also allows for abusive spouses or significant others to force their victims to vote against the victims' wishes. Parents could also have their newly-adult children fill out the ballots in front of them as a requirement of paying for college, continuing to live at home, or being invited to Christmas dinner.

The anonymity of in-person voting is important. I have no idea why the liberals, who style themselves as champions of underdogs, ignore the obvious coercion that can take place with at-home, not secret voting.

[Nige]

Probably because that has to be balanced against people with disabilities or with heavy work scedules or are overseas or without reliable transport or who live remotely from voting stations or voting during a pandemic. An abusive partner can always just force their victim to not vote at all in the absence of absentee ballots.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

There is absolutely no doubt that absentee and mail-in balloting is more capable of being gamed than any other type of voting. But until a better way is found for active armed service members, the immobile elderly, shut-ins, and people temporarily away from their home precincts to vote, we are stuck with it. Unless you think online voting is safe. A number of companies make good money running secure online voting for various groups, like unions.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would be perfectly willing to spend more money on election administration, and have roving "vote mobiles" visiting shut-ins, that delivered the same level of transparency, chain of custody, and security, as regular polling places.

But, let's be clear: In the last few years, absentee balloting hasn't been remotely restricted to people who actually NEED it. It's just become a convenience. Even during Covid, that's mostly what it was; By the time the election came around, workplaces and stores were open again, and there wasn't any practical reason AT ALL that people who normally would have voted in person couldn't have.

The security risks we reluctantly accept to bring in people with genuine difficulties showing up should not be accepted for people who could show up, and are just lazy.

[Sarcastr0]

I rather like making voting as low-impact as possible.

Given the lack of evidence of fraud or coercion at scale, and the GOP being continually caught saying they plan to use 'security measures' to suppress minorities, it's pretty hard to argue theoretical security concerns should be the policy driver here.

[Brett Bellmore]

How about making it as easy as is consistent with it being secure, instead of making it easier being the solitary, overriding goal?

[grb]

(1) 159,633,396 Americans voted in 2020

(2) Due to Trump's attempt to steal the election, it was the scrutinized election ever.

(3) So where was the fraud? The AP reviewed every case of election fraud in six battleground states where 25 million votes were cast. They found 475 potential cases, though many were by confusion about eligibility vs intent.

[David Nieporent]

Even during Covid, that’s mostly what it was; By the time the election came around, workplaces and stores were open again, and there wasn’t any practical reason AT ALL that people who normally would have voted in person couldn’t have.

Except that the old people who typically man the polling places were not (as) willing to do so, because this was still pre-vaccine.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspirators -- dutiful right-wing partisans and cowards -- don't want to discuss Trump-Eastman-Clark developments, but one of the judges assigned a prosecution of former Pres. Trump set a trial date (March 2024, I believe) for trial today.

One of Trump's lawyers loudly objected, claiming he couldn't provide adequate representation of Trump on that seven-month timetable (and being admonished by the judge more than once to try to act professionally).

When the lawyer ascribed his outburst to feeling he should put the "outrage" on the record, the judge should have responded: 'You may have an ethical obligation to inform your client you don't think you're up to this job.'

How much will Trump's habitual choice of lawyers who are blowhards and crackpots hurt him as he approaches criminal trials?

[Frank Drackman]

How long did it take you to go to trial, Coach??

[hoppy025]

No, the judge should have responded "Give me a banana."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Any thoughts about "tone" here, Prof. Volokh?

#Bigot-Hugging
#PartisanHack

[M L]

Auron MacIntyre
@AuronMacintyre
If you can fire 80% of Twitter's workforce and get the same service imagine what you can do with the federal government

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh the humanity! The gnashing of teeth would be heard around the world.

[Nige]

Lots of bots, endless Tesla ads, shitty engagement, broken timelines, crypto scammers, Nazis and white supremacists everywhere, apparently. I can see why you'd find it attractive.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL twitter is so much worse now.

There clearly was some staff bloat, but you gotta go for the gusto with the maximalist case, eh?

[M L]

(federal government employee)

[Sarcastr0]

You think that means I can't believe in an overstaffed beurocracy?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

(idiot ignoring reality in favor of his usual partisan bullshit)

[jb]

https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-says-twitters-cash-flow-still-negative-ad-revenue-drops-2023-07-15/

[Life of Brian]

Contextless links are fun! Here's the baseline: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/elon-musk-claims-twitter-losing-4-million-per-day-widespread-layoffs/

[grb]

During the last presidential primaries, I thought Elizabeth Warren was the most guilty of political malpractice. After all, she only had to position her campaign just rightward of Sanders to reap the support of voters concerned about his electability or extremism. By then, Sanders had petty much maxxed-out his support. A candidate who offered much of his message but was more centrist might have real appeal. Instead Warren fought on ground she was sure to lose : Fighting with Bernie for every last Bernie Bro.

Recently I saw someone compare DeSantis to Warren and it seemed so apt and right. Of course we all benefit from il Duce Jr’s self-immolation (as he’s a particularly loathsome person), but the mistakes of the two are a perfect match.

[Brett Bellmore]

What you’re looking at are people who know damned well they can’t beat the front runner, and who are, instead, positioning themselves to be on the top of the remaining heap if the front runner dies in a plane crash, or strokes out, or is otherwise abruptly removed from contention.

That’s what Bernie was doing back in 2016, you know: He wasn’t actually trying to beat Hillary, knowing quite well he wouldn’t be permitted to. (She’d bought the DNC, and was operating it like a sock puppet of her campaign.) He was trying to position himself as the only available alternative in the event something unpredictably took Hillary out of the race.

This isn’t an unreasonable thing to do when the front runner, as is recently the case, a geriatric case to begin with, and thus subject to a disturbingly high probability of dying without warning.

[David Nieporent]

That’s what Bernie was doing back in 2016, you know: He wasn’t actually trying to beat Hillary, knowing quite well he wouldn’t be permitted to. (She’d bought the DNC, and was operating it like a sock puppet of her campaign.)

No, he was trying to beat Hillary, and there was nobody to "permit" him to or not. The DNC doesn't decide who wins; the primary voters do.

This wasn't like the 2020 GOP nomination, where the party literally cancelled primaries so Trump wouldn't face any opposition.

[Sarcastr0]

More telepathy, alongside a vintage far-left conspiracy.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore " ...knowing quite well he wouldn’t be permitted to...."

At this very time last year I was hiking the Kungsleden in Sweden above the Arctic Circle. My hiking partner was far-Left and he tried peddling this line. My reply was simple : How did the DNC rig the primaries against Sanders?

His response was a bit depressing to witness. This was an important core belief of his worldview. It had been repeatedly reinforced in readings from ideological-friendly media. But he had no answer. Hell, I knew more about Sanders small collection of trivial complaints than he did. (spoiler alert : none of them amount to anything).

I could ask Brett to substantiate the claim, but the result would be the same. It's the hushed reverence of conspiratorial talk that floats his boat; facts are irrelevant (rather inconvenient in fact)

[Brett Bellmore]

You maybe missed the reports about the DNC feeding Hillary debate questions in advance, for instance? Or the fact that she had effective control of nominally independent decisions the DNC made, per a private agreement?

Donna Brazile Says She Has “Proof” Clinton Rigged the Primary Against Sanders

[grb]

Oh for God's sake! Hillary was told there'd be a water question in Flint, which is like getting the inside scoop that day follows night. She was also told there'd be a question on the death penalty in another debate. Fair? Nope. Massive conspiracy that threw the election to Clinton? Please. Grow. Up.

As for Clinton's involvement in the DNC, please explain how that affected a single primary or caucus. That was always the problem with Bernie's half-hearted protests of victimhood : He could never point to a single practical way he was cheated. There was a cute dust-up in Nevada, where Bernie stole delegates from Hillary who then stole'em right back, but the end result matched the original vote.

After saying Sander wouldn't be "permitted" to win, you really underwhelmed re justification. But you like secret forces, hidden conspiracies and fantastical victimhood. That kinda talk just flows from yer lips.

[Ben_]

Here’s some Dems spitballing about how mass murder might meet their emotional needs:

https://twitchy.com/brettt/2023/08/28/hot-take-reconstruction-was-a-failure-because-we-left-alive-a-lot-of-people-who-should-have-died-n2386666

[Sarcastr0]

That’s Twitter randos on how to treat the Confederates after the Civil War you colossal weirdo.

[Frank Drackman]

and Lincoln was killed because he had a practical plan for bringing the South back.

[Michael P]

Also explicitly Nazis after WW2, and presumably "MAGAts" after Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Presumably!

So many on here ache to be persecuted. It's kinda kinky, actually.

[hoppy025]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/28/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-eminem/index.html

Screw these leftist pieces of shit. Notice how the celebrity left never asks Democrats to not use their music during campaigns, but only Republicans? It's not that they don't want their music used in politics period, but only in what they perceive to be the wrong politics. Fuck these people. Copyrights should not extend to leftist agitators who want to dictate leftist policies onto real Americans.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

As I observe the posts of the Volokh Conspirators, and the comments of their target audience of delusional, disaffected bigots, I consider that these losers constitute the mainstream's competition in the modern American culture war -- and I am quite content.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know "Coach", the Nittily Lions (HT Barry Hussein) 3 TD favorites over those "Klingers" from West Virginny??
Well Senator, I've been to State College, I know State College, State College is a friend of mine (Especially when they beat Alabama/Georgia)
You, Sir, are no "State College"
funny, it's like Penn State just wants to forget your whole existence,

Frank "ready for some Foo-bawl"

[Magister]

Some choices of music on the right are clueless, like Trump rallies playing "Fortunate Son", a song about sons of rich men evading the draft.

[Frank Drackman]

Speaking of "Evading the Draft" (Oh, I don't want to get killed for JFK/LBJ/Barry Hussein/Parkinsonian Joe's senseless "Nation Building" (Let them build their own fucking Nations)
Didn't Hilary Rodman's husband have an Ish-yew with that?? or
"W"? or "45"?? yeah, they didn't want to get killed in a stupid fucking war because they weren't fucking stupid.
You knew who was (fucking stupid) McCain, AlGore, Lurch Kerry-Heinz)
and my dad, so there's that.
Or Hilary Rodman Clinton's 2016 Cam-Pain (emphasis on "Pain) rallies playing Rachel Platten's "Fight Song" "The song was frequently used by Hillary Clinton at events in her campaign for the 2016 presidential election in conjunction with the slogan "Fighting for Us" and was played during her entrance, and just before her acceptance speech, on the closing night of the 2016 Democratic National Convention."

Frank

[Kleppe]

You say: Trump was impeached twice.
I say: Trump was acquitted twice.
You say: the acquittals mean nothing, he was acquitted by political partisans.
I say: the impeachments mean nothing, he was impeached by political partisans.

There is no world in which Trump being impeached is bad (meaning we have to give credit to the impeachment process and its outcome) but subsequently the acquittal is somehow meaningless, partisan, etc. Either the entire process meant something, or it didn’t.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, they actually think that the fact he was indicted, (That's what "impeachment" is.) is all that matters, and the fact that he was acquitted is irrelevant.

There is no due process they mean to allow to get in the way of nailing him.

[Commenter_XY]

It sure looks that way = There is no due process they mean to allow to get in the way of nailing him

[Nige]

Yeah, what with all the due process he's getting making headlines every day.

[Nige]

Absolutely and strenuously avoiding any and all engagement with the substantive reasons for anything and treating them as equivalent with utter fantasies means all things are exactly the same and equally meaningless.

[Sarcastr0]

Man, you had a great argument with yourself.

[OtisAH]

Updates on presidential criminality:

Turnip will be arraigned next week in Georgia. No trial date. He will go to trial in his D.C. case on March 4, 2024. His trial in Manhattan is scheduled for March 25 but I think I read that might get pushed back. And he’s currently scheduled for his classified documents trial on May 20.

No evidence of criminality has appeared or been produced against Biden. However we are expecting an impeachment inquiry when the House returns from their summer break. This will be far more fun for them than working on the budget or legislating.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Conservative Judge Michael Luttig said unprompted on MSNBC that Trump's crimes against America were grave, "Perhaps almost as grave as would have been treason."

Show host Nicolle Wallace was apparently caught unawares, and did not ask Judge Luttig to explain further what associations with treason he might have in mind.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Anyone have any theories as to why the Democrats and other Rich Men North of Richmond installed a Biden Curtain around Maui?

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1696147664692224391

How do they even have time with the resort activities they have planned at their $1000/night FEMA resorts?

[grb]

Voltage!

[apedad]

Translation: We don't know what it is so let's imagine the worst thing possible and blame it on Biden.

Maui crews installing dust screen around Lahaina

The state Department of Transportation is installing nearly 30,000 linear feet of dust screen for the protection of highway users on Honoapiʻilani Highway (Route 30) and the Lahaina Bypass (Route 3000).

https://mauinow.com/2023/08/25/maui-crews-installing-dust-screen-around-lahaina/

For someone with a superior intellect, you're pretty gullible sometimes.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"dust screen" lol you blue-anons believe anything the State says

[apedad]

But you'll believe any trash posted in X.

OOOH! I'm driving down the road seeing things that I can't explain so I'll come up with the simplest explanation my mind can think of.

How's those flat-earth meetings?

Do they serve cookies?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How many masks are you wearing right now? Two?

[apedad]

You know . . . the govt recommends brushing at least twice a day with a fluoride toothpaste — when you get up in the morning and before going to bed.

But since you know better, I'm sure you use crude oil since it's organic.

[Randal]

As we all know who read the social network formerly known as Twitter, fluoride was dropped off by one of the '30s era UFOs, back when alien technology was 100% saucer-based. Every president since FDR has upheld our end of the Andromeda Space Termite and Milky-Way Watery Biped Nonaggression and Beneficial Commerce Enablement Pact to keep the source of fluoride a secret from the general population. But it has recently been discovered by a duo of hottie holdover Trump-loyal FBI agents working in the basement that the fluoride is really a type of mRNA vaccine which is programmed to turn us all into Space Termites after exactly 14 generations! (They count in base 14 since they have two fingers on each of seven hands.) Ivermectin is the cure, of course, but they didn't want the Democrats to survive so they released the information as a conspiracy theory on social media which only super-intelligent Republicans would be able to understand the significance of. So get ready! In a couple hundred years, all the Democrats are going to have Termite babies and then who'll be right and popular!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are there any government recommendations that you're skeptical of?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

For the actual lawyers out there:

I saw a claim that had said the DC trial has due process ramifications for Trump because 18 potential witnesses will not be able to testify on his behalf due to the Fulton County trial.

Is any of that true?

[David Nieporent]

Not likely. I assume what it refers to is that Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case will be unwilling (not unable), to testify in the DC case because of their pending prosecutions.

But — even assuming they had something exculpatory to say — no sane lawyer for any of these people would let them testify in the DC case without immunity anyway, even if the Fulton County indictments hadn't happened. As a matter of prudence they should all be asserting their fifth amendment rights if called to testify.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

For the actual lawyers out there:

[Magister]

The lawyers you're looking for are all busy doing compensated endorsements for Old Glory Robot Insurance.

[Randal]

Here's a timesaver!

For the actual lawyers out there:

I saw a claim that {some internet garbage}.

Is any of that true?

No.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Haha yeah because there aren't any lawyers out there on social media or modern news sites analyzing the case!

Good call, Randal! I'll wait for State.gov to tell me what to think, just like you!

[Randal]

Your problem stems from an inability to distinguish internet garbage from the reasonable analyses of which you speak.

Asking for help on this forum isn't going to work. It's full of just as much internet garbage as anywhere.

Try working on your critical thinking skills.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

haha yeah, it's internet garbage if it doesn't confirm your biases, and it's reasonable analysis when it does! that's what smart people do!

You sound pretty smart

[Randal]

Thanks!

[not guilty]

"I saw a claim that had said the DC trial has due process ramifications for Trump because 18 potential witnesses will not be able to testify on his behalf due to the Fulton County trial."

The pendency of the Fulton County prosecution is irrelevant to the witnesses available to testify at Trump's DC trial. No person can be compelled to testify if such testimony would incriminate him or her. That applies to pending prosecutions, and it also applies to yet uncharged proceedings as to which the witness reasonably fears that testimony would inculpate him or her.