Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

…and their off!

[AmosArch]

People here are so boring and uncreative. All they want to talk about all the time on an open thread is politics. Not just politics the same tired political stories that are being talked about at the same time everywhere else. And in all the other threads in this place.

I mean I guess I myself indulge too but at least I mix it up every now and then.

[Dan Schiavetta]

We could talk about movies . . .

[Mr. Bumble]

Missing "Today in Supreme Court..." already?

[Kazinski]

Got my 95 year old mother to watch Napoleon Dynamite last night, after 15 minutes she said that she thought it was dumb, but some parts were funny. By the end she got what they were trying to do and overall liked it.

I'm trying to get her to explain it to me.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get her to watch “2001 A Space Odyssey” and explain it.

[Frank Drackman]

ND's like "Office Space" or "Pulp Fiction" I know them by heart but have to watch again.

[Internet sloth]

I had to stop watching, because it reminded me of myself.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Get her to watch Naked Lunch, then have fun trying to convince her that you didn't slip a hit of acid into her tea.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

OK! I just watched Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston, 1959) last night. I expected to love this movie, but I’m quite thoroughly bored and put off by it. The story is predictable, the directing is heavy-handed and mostly not very effective; the fiery ocean battle in the first part looks scripted and fake, and so do the scenes of the slaves rowing in the galley. Charlton Heston projects one emotion only: sullen, angry self-pity, and his character seems to have one virtue: he’s good at athletics, and he’s very sure, in his simple-minded way, that he’s right, especially about religious questions. (Is that two virtues? No matter.) I don’t feel sorry for him even when he finds that his family have been banished to a leper colony. (Sure, leprosy on top of everything else, why not? Why didn’t they also have him suffer from boils?)

The bad-guys also act very badly and their characters take everything much too seriously. Ten minutes after the end of the movie I had forgotten what the principal antagonist (“Messala”) looked like.

Even the music is tinny and pretentious.

What this movie needs is some comedic anti-heroes (one, at least!) like the two in Spartacus: someone like Peter Ustinov’s character Lentulus Batiatus and Charles Laughton’s character Senator Gracchus. And how about, maybe, a strong or surprising female character, with a personality? Please?

A huge amount of money spent, a cast of thousands, one glorious athletic contest, and the rest of it you can keep, thank you very much.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Completely agree, not a good movie. The legend was that someone died filming the chariot scene, but apparently it isn't true. Still made for a funny line in Blazing Saddles:
Gene Wilder, talking about his days as the Waco Kid: "I must have killed more people than Cecil B. DeMille."

[Mr. Bumble]

I won't take issue with your feelings about the film but would remind you that it was a movie based on a novel, which as usually happens, contains artistic license.

For more if you're interested see the linked article.
While the sea battle may seem hokey today I thought the chariot race was one of the best action scenes ever filmed.

https://collider.com/ben-hur-movie-book-differences/

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I've never read the novel, I wonder if it's any good. Interesting guy, Lew Wallace.

[ducksalad]

Tried it once and gave up after 50 pages. The problem is the writing style, Lew Wallace was trying too hard to be profound and biblical. That first 50 pages covered the same material as a couple paragraphs out of Luke.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Wallace v. United States, 133 U.S. 180 (1890) (summarized here on January 27): Court dismisses Gen. Lew Wallace’s attempt to get paid $10,000 per year instead of $7,500 as ambassador to Turkey (according to Wikipedia by 1886 “Ben-Hur” was earning him $11,000 per year, $290,000 in today’s dollars)

[Brett Bellmore]

Geeze, if that's what you want, go watch A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, I'll ask this -- is Trump going insane?

He's textbook ADHD and has a monumental ego (as does *anyone* who runs for President) but has he finally cracked under the endless onslaught? And if he has, what then?

Could he be attempting martyrdom? God help us if he is because at this point, he could take the legitimacy of our legal system with him, much like Vietnam destroyed the legitimacy of our military.

Even if he only became our Nelson Mandela, it would not be good for the country.

[Mr. Bumble]

Answering for those on the left: What do you mean, going?

[not guilty]

Okay, I'll bite. In what way could Donald Trump attempting martyrdom harm the legitimacy of our legal system?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's more like that legitimacy is already an illusion, and he'll be shattering it, I think.

[Nige]

It's more like the Republicans elected a criminal, therefore the legal system has to be rearranged to protect him, and them, while still applying to everyone else, especially Trump's enemies.

[Idihax]

Nonsense. No one thinks that any charges brought against Trump are in good faith. The fact remains that leftists hate him because he's not a leftist, and he doesn't kowtow to your globalist, open borders demands. You people belong in gas chambers.

[Nige]

Oops, almost made a cogent reply, forgot it's a Nazi till the end.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, never forget how the Nazis came to power in 1933.

[David Nieporent]

You mean: people like you supported them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Nimrod, in the 1933 election, the "good" Germans (including no small number of Jews) thought that the Nazis were the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being the Stalin-backed Communists.

[David Nieporent]

(including no small number of Jews)

Did a trucker from Maine tell you that?

[Absaroka]

DMN: I had to fact check and searched for 'Jewish support for Hitler'. 'No small number' seems like a stretch, but in the WWII trivia dept. it turns out there was some support.

(I would have thought that 'WWII/Nazi/Jewish humor' was an empty set, but got a chuckle from "The seemingly ironic fact that a Jewish association advocated loyalty to the Nazi programme gave rise to a contemporary joke about Naumann and his followers ending their meeting by giving the Nazi salute and shouting "Down With Us!"." Perhaps funnier in 1933 than 1945.)

[Randal]

No, Nimrod, in the 1933 election, the “good” Germans (including no small number of Jews) thought that the Nazis were the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being the Stalin-backed Communists.

So by No you mean Yes?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"John Marshall has made his decision -- now let's see him enforce it."

[Noscitur a sociis]

“How can you misquote an apocryphal quotation?”

“Dr. Ed found a way!”

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think he's going insane, as such.

I do believe his judgement has declined somewhat, but I think there's something else going on here.

It's frequently said that one of the reasons that dictators are so absolutely determined to hold onto power regardless of what they have to do, is that the retirement plan really sucks.

The Democrats have gone scorched earth on Trump. They weren't content to defeat him politically, and run the risk that the voters might have other plans, so they set out to destroy his reputation with impossible to defend against smears, reduce him AND his family to poverty, and put him behind bars for the rest of his life.

And, yeah, if it looks like that's not working, they'll make a serious effort to kill him. Count on it.

By so doing, they've denied him that retirement plan. He either wins, regardless of the cost, "By Any Means Necessary" as the left wing slogan goes, or is destroyed. No senior statesman status in the cards for him, he either gets enough political power to defend himself, (Which is more political power than the White House actually affords!) or dons an orange jumpsuit and spends the rest of his life in a prison cell, until they decide to Epstein him.

As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War, "When you surround an army, leave an outlet free." The Democrats didn't do that. Instead they saw to it that he either becomes the monster they claim he is, or ends his life in horror. He's not into ending his life in horror.

Now, I won't say that none of this is Trump's fault. He not only gave them plenty of ammo, he never built proper defenses. Didn't he learn anything from Clinton's Filegate? No blackmail files? No drop dead, regime ending secrets squirreled away? Nope, doesn't appear that he secured any of that. He stupidly thought, after all he was going through, that it would be normal politics, maybe just a bit of cheating.

And, would a saintly guy just go down, and not take the country with him? Yeah, but Trump is no saint.

I don't think Trump was an insurrectionist in 2020. But it's possible they've made him into one, at this point.

[Nige]

'And, yeah, if it looks like that’s not working, they’ll make a serious effort to kill him'

I swear to fucking God. He's a reality show host, a proven fraudster and was found liable for sexual assault. The worse he's shown to be the weirder the mythmaking is going to become.

“When you surround an army, leave an outlet free.”

What if an army effectively surrounds itself? With another imaginary army?

'He not only gave them plenty of ammo,'

Ie, he committed crimes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nige, read up on Lyndon Johnson sometime. Home Depot's been found guilty of fraud, more than once I believe, and as to the sexual assault, she doesn't even know when it happened. That is BS.

Why is it that you so badly want a second civil war in this country?

[Nige]

Why do you so badly want a crooked sexual predator to run it?

[Ed Grinberg]

"a crooked sexual predator"
Ever hear of Joe Biden?

[Nige]

Yes, he's the guy who has not been found guilty of fraud or liable for sexual assault.

[Frank Drackman]

like OJ wasn't found guilty of murder.

[Krychek_2]

Unlike OJ, thus far there has been such an insufficiency of evidence that no charges have even been brought. So no, not like OJ.

[not guilty]

"Why is it that you so badly want a second civil war in this country?"

Uh, no one in power wants a civil war. Those who participate in elections but can't accept the results thereof want civil war. A bunch of keyboard warriors is no match for the United States Armed Forces.

Do you understand how the first civil war turned out?

[Frank Drackman]

The President got assassinated for one thing

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Soviet Army was mighty, and totally useless to those in power.

[not guilty]

That is not a helpful analogy, Dr. Ed. Do you question the loyalty, devotion to duty and adherence to the principle of civilian control of the U. S. Military?

[Mr. Bumble]

General Milley Vanilli didn't seem to understand it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"first civil war "

A new civil war would be nothing like the first civil war. No dueling field armies. No lines. No rear areas.

It would be like Northern Ireland.

[shawn_dude]

Oh great. Right wing terrorists blowing up nightclubs in blue states to make a point.

[Krayt]

Years back, I had a half-assed theory he was just tangling with Democrats for hassling him over red tape in New York, a kick in the nuts before he shuffles off his mortal coil. As such, it's all a game, including both sides facetiously standing behind principles, when raw power was the goal.

It still makes some sense.

"Let's somberly march the articles of impeachment over to the Senate."

"That was serious!" WojackWithTearsOfRage.jpg

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that doesn't feel wrong to me. Kids on the playground, all grown up.

[not guilty]

Brett, which Democrats do you claim will make a serious effort to kill Trump?

Go ahead and name names.

[Brett Bellmore]

The ones you never heard of, like you didn't hear of Hodgkinson before he tried to give the Democrats a majority in the House by killing Republican Representatives.

[Nige]

Oooh, secret Democrat sleeper assassins. Are they brainwashed or just natural born fanatics? Are they the guys killing for Clintons?

[loki13]

The Democratic sleeper assassins are all hiding in the basements of pizza parlors.

Duh!

[loki13]

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ever hear of Lee Harvey Oswald?

[Nige]

Is he in the running for GOP Speaker?

[not guilty]

"The ones you never heard of, like you didn’t hear of Hodgkinson before he tried to give the Democrats a majority in the House by killing Republican Representatives."

IOW, you have no clue whereof you speak.

Your comment upthread referred to a multiplicity of "The Democrats," to-wit:

The Democrats have gone scorched earth on Trump. They weren’t content to defeat him politically, and run the risk that the voters might have other plans, so they set out to destroy his reputation with impossible to defend against smears, reduce him AND his family to poverty, and put him behind bars for the rest of his life.

And, yeah, if it looks like that’s not working, they’ll make a serious effort to kill him. Count on it.

Now you backpedal furiously and refer to a lone nutjob, James Hodgkinson. That is not what you were saying upthread, which was highly suggestive of some kind of coordinated effort.

[Michael P]

Is your theory that Bernie Sanders alone, and no other Democrat, is responsible for the actions of James Hodgkinson? Or are you just unfamiliar with how the plural form of a noun works?

[Sarcastr0]

James Hodgkinson is who is largely responsible for James Hodgkinson. Not Sanders and not the Dems generally.

Compare and contrast Trump's words to his supporters with those of Sanders'.

[not guilty]

I have never suggested, and I do not believe, that Bernie Sanders is responsible for the actions of James Hodgkinson. If you will notice, I describe Hodgkinson as a lone nutjob. No one other than he was responsible for his conduct.

And FWIW, I am quite confident that Hodgkinson is not going to kill or attempt to kill Donald Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, dead men tell no lies and don't kill anyone.

[David Nieporent]

It is your theory that Bernie Sanders — who, incidentally, is not a Democrat — is responsible for the actions of James Hodgkinson? Can you pinpoint the exact moment when you went insane?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Touch grass.

[bernard11]

This idiotic shit again.

[shawn_dude]

LOL. Isn't that the theme for the Thursday (and now Monday) open threads?

[Randal]

POLITICS
Thursday Open Thread
This idiotic shit again.
EUGENE VOLOKH | 10.5.2023 4:53 PM

[Sarcastr0]

Great 4chan impression. They also weave elaborate persecution scenarios that justify Trump's authoritarianism.

At this point, I can't imagine you'd do much more but shake your head and say 'you were asking for it' if he started rounding up liberals for wrongthink.

[Dr. Ed 2]

and accusing him of being an insurrectionist in 2020 will make it impossible to do anything now.

[Voize]

I thought Brett was posting under his real name but it must be a pseudonym. No-one would willingly identify themselves to the Democratic Death Squads.

[MoreCurious]

I need to know: In what universe would anyone consider Trump to be a “senior statesman?”

[bernard11]

It is you, Brett, who is going insane.

The Democrats have gone scorched earth on Trump. They weren’t content to defeat him politically, and run the risk that the voters might have other plans, so they set out to destroy his reputation with impossible to defend against smears, reduce him AND his family to poverty, and put him behind bars for the rest of his life.

This is sheer paranoia, Brett. "The Democrats" have done nothing of the sort. Some prosecutors have brought various charges, some stronger than others, some quite serious and well-supported. If you think Biden and Pelosi and Garland had a bunch of secret meetings to set in motion a plot to destroy Trump, you are nuts. And I mean really, seriously nuts.

And, yeah, if it looks like that’s not working, they’ll make a serious effort to kill him. Count on it.

Even worse.

And, would a saintly guy just go down, and not take the country with him? Yeah, but Trump is no saint.

I don’t think Trump was an insurrectionist in 2020. But it’s possible they’ve made him into one, at this point.

Yet you're going to vote for him anyway.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It is you, Brett, who is going insane.

Going?

[myself]

The Democrats have gone scorched earth on Trump. They weren’t content to defeat him politically, and run the risk that the voters might have other plans, so they set out to destroy his reputation with impossible to defend against smears, reduce him AND his family to poverty, and put him behind bars for the rest of his life.

The fraud case regarding the Stormy Daniels payouts is a definite reach, but otherwise, I'm not sure what you expected prosecutors to do, pretend they don't see really obvious crimes?

With the classified docs, they asked nicely, he hid documents, lied to the DOJ and his Lawyers in response to a subpoena. And was possibly trying to destroy evidence to.

How does the government not prosecute?

As for the loan fraud, sure prosecutors don't always go digging around for that stuff. But when you claim a property is worth $1B for a loan application and pay taxes as if it's $18M, then again, how is a prosecutor supposed to ignore that?

The last one is attempting to overthrow the election (ignoring Jan 6th), I'll agree that's unusual because it's so unusual. But in a Democracy it's really, really hard to ignore that one.

[bacchys]

This is the "only Democrats have agency" argument.

It's trash. Trump put himself in his current circumstances. Not "the Democrats."

[Randal]

It is sort of true though that only Democrats have agency. I mean look at the House.

[Nige]

'Could he be attempting martyrdom?'

The quasi-religious Trump cultishness is leaking into the mainstream right and the weirdest thing is none of them really seem to have the vaguest understanding of Trump himself.

'Even if he only became our Nelson Mandela'

I'm sure he apreciates the aggrandisation.

[shawn_dude]

Only if it comes with a donation.

[Sarcastr0]

Any diagnosis of Trump from afar isn’t textbook anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

…and the Double Dumbfuck Twins are back.

[loki13]

Bumble-

Just to point this out. You have people pushing back on someone ranting about secret plans to kill Trump ... and you think that the people pushing back on that are worthy of insult?

Look, you can reasonably disagree about a lot of things. But you can also choose whether to be part of the Dr. Eds of the world, or not.

(If you do go the Dr. Ed route, I would recommend more anecdotes about Massachusetts and Maine that are laughably untrue, but you do you!)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Explain Epstein.

[Nige]

Ask Trump, he was a pal.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - Trump dumped him as a "pal" once fairly early in their "pal - ship" when it became obvious that epstein was sleaze.

Unlike Clinton who flew on the lolita express and/ or to epsteins island few times (perhaps 20) even after it became well known / open secret in the epstein/clinton circle of friends

[Nige]

'when it became obvious that epstein was sleaze.'

That's his story, anyway.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - the point is that Trump dumped epstein as a Pal and barred epstein from trump owned properties.
clinton and others remained friends and continued to partake in the benefits

Facts you intentionally ignore

[Nige]

The only reason Trump would dump someone because of sleaze is if he thought they were a rival.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Nige, you are not getting away with "Trump thought Epstein was a rival."

Trump had some young employees, 14-15 year old girls, who were handing out towels or something -- and Epstein started hitting on them. THAT'S why Trump booted him.

Now if Trump had been so inclined, he could have (a) ignored this and/or (b) hit on them himself. He did neither -- he did the decent thing and tried to protect them.

[Nige]

Sure, that's his story, as I said.

[Nige]

(Actually, that's a Dr Ed story, so it migjht not even be Trump's story at all.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Next time Nige, do your own research:
https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-barred-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a-lago-over-sex-assault-court-docs/

[Nige]

Ed, nypost and Trump, a perfect storm of negative credibility.

[David Nieporent]

Next time Nige, do your own research:
https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-barred-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a-lago-over-sex-assault-court-docs/

I don't think reading — but not understanding! — the New York Post counts as doing research. For once, Dr. Ed did not entirely fabricate the claim — but he did rely on his alternative to lying: garbled-half-remembered stuff. The New York Post did not report that this happened. The New York Post reported that someone filed a document with the court mentioning this. But — setting aside that a litigant saying something doesn't make it true,¹ the document didn't even say that it happened! The document said that the litigant wanted to depose Trump because Trump allegedly did this!
​
​
To make that clearer: A litigant had said: "Someone says that Trump did this. I want to depose Trump to find out whether it's true." The NYP reports that, although not very precisely. The NYP story then gets mangled into "Trump did this."
​
​
​
¹Unless all the MAGA people agree that Mar-a-Lago is worth about 2% of what Trump claims.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 does manage to get even the allegations wrong.

Epstein and Trump were friends in the late 1980s and early 1990s, although the relationship reportedly soured after Epstein hit on the teenage daughter of a member of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/12/21/maxwell-case-shows-frequency-trump-clinton-flights-epstein-jets/8980818002/

It seems unlikely that Trump would care about employees, given his preference to hire illegal aliens and his administration's attempts to undo child labor laws.

[shawn_dude]

"...14-15 year old girls, who were handing out towels or something — and Epstein started hitting on them. THAT’S why Trump booted him."

Yeah, as Nige said, "a rival."

Miss Teen USA ring any bells?

[Randal]

Even if it were true which it isn't as DN explained, Trump's motivation would have been to protect his employees... so as to protect himself from getting sued by them. He probably also encouraged them to quit the job and join him on an Epstein Island Junket where the potential liability isn't so acute.

[Tom for equal rights]

Randal 8 hours ago
Even if it were true which it isn’t as DN explained, Trump’s motivation would have been to protect his employees… so as to protect himself from getting sued by them. He probably also encouraged them to quit the job and join him on an Epstein Island Junket where the potential liability isn’t so acute."

Randal - there is no evidence that trump was into underage girls. That was the reason for the split with epstein. Likewise there is little or no evidence that Clinton was into underage girls,

What is the purpose of your comment other than a intentional unsupported smear made for partisan purposes.

[Randal]

The purpose is to explain why Trump may have wanted to protect the girls from Epstein.

It seems unlikely that Trump would care about employees...

Exactly... but he does care about himself.

[Nige]

‘That was the reason for the split with epstein.’

That’s the *claimed* reason.

(The real reason probably isn't anything to do with underage girls - but it's almost certainly shady.)

[Mr. Bumble]

My comment about being Nige and SarcastrO (being the Double Dumbfuck Twins) was not specific any one comment just a generalization to the vacuousness of most of their comments.

[Nige]

Ie, you got nothin'.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you for proving the point.

[Nige]

Likewise, I'm sure.

[myself]

Something about the pot calling the kaleidoscope black.

[OtisAH]

You think Bumble isn’t part of the Dr. Ed’s of the world?

[OtisAH]

What is he martyring himself on behalf of exactly?

[Randal]

Himself I guess? It's the ultimate narcissistic move.

[FivebySixThree]

I would say our legal system when it comes to politics is already devoid of legitimacy

[Mr. Bumble]

Slow start out of the gate but things have picked up around the first turn.

[Mr. Bumble]

Around the second turn and the pace continues to quicken.

[BrotherMovesOn]

You are such a toddler.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Biden administration waives 26 federal laws to build border wall in South Texas due to 'acute and immediate need' to stop migrant surge - leading Trump to gloat that he is 'always right'

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas quietly issued the wavier on Wednesday
Cited 'acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers' at the border
Wavier applies to limited stretches of the border in Starr County, Texas"
From the Daily Mail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12596065/Biden-Mayorkas-border-wall-Starr-County-Texas.html
Now will Commander be sent to the border to assist?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I noticed that and thought I'd misheard it the first time.

[Krayt]

New York: Stop using them as theater! It's unethic...

Border states: We ask them first now.

New York: Stop sending them, there's too many!

Border states: Yes, over 3000 a day in some areas.

[OtisAH]

Are those the border states we send billions of tax dollars to for immigration and enforcement or different border states?

[Frank Drackman]

Billions? should be able to erect a pretty decent wall with that much money

[Mr. Bumble]

No, they're the border states like NY. “NYC Mayor Eric Adams goes to Mexico to tell migrants that the Big Apple is ‘at capacity’ after 122,000 arrived in the last year”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12597193/Its-NOT-sustainable-Eric-Adams-tells-migrants-Mexico-NYC-capacity-receiving-120-000-year-latest-bid-stem-flow-putting-citys-resources-pressure.html

[Martinned]

Good thing that the Daily Mail keeps a close eye on what the DINO mayor of New York thinks about US immigration from Mexico.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because no one here will. Too inconvenient and embarrassing.

[John F. Carr]

The Guardian also has an odd obsession with U.S. politics.

[Bob from Ohio]

The politics of the Imperial City are always important to the vassal states.

[Martinned]

The Guardian has an odd business model anyway. It also seems to have an entire online edition about/from Australia. I get the sense that their low-key ambition is to be a newspaper website for the entire English speaking world, which happens to also sell a few printed newspapers in the UK.

[Nelson]

"New York: Stop sending them, there’s too many!"

Actually, the main problem is they're getting the migrants, just not the federal dollars, personnel, and facilities to handle them. As soon as the border states lose half their funds from CBP, watch the screeching begin.

[Martinned]

The last time I pointed out that Biden was building that wall while Trump mostly talked about building a wall, I got yelled at.

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor you.

[Nige]

THE BORDER IS WELDED OPEN!!!

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, Trump admitted earlier this week that his promise that Mexico would pay for a wall was a lie.

[Frank Drackman]

bullshit, documentation please, David Never-Potent

[Mr. Bumble]

Crickets can be deafening.

[Bored Lawyer]

It was always a lie, because that promise had zero chance of ever occurring, and Trump knew it.
If Trump had promised that the fairy people from Pluto would pay down our national debt, that would likewise be a lie.

[David Nieporent]

Of course it was always a lie. My point is that he admitted it. Not just in retrospect; he admitted that he knew there was no way to actually make Mexico do that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite? Second request.

[David Nieporent]

This is the first time I see you requested it.

A fantasy is just what it was, as Trump now admits. At a speech in Iowa on Sunday, he blurted out the truth. “When you hear these lunatics back there,” he said, pointing at the news media, “say, ‘Trump didn’t get anything from Mexico,’ well, you know, there was no legal mechanism. I said they’re going to help fund this wall, but there was no legal mechanism. How do you go to a country, you say, ‘By the way I’m building a wall, hand us a lot of money.’”

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-immigration-mexico-republicans-2024-rcna118785

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you. (Drackman made the first request, but you may have him muted)

[David Nieporent]

Ah. Yes, I do. (He's the first and only commenter here to get that honor! I don't block because I disagree with or dislike the person's content or lack thereof; the only reason I did for him was because he insists on writing in an incoherent rambling style.)

[Nelson]

That's why I have Hank and The Squirrel on mute. I can't figure out what they're trying to say half the time.

[Bored Lawyer]

My point is, it was always unbelievable, so his admission adds little, IMO. It's like, in my example, if Trump said, "Of course the fairy people from Pluto were not paying down our debt. There is no way for them to get from Pluto to earth."

It’s like a scam call. 90% of the people know it’s a scam and just hang up. But the scammers hope that among the 10% who are gullible, some number will buy into the scam and fork over their money.

That’s what Trump is and always was. A scam artist. He just tapped into a huge resentment in the country to get elected.

[Mr. Bumble]

If it's a scam, much more than 10% bought in.

[Life of Brian]

The Mexican government wasn't going to write a check, of course. But there was legislation introduced at the time that actually created quite a hubbub as I recall -- HR 1813 -- that would have added a 2% tax to remittances from the US to South America, the lion's share of which were going to Mexico. Back of that napkin, it probably would have generated about $750 million per year.

[bernard11]

Who but a psychopath thinks that kind of crap is a good idea?

"Let's see, we have a lot of Mexicans working in the US, many at low wage jobs, and sending some money to their families in Mexico. I know, let's take 2% of that money."

I know. The party of family values and hard work.

[Life of Brian]

If you have some hard stats on a super-high (heck, I’m in a good mood — even a modest) percentage of people sending such remittances back to their families in Mexico that aren’t doing so because they’re illegally living and working in the US, I’m happy to look at them.

Barring that, I’m not sure how many would get particularly bent out of shape over retaining a paltry 2% of the tens of billions being siphoned out of the country in this way.

[Nige]

The eagerness to tax poor people is matched only by the reluctance to tax the rich. And all their, y'know, offshore assets.

[bernard11]

First of all, these remittances not being "siphoned out of the country." It's their money. They can send it to Mexico if they want.

Second, you may not be aware of this, but none of these workers have tens of billions of dollars. Two percent makes a dent in average worker's pay.

Third,

An estimated 37.2 million Hispanics of Mexican origin lived in the United States in 2021, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Mexicans in this statistical profile are people who self-identified as Hispanics of Mexican origin; this includes immigrants from Mexico and those who trace their family ancestry to Mexico.

Finally, there are about 5 million illegal immigrants from Mexico in the US.

Now, where is your data, or did you pull it out of your ass?

[Nelson]

"to remittances from the US to South America, the lion’s share of which were going to Mexico."

Mexico isn't in South America. It isn't even in Central America.

Pop quiz: what three countries signed the North American Free Trade Agreement? Hint: they're all in North America.

[Life of Brian]

Mexico isn’t in South America. It isn’t even in Central America.

Congratulations -- you win the Bitter Lawyer award for the day! I gather you had no quarrel at all with my broader point.

[Nelson]

What point, that there was a bill introduced that would tax remittances to South American countries that somehow would tax Mexico $750 million even though it wouldn't be subject to the tax, due to being in North America, and so that somehow fulfills Trump's promise to make Mexico pay for his wall?

Yeah, that's plain wrong on every level possible.

Did this magical bill that wouldn't have impacted Mexico at all, but somehow taxes Mexico, even pass?

[Life of Brian]

I linked directly to the legislation, you slavish tool. Here's the list of countries for your convenience: "Subparagraph (A) shall apply to designated recipients located in Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Cuba, the Cayman Islands, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, Jamaica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Aruba, Curacao, the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Montserrat, Guadeloupe, Dominica, Martinique, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, or Argentina."

[Nelson]

See, I made a mistake. I assumed that you were right when you posted. I won't make that mistake again.

[Life of Brian]

If you have some hard stats on a super-high (heck, I'm in a good mood -- even a modest) percentage of people sending such remittances back to their families in Mexico that aren't doing so because they're illegally living and working in the US, I'm happy to look at them.

Barring that, I'm not sure how many would get particularly bent out of shape over retaining a paltry 2% of the tens of billions being siphoned out of the country in this way.

[Life of Brian]

Sorry for the dupe -- replied to the wrong post and missed the edit window.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Don't have any hard stats but $37.5 billion per year remitted to Mexico?
Not saying your numbers are off, but seems kind of high to me.
I could be wrong (maybe by a lot).

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, the stat I saw earlier was a few years old. This article says nearly $50 billion in just the first 10 months of 2022.

[BrotherMovesOn]

It seems you win by getting closest without going over!
Found an AP story quoting the Bank of Mexico stat of 58 billion in 2022.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I saw that one too, but it wasn't clear the $58B was all from the US so I went with one that explicitly said so. They're pretty close, in any event.

[Nelson]

Since the bill LoB referenced wouldn’t tax Mexico at all, since Mexico isn’t in South America, why does it matter how much is sent? O% of $37.5 bn is the same as 0% of $50 bn is the same as 0% of $58 bn. It all equals $0 in indirect taxes vaguely connected to Mexico because the tax didn’t apply to money sent to Mexico.

I’m always baffled, yet dismayed, at the failures of logic, math, and the existence of ladders that a sizable percentage of conservatives display when cheerleading the border wall.

And yes, it’s just as idiotic and pointless when Biden does it. It’s the wall that is worthless, the identity of the person throwing money away on the wall is irrelevant. They’re all wasting billions on something easily defeated by a $100 ladder from Home Depot.

[Life of Brian]

Just to cover all your way-too-clever carpet bombing, here once again is the list of countries in the legislation I linked to in my initial post:

"Subparagraph (A) shall apply to designated recipients located in Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Cuba, the Cayman Islands, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, Jamaica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Aruba, Curacao, the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Montserrat, Guadeloupe, Dominica, Martinique, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, or Argentina."

[Nelson]

See my post above.

However, that isn't even close to "make Mexico pay for the wall". It's "make people who send money to other people in Mexico pay taxes that could be used for the wall of Congress appropriates the funds that way".

Are those goalposts as heavy as they look when you move them?

[Reallynotbob]

The devil lives in the details. "Physical barriers" and "roads" does not a "Beautiful Wall" make. Also, I would expect this crowd to be pleased Biden is using appropriated funds the way they were appropriated -- as opposed to raiding the military's budget.

[Ben_]

Election Prediction:

Dems will claim that they never opposed building a wall.

[Nige]

I still oppose - all the more so because it's an environmental disaster as well as a humanitarian one.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure Gaia appreciates your concern. Now work on getting illegals to stop dumping trash all over the border and maybe the cartels can bury the bodies.

[Nige]

They spend billions on failing to stop people trying to cross the border and they can't afford a few litter sticks?

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh, so you think it's the Border (litter) Patrol?

[Nige]

Then it'd be good for something, at least.

[Frank Drackman]

Like the wall around Nancy Pelosi's tony San Fran Sissy-co townhouse??

[Mr. Bumble]

Didn't stop Paul's gay friend.

[Martinned]

The median voter theorem is a thing. In the UK the Tories have now moved so far to the right that Labour is targeting voters well to the right of the median voter just because they can.

https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1709256937190064142

[Randal]

I haven't figured out why the Democrats haven't done that here (where it would be even more effective given our two-party system). Instead they're like, here's our opportunity to swing even further left! We're all socialsts now! What a waste.

[Martinned]

The primaries/candidate selection processes play out differently in each country. At least, that's where I'd start to look for an explanation.

[Michael P]

Commander Biden has instead been sent to a secure, undisclosed farm up-state where I am sure he has lots of room to run around.

But there are still too many Commanders in DC, even if we don't count the football team.

[Jerry B.]

That’s what my dad told me when my dog disappeared.

[Bob from Ohio]

"will Commander be sent to the border to assist?"

He only bites Americans.

[Ben_]

Just like the rest of the Bidens then. Someone must have told him his real friends are the foreigners who pay the family their bribes.

[not guilty]

Some Republican members of the House of Representatives are floating the idea of nominating Donald Trump to serve as Speaker to succeed Kevin McCarthy. That would be quite remarkable, in that Trump lacks the savvy and work ethic to do the job.

Electing Trump as Speaker would require Republicans to jettison the existing rule requiring that “A member of the Republican leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed.”

It is also significant that much of Trump's time during the next year will be spent in multiple courtrooms. In January 2024 E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit will be tried in New York. Trump's D.C. trial is scheduled to begin March 4. The criminal charges in Manhattan are currently scheduled for trial beginning March 24, although that is likely to be bumped to a later date. The Mar-a-Lago documents case is set for trial in Florida to begin on May 20. The Fulton County, Georgia RICO prosecution of Trump is not currently set for trial, but the State estimates that the prosecution case there will take at least four months to present.

All of that having been said, it could be that Democrats in the House will join the rogue Republicans to elect Trump as Speaker. As Napoleon Bonaparte advised, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

[David Welker]

Hmm... I haven't read the rules in their entirety. But based on the excerpts you have provided, is it really true that Trump would have to step aside?

"A member of the Republican leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed."

This sounds like if someone is indicted for an eligible felony WHILE already a leader, they shall step aside. Basically, perhaps the idea is that people weren't expecting that person to be indicted when they selected them for leadership. But if the GOP wants to selected someone who has already been indicted, the same expectation concern is not in play.

My very tentative hypothesis here could definitely be wrong, but I was wondering what you think if you wish to share an opinion.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's just a "rule"; they can change it.

[not guilty]

Far be it from me to predict how Republicans may interpret their rules -- compare and contrast Merrick Garland/Amy Coney Bear It.

But I would think that the purpose of the rule is to avoid persons tainted by the finding of a felony indictment serving in leadership positions. The timing of such a finding would seem to be a fortuity.

Suppose the following sequence of events occurs: 1) a grand jury finds a true bill as to a Republican House member for a felony punishable by two or more years imprisonment and a sealed indictment is filed, 2) that member is elected to a leadership position, and 3) after the member assumes the duties of that position, the indictment is unsealed and the member is arrested. Would he be required to step aside?

I don't know the answer, but if I were a Republican I would be concerned about the smell test.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but you're not a Republican and if it were a Democrat it would smell oh so sweet.

[Krychek_2]

Bumble, get back to us when the Democrats propose anyone with 91 felony charges for any office.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well maybe if the DOJ had been doing it's job Slo Joe would be facing a bunch of felony charges.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, what federal statute(s) do you claim that Joe Biden has violated? Where and when did each such violation occur? Please be specific, including identification of each provision of the United States Code.

[Mr. Bumble]

Please, your schoolmarm bullshit is tiring.

[not guilty]

No "schoolmarm bullshit" here. You are not the first commenter who has run away like a scalded dog when I ask for particulars about the crimes the commenter claims that Joe Biden has committed, and I doubt that you will be the last.

At least develop some integrity and admit that you are talking out of your ass.

[Michael P]

Not all of us get our jollies out of trawling the US Code for specific crimes to charge political enemies with. Most of us understand that bribery and perversion/obstruction of justice are crimes even if we don't have those specific subsections of the Code tagged in binders.

Demanding a bill of particulars absolutely is schoolmarm bullshit, which is why it's so odd that you're engaging in mental masturbation at the same time.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael *feels* crimes.

Good enough for the Internet!

[Nige]

If you get down to the specifics you can't charge him with any crimes at all and where's the fun in that?

[not guilty]

Michael P, there is no federal common law of crimes. Conduct does not constitute a federal criminal offense unless that conduct is prohibited in a statute enacted by the Congress.

My asking you and others who claim that someone has committed crimes to identify the relevant statute(s) is a test to see whether you are merely talking out your asses about someone you don't like.

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. OTOH, pretending to know whereof you speak when in fact you have no clue is shameful. Ipse dixit assertions don't feed the bulldog.

[Michael P]

"Yawp! Yawp!" barks the sea lion.

[Nige]

Ie, Bumble's got nothin'.

[BrotherMovesOn]

NG, you waste your time, I'm afraid.
Bumble knows nothing of the law.
Oh, and he's incredibly effeminate.

[Krychek_2]

And maybe if there were actual evidence against Joe Biden we’d have heard about it by now. But I'm sure if Joe Biden does end up indicted for something, he won't be a candidate for re-election. Unlike the GOP, the Democrats consider criminal charges to be a liability.

[Michael P]

There's plenty of evidence. Denialists just pretend it isn't there. For example, they deny that Hunter's laptop was good, or suggest that the evidence on that laptop was falsified (usually by dishonest talking points that have been refuted over and over, leaving them looking like examples of Soviet tradecraft). They ignore the hundreds of suspicious activity reports filled by banks about the Biden Bribery Business, the maze of shell companies, the use of cover names, the odd wire transfers from companies tied to foreign governments (especially listing Joe's home address as the address of the beneficiary), etc.

[not guilty]

Michael P, your colleague will neither answer me nor admit that he can't do so, so I will ask you. What federal statute(s) do you claim that Joe Biden has violated? Where and when did each such violation occur? Please be specific, including identification of each provision of the United States Code.

[Michael P]

He's not my colleague, and it's not my job to write a criminal indictment. Your incessant sea lioning is tiresome.

[Mr. Bumble]

I have no "colleagues" here.

[not guilty]

The two of you deny being colleagues, but Southern folk wisdom teaches that the hit dog hollers.

[Michael P]

Tell another lie, Nazi.

[Krychek_2]

Michael, same thing I told Bumble. Get back to us when someone facing 91 felony charges is a viable Democratic candidate for anything.

[Michael P]

Nice goalpost move.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Having "91 charges" isn't a good sign from the prosecutor's perspective. It means you're throwing everything at the wall.

Any good prosecutor would prefer a handful of solid charges.

[Nige]

'Actually it's GOOD that he's being charged with 91 felonies!'

[Krychek_2]

Michael, which goalpost did I move?

[Michael P]

You shifted suddenly from “actual evidence” to “91 felony charges”.

[Krychek_2]

Yes, in different comments in which I was talking about different things. Your attempt to make it a goalpost move is nothing but a distraction from your lack of a substantive answer to my actual point.

[Michael P]

It was precisely the same context! You denied there was any evidence, I listed a pile of it, and you demanded I only come back when a Dem candidate is facing 91 felony charges.

[Krychek_2]

You still haven't responded to my substantive point; you're still engaged in distractions because you have no substantive response.

And no, it wasn't the same point. Bumble's initial comment, to which I was responding, was to complaint that it was just fine for Democrats to engage in shenanigans but not Republicans. I responded by saying get back to me when the Dems have a candidate with 91 charges. I repeated that comment to you.

I then held Biden to a higher standard. I said that if he was indicted at all (just indicted, not necessarily on 91 counts) he would no longer be a candidate.

Now if you have a response to my substantive point, let's hear it. If not, I've got other things to do today than argue with a four year old.

[OtisAH]

“Having “91 charges” isn’t a good sign from the prosecutor’s perspective. It means you’re throwing everything at the wall.

“Any good prosecutor would prefer a handful of solid charges.”

-AL

This is fucking hilarious. Sorry, not Dumbass Post of the Day hilarious but still worthy of note. For the record, that’s 91 *total* felony charges filed in four (4) separate jurisdictions by three (3) different prosecutors.

[Nige]

'Denialists just pretend it isn’t there.'

They just have higher standards. Courts do, too, as with the election lies. The purpose of course is mainly to smear Biden, because you're going to be voting for an actual criminal.

[David Nieporent]

There’s plenty of evidence.

Plenty of evidence of what?

None of those things are evidence of crimes, let alone evidence of crimes by Joe Biden.

[Michael P]

By that standard, Donald Trump having documents with classification markings in his basement is also not evidence.

[Michael P]

And, really, why stop at asking what evidence means? Why not quote a very weaselly lawyer and say it depends on what the meaning of "is" is!

[David Nieporent]

By that standard, Donald Trump having documents with classification markings in his basement is also not evidence.

Of crimes by Joe Biden? You're right, it isn't.

[jb]

Let's posit everything claimed to be from the laptop is from the laptop and that it's all Hunter Biden's stuff. What evidence of a crime committed by Joe Biden do you think it contains?

Or is your proposition that a wire transfer from a foreign entity to a bank account that you are the beneficiary of prima facie evidence of bribery or corruption?

Even accepting the stuff you're claiming is evidence, I'm not sure what crime you think it's evidence of. I'm not asking for a specific criminal citation, I'm just kind of baffled as to what you think the evidence you've seen adds up to as compared to the criminal indictments laid out against Trump.

[David Nieporent]

Or is your proposition that a wire transfer from a foreign entity to a bank account that you are the beneficiary of prima facie evidence of bribery or corruption?

Just to be clear — because MAGA like to muddy the waters — there is no evidence to date that any of the transfers to which Michael P refers went to any bank account of Joe Biden's.

They are so desperate to make people think otherwise that they claimed that an account that undisputedly is Hunter Biden's somehow taints Joe Biden because Hunter listed his dad's address as the mailing address when he opened the account. (It should go without saying, but apparently can't, that a wire transfer goes to the account owner, not the person who owns the property of the mailing address on the account.)

[jb]

Oh, I know. I'm just pointing out that *even if* Joe Biden got a wire transfer from a foreign entity, it's still not evidence of anything. Doubly so if, as in the case of these "it was Hunter's account but he used Joe's address" allegations, Joe wasn't even an elected official at the time.

Even if you take all of their evidence completely seriously as opposed to the silly web of breathless unfounded innuendo that it is, even then you don't end up with any actual evidence of a crime by Joe Biden.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you one of the guys that believed there was a pee tape?

[David Nieporent]

I’m just pointing out that *even if* Joe Biden got a wire transfer from a foreign entity, it’s still not evidence of anything.

I don't know if I'd go that far. It would depend 100% on the specifics — who, what, when, where, why, and how — but if while Biden was in office he got money from a foreign entity that there's no obvious reason he should be getting money from, and that he lied about, that would be evidence of corruption. (e.g., if he actually had gotten $5 million from Zlochevsky/Burisma while he was veep. Despite MAGA attempts at FUD, it's obvious why Hunter Biden might legally get such a payment, but there's no reason why Joe would have.)

[jb]

I agree that certain details about a wire transfer, with a bunch of other context, could create a strong inference of corruption. My point was just "he received a foreign wire" is not actually an incriminating fact without all of the additional circumstances that you are describing, yet Michael P wants us to believe that any wire transfer from any foreign entity to Joe Biden would be evidence of corruption in and of itself (and of course the only example he's got doesn't look anything like the scenario you describe, starting with the facts it's not to Joe and not while he's in office).

Besides, unless he was an idiot if he was actually getting paid off by foreign interests he'd just make up a pretext for them to be paying him money, like "member of a board" (okay, not a great look for a VP) or "staying at my hotel" (apparently totally cool!)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You run your mouth quite often about the alleged crimes of the big Biden Crime Family.

When asked, you never offer any citations or actual evidence of any crimes at all.

You're just a whiny little partisan bitch.

[Joe_dallas]

President Joe Biden has nominated Hunter Biden’s former law firm colleague to lead the Office of the Special Counsel, which has faced congressional pressure to investigate the Biden administration’s handling of an investigation into the troubled first son.

Biden is not even trying to hide the fix

[Sarcastr0]

Hunter Biden’s former law firm colleague

Weak and a long time ago.

[Voize]

From their website:

OSC's primary mission is to safeguard the mer​it system by protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing.

It's more of a government-wide HR office than anything else.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, try this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lawmaker-demands-answers-after-biden-official-implicated-in-iranian-influence-scheme-unbelievable/ar-AA1hqbew

It's gotta be a violation of something...

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Iranian infiltration appears real.

[damikesc]

"Far be it from me to predict how Republicans may interpret their rules — compare and contrast Merrick Garland/Amy Coney Bear It."

Thank GOD Garland was kept miles from the SCOTUS.

He's a pathetic hack. Fuck him.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like we used to say for our drill Sargent (behind his back of course). Can we have a hymn for the drill Sargent, followed by:
Him, fuck him. And in perfect harmony.

[Kleppe]

"Far be it from me to predict how Republicans may interpret their rules — compare and contrast Merrick Garland/Amy Coney Bear It."

Do you actually think these situations are identical? I can explain why they aren't if you need me to, but I want to make sure you're being serious first.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not withstanding this “rule”,[“Electing Trump as Speaker would require Republicans to jettison the existing rule requiring that “A member of the Republican leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed.”] how would a Trump Speakership affect his many legal issues? (I don’t really believe he will honestly be considered for the job)
Also, as has been shown often, especially recently, rules are made to be broken.

[Life of Brian]

(I don’t really believe he will honestly be considered for the job)

Agree; this is just news cycle noise.

If anything, maybe just a really far-out anchoring exercise to improve the odds of whoever actually gets nominated.

[Bob from Ohio]

"if indicted"

He'd have to be indicted after election for this rule to apply.

Also, is the Speaker a " member of the Republican leadership". There is a separate Majority Leader.

[Not happening of course.]

[David Nieporent]

Some Republican members of the House of Representatives are floating the idea of nominating Donald Trump to serve as Speaker to succeed Kevin McCarthy. That would be quite remarkable, in that Trump lacks the savvy and work ethic to do the job.

Those are just some of the many necessary qualities Trump lacks.

It's just vice signaling on the part of these GOP members of Congress.

[Brett Bellmore]

More like stupidity signaling, if you ask me.

[Don Nico]

"Some Republican members of the House of Representatives"
You mean the WIngnut Caucus

[Dan Schiavetta]

“The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers. . .”

This doesn’t specify that the Speaker be a member but it’s just common sense that he would be and the Framers certainly assumed as much. They’d be surprised to see us being so pedantic.

[Kazinski]

That sound ripe for an amicus brief.

“The framers certainly assumed as much.”

Probably don’t even need any cites for that.

But I can tell you how it will end, the textualists will uphold it and probably be a majority, but will have to write separately because it will 9-0 non-justiciable.

[damikesc]

If the House wanted to insure non-members could not be Speaker --- they have pretty clear power to do specifically that. If they choose not to, then they clearly do not care about it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"9-0 non-justiciable"

You think the DC circuit would say it was justiciable? Because that is the only way cert would be granted in the first place.

[Kazinski]

Good point.

I'm even wondering who would have standing.

[Longtobefree]

Some common sense would think an outsider could devote full time to the speaker job, and not be distracted by the other obligations of an elected member, and therefore a better option.

[Dan Schiavetta]

And this outsider would be third in line for the Presidency?

[Martinned]

2nd, right?

I personally don't mind that very much, although there is something to say for keeping the speaker and the president pro tem out altogether. Coincidentally, that's also what the main argument against the constitutionality of the current presidential succession act would do.

[Kazinski]

Absolutely.

That is If you think the Presidential Succession act is constitutional.

Would you prefer Marjorie Taylor Greene?

[Kazinski]

So what does "step aside" mean practically? As you say Trump is hardly suited to be the speaker as a practical matter anyway.

Electing him would be purely symbolic, other than giving him the opportunity to make a few speaches from the podium, and making him 3rd in line to to the presidency.

And it would clearly establish that Trump is not disqualified under section 3 of serving as an Officer Under the United States, whatever that means.

There's a lot to like about the idea, the House elects him, he gives a speech, then he "steps aside" retaining the title and then designates a speaker pro tem to wield the gavel.

And the backbenchers start behaving themselves.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that the speakership would place him third in line of succession to the presidency would give people nightmares.

[Longtobefree]

Some people nightmares.
Other people hope.
(and a detailed reading of the 25th amendment)

[Drewski]

The House can't clearly establish constitutional doctrine, as it is not an appellate federal court. It is a house of Congress, making it part of the legislative branch of the US. Interpretation of constitutional law is the province of the judicial branch. That is a different branch.

[Kazinski]

That's certainly not true. Every Federal Officer that takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution is also responsible for interpretation and faithfully applying that interpretation.

The Supreme Court generally has final say, but usually in cases like this they defer to the House and Senate.

Really do you think they take an oath to support the Constitution, and then they are supposed to pretend they have no idea what it means?

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, do you really think POTUS Trump's ego would ever permit him to 'step down' into the Speaker of the House role? 🙂

This is just political theater. Amusing as it is.

[Kazinski]

Well I'm certainly not saying it's anything close to likely, just that the hurdles not guilty sees aren't serious impediments if they want to do it.

[Krychek_2]

I don't see how Trump could serve as speaker since it would take too much time away from all the trials he's going to be attending.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, but all of this talk about a Trump speakership is pure hype. No way the House would agree to an outsider wielding the gavel.

[Kazinski]

Where does it actually say he has to fulfill the duties of speaker if he is elected?

It doesn't say anything like that in my constitution. I'm sure Speakers in the past have taken breaks gotten I'll, or even said nobody had to show up for a year and they could do it all on zoom.

[Martinned]

Well, the constitution doesn't say very much about what the duties of the Speaker are in the first place. There's a good chance that the drafters were thinking more of someone like the Speaker of the House of Commons, who rules impartially over the House without seeking to influence decisions one way or another.

[Syd Henderson]

In 1856, there were a bunch of small parties (including the new-born Republican Party) who together had a majority in the House and chose a Speaker. It took 133 ballots until they compromised and elected American Party Representative Nathaniel Banks as Speaker. He served as a non-partisan. Apparently he was a good Speaker, too.

Perhaps we should try that.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK Diogenes, now just find a non partisan member of the House.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Justin Amash

Ok ok, not a member...but...

[David Nieporent]

Perhaps we should try that.

I mean, he's been dead for 129 years, but he'd still likely be an improvement on McCarthy as well as whoever the GOP comes up with as his replacement.

[Bob from Ohio]

"impartially over the House without seeking to influence decisions one way or another"

John Bercow says hi

[Martinned]

He does, and often quite loudly too.

But I'm not sure there's very much evidence that Bercow tried to influence decisions, other than seeking to make sure the majority of the House would get its way. (Which is not what I meant by "influence decisions", because that is the default, it's what's supposed to happen.)

The unusual thing about Bercow's time in office is that there was a significant period when the government and the majority of the House disagreed. That's not normally supposed to happen, constitutionally. But the Speaker's job is to defend the majority of the House.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

In fact, he could be impeaching some of the very Federal judges that were trying him -- it could be really interesting.

He'd be a loose cannon and it'd be quite interesting to watch -- it'd be a throwback to the 19th Century and we'd definitely get to the bottom of January 6th.

I could see the Dems supporting this without remembering how Teddy Roosevelt became President, that the NY GOP made him VEEP to get rid of him, and then...

[TKK]

The application of the Speech and Debate clause protections for Trump as Speaker would be quite interesting.
Could a gag order from the Judicial branch be enforced, if Trump were speaking regarding an impeachment of the Judge or the Attorney General or employees/prosecutors? Would the Speech and Debate clause apply against a Judicial gag order if Trump were speaking regarding removing all federal funding that may go toward state prosecutions alleged to constitute "election interference"? What about in relation to federal funding of courts or DOJ?
There are any number of legislative functions and contexts that could cause the Speech and Debate clause to apply meaningfully in relation to Trump's civil and criminal litigation.

Regarding the criminal trials ... might they be foreclosed while Trump serves as Speaker. The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel 1973 and then 2000 memos provide some arguments that making a sitting House Speaker subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts would be inconsistent with his Legislative Branch position, the Constitutionally recognized head of the House of Representatives.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

[David Nieporent]

The Speech & Debate clause applies to "Senators and Representatives," not "anyone who works in the Capitol."

[TKK]

Not true. See Gravel v U.S. 408 U.S. 606 (1972) (Speech & Debate clause applicable to Senate staff), and 3/27/23 Opinion from In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Speech & Debate clause applicable to VP Pence). https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/Attachment%205.pdf

The underlying analyses would appear to support applying Speech & Debate clause to a non-Member Speaker of the House.

[loki13]

Trump can't be Speaker of the House. That requires actual work. Besides, Trump will be too busy in multiple trials, and running for President.

If he were Speaker, then Congress would be unable to get anything done!

Oh .... nevermind.

[Kazinski]

Where does it require any actual work? There is no reason he can't just have the title and "step aside" and let his deputy wield the gavel.

[loki13]

As appealing as this idea might be to fantasists and Trump (but I repeat myself), that's not actually how things work.

Not only is the Speaker the leader of the house (think in terms of parliamentary procedure) and is tasked with managing the proceedings (such things as what matters may be considered, how rules are applied, and whether issues on the floor can be put to a vote), but he is also the leader of the caucus and the fundamental "point person" in terms of all negotiations with the Senate.

That's why, when there is no speaker (like now) you can't get anything done. The idea that this will just be ceremonial is ... absurd.

But hey, why not? After all, the GOP has been doing a lot of the absurd recently. What's one more thing? I guess the House can change it's rules to have a "Constitutional" Speaker and then an acting speaker to, you know, actually do the job of Speaker.

Because reasons?

[Kazinski]

You are bereft of imagination.

Of course there would be someone to make parliamentary rulings, manage the schedule, negotiate with the Senate, set the schedule, etc,

The Speaker pro tem. Just because the speaker is traditionally the person with the title and the power, House Rules allow the person designated by the Speaker to wield the gavel:

"Molly E. Reynolds, senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, said Wednesday during a panel discussion the role of speaker pro tempore was designed as a way to bolster continuity of government.

“The language of the rule itself isn’t entirely clear on what powers the speaker pro tem has — whether it’s all of the powers of the Office of the Speaker, or just authorities that allow him to effectuate a new election for speaker,” Reynolds said.

“I would put myself in the camp that the speaker pro tem, McHenry, has the full powers of the speakership with the possible exception of sitting in the line of succession.” Reynolds said.

“My logic there is that given how this rule was originally designed, which was to allow someone to act as speaker in the event of a real crisis, that you would not necessarily have wanted to develop a rule that would limit that person’s power in an actual emergency,” Reynolds said.

Other experts agreed with that view.

“The idea behind a pro tempore is: The person can act in the absence of a speaker,” Jason Roberts, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina, told States Newsroom. “So I interpret that to mean the speaker pro tempore can do basically whatever they choose to do.”

https://lailluminator.com/2023/10/04/house-speaker/

Trump is elected Speaker, "temporarily" "steps aside", his designated Speaker Pro Tem runs the House is within current rules.

[loki13]

Do you even read your sources?

So just to be clear here, what you are saying is that you want to see if this ability … which may or may not work (but let’s assume that it does) and was supposed to be used for extraordinary circumstances, could be invoked on an ongoing basis in order to elect someone who is not in the House, as the Speaker of the House, so that they will not actually do the job … purely for that person’s ego?

That’s pretty much the state of the GOP. I couldn’t have put it any better myself. Much appreciated.

That said, I think we all know two things-

1. Trump will grandstand and bask in the attention as if he was going to do it.

2. Trump isn’t actually going to do it, even though, “Many people” (ahem) would say that he should. Why? Because it might actually require some work. And because he’s a conman and slimeball, but he’s not actually an idiot.

Hear me now and believe me later- he has less chance of tying his popularity with the GOP Base to the clown car that is the GOP House than he does of divorcing Melania and getting married to Ron "Meatball" DeSantis in the next month.

Sure, it could happen. But even I have a higher opinion of his political instincts than that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

[Kazinski]

Well I already said above it isn't likely to happen, but I did hear on Bloomberg he may meet with House GOP leaders next week.

What my point is, is there is nothing structural in the House Rules, or the Constitution to keep it from happening.

The only thing required is the House GOP caucus deciding to make it happen and uniting around it.

And Trump may be the only one that can keep Gaetz and the other rebels in line.

[loki13]

There is something structural within the House rules currently. As I alluded to, they can change the rules. As I also stated, there are very good reasons beyond the rules why this would be a terrible idea.

But the simple fact that there are people that are even floating this and trying to justify it says volumes about the lack of seriousness that the GOP has when it comes to basic issues of governance.

Moreover, if you stepped back for even a second, you might want to consider why you, personally, are invested in trying to justify this. But, as I often say, you do you.

[OtisAH]

If Turnip becomes Speaker, which is an actual job that requires actual work, it will be with zero dem votes.

[Kazinski]

How many Democratic votes did McCarthy get when he ran for speaker?

How many GOP votes did Pelosi get when she was elected Speaker?

Zero.

Business as usual.

[Joe_dallas]

Some republicans may have floated the idea, though its doubtful that anyone has been serious about nominating Trump for speaker. (other than a few nut cases).

[Kleppe]

"Some Republican members of the House of Representatives are floating the idea of nominating Donald Trump to serve as Speaker to succeed Kevin McCarthy. That would be quite remarkable, in that Trump lacks the savvy and work ethic to do the job."

I don't doubt that Trump lacks the savvy to be an effective Speaker (given that he has never served in Congress), but what are you basing the work ethic evaluation on?

[Commenter_XY]

Re the 5th Circuit Court case, MO v Biden. This layman has to ask: How often does a circuit court go back, modify it’s order to be more expansive (more agencies) and restrictive (changed wording of order for clarity) than it was previously? This one is a head-scratcher to me. When I read about that here at VC, I tried to recall a similar circumstance in another case; I cannot.

How often does this kind of re-visiting a decision like this happen?

Also…What is it about the 5th circuit that they get the truly oddball cases?

[loki13]

To answer your questions-

1. It isn’t unheard of. But it is rare. Very rare. In my entire lifetime of practice, with a very heavy dose of appellate practice, I’ve had appellate courts re-visit orders twice. Once was because they actually made a legal error and corrected it. The other …. well, that’s a story. The reason why this was … particularly dubious … is because despite the protestations that this was a “clerk error,” it really looked like the CoA made up their mind to change it because they wanted to, and without the federal government responding. Because procedure doesn’t matter in the 5th Circuit. They only corrected it after it was pointed out to the Supreme Court, and went through the motions of asking for a response .. which I am sure they thoroughly read. /snark

2. Two reasons. The first is that nutball plaintiffs forum shop the 5th Circuit. They do so for two reasons- first is the rather bizarre existence of a few places where plaintiffs are almost assured to get a nutball circuit court judge. Second, there are enough crazies in the 5th Circuit that you are likely to draw a panel that might give you a nutball opinion.

In other words, garbage in, and garbage out.

(In saying this, I should note that there are some fine judges at both the District and Circuit level in the 5th. But they are being overwhelmed by the sheer lunacy that is taking place. The 5th- where the law and procedure goes to die.)

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, I wasn't crazy then....it really is something way out of the ordinary to have a Circuit Court go back and revise an injunction like that. It really raised my eyebrows.

[shawn_dude]

As a non-lawyer, I'm wondering if this due to the the defendant being the son of the President. There are a lot of people watching this case and picking through all the details. That could make anyone check their work and make corrections.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and on the free speech front:
NY Attorney General Leticia (let's get Trump) James has filed an appeal to the stay of New York's "On Line Hate Speech" law.

The Babylon Bee added an amicus brief opposing the law bringing the number to 10 from fourteen groups (including the proprietor of this site).
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/oct/4/babylon-bee-takes-on-new-york-ag-letitia-james-ove/

[Krayt]

'member when Trump was elected, and the biggest fear was he was gonna try to make it easier to sue for defamation, and how awful and self-serving that was as an attack on the First Amendment?

Good times, good times!

[loki13]

I am against on-line censorship, although I do not know the details of this bill.

That said ... OF COURSE she did this. She's the AG of New York, and it's her job to defend the laws of the state.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not if she believed them to be unconstitutional. It is not unheard of for AGs to decline from defending "laws".

[loki13]

Actually, it is really, really, really rare for that to happen.* For the AG (really, the AG’s office under the direction of the AG) to refuse to defend a law is such major news, that you’ve likely heard of it every single time that it’s happened.

That said, as a general practice I think that other than the most outrageous and clear-cut violations, the best thing that can happen is for the state AG’s office to vigorously defend the law to the best of their ability, and have the Court strike it down.

Far too often, those rare occurrences where the law isn’t defended is because of partisan reasons on a hot topic that divides parties, and the state AG being of a different party than the legislature that passed the bill. Which just leads to more uncertainty than if the issue is adjudicated.

*Seriously, think of all the laws that get passed. Then think of all the times that a state AG has refused to defend a state law.

[Mr. Bumble]

That’s a lot of words to respond to “it’s not unheard of”.
I think the most recent case involved the New Mexico AG refusing to defend the Governor's "emergency" gun ban.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was a pretty egregious case. You even had gun control advocates saying that the Governor had gone too far.

[loki13]

"That’s a lot of words"

I appreciate that such things as "nuance," or "trying to explain how things work," are not pithy to either not-so-pithy one liners, or partisan denial of reality, but unfortunately I have to live in the world of reality where I try to actually understand why things are the way they are, not just imagine everything from the prism of what they must be because of reasons.

[Mr. Bumble]

So why not just address the point rather than obfuscate and dissemble?
No one less than EV has filed an amicus brief supporting the idea that the NY law is unconstitutional.

[loki13]

I did respond to your point. If you wish to be dismissive snarky when I bother to make a substantive response, well, I have a remedy that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh noes, the dreaded MUTE USER button!!!!

By the way, I thought I rebutted your substantive response.

[loki13]

Cool story brah. And you called it. Bye!

[Mr. Bumble]

What a pussy.

[Idihax]

Did you say that when Democrat attorney generals refused to defend state laws against homosexual "marriage?"

[Idihax]

She's a stupid ape.

[Internet sloth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyV3zCq1OHM

[Kazinski]

Electric car owners in the UK are getting hit with horrendous insurance rate increases, in many cases having to pay more than 5000£ a year for insurance.

I suppose this is risk of fires, toxic cleanup, and the reality of having to replace the battery after just minor collisions. One insurer won't write policies for the Tesla Y anymore:
"Driving an electric car should be a win-win, saving money and the planet. So David* was shocked when the insurance on his Tesla Model Y came up for renewal, and Aviva refused to cover him again, while several other brands turned him away.

When David did secure a new deal, the annual cost rocketed from £1,200 to more than £5,000.

“My insurer was Aviva from July 2022 to July 2023, but when it was coming up for renewal, I received a letter stating that they would not be covering the Tesla Model Y any more,” David says. “I am a member of a Tesla UK owners forum, and lots of other people seem to be having the same issue.”
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/sep/30/the-quotes-were-5000-or-more-electric-vehicle-owners-face-soaring-insurance-costs

To put that in perspective gas at the UK price of 7.50$ a gallon would cost about $3200 to drive 15000 miles, a typical yearly use for some drivers, while £5000 is $6063.

This hardly makes transitioning to EVs consumer friendly.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unintended consequences are finally catching up.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've seen economic analysis of electric cars, that look pretty good on account of the low regular maintenance costs. But I have noticed that they all assume you never, ever, have an accident.

I wonder how high the probability of an accident has to get before the economics look bad? It appears that the statisticians in the UK have decided, it's at least that high.

[Krayt]

One would think net lack of accidents from superior robot drivers would be starting to kick in as a benefit.

Screaming lawyers trying to line their pockers would rage in front of the cameras how awful it was, but insurance companies would know the difference

[Mr. Bumble]

Even if that were true, "superior robot drivers" don't protect you from other drivers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Potentially they could, defensive driving IS a thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Potentially is doing a lot of work here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, not really. I've avoided a couple of bad accidents in the last year, by paying attention and getting out of the way when another driver does something stupid. When you see a guy in a car ready to exit a parking lot ahead of you, and he's not looking your way, don't YOU have a contingency plan for if he suddenly pulls out in your path? When traffic pulls to a stop ahead of you, don't you look in the rear view mirror to make sure they guy behind you is stopping, too? Doing that saved me a trip to a hospital a couple years ago, I wasn't able to avoid the accident, but reacted enough to end up in the grassy median instead of the filling in a car sandwich.

No reason a self driving computer can't be generating contingency plans like that, too, rather than just assuming every other vehicle on the road is going to behave in a safe manner.

It's true that sort of defensive driving isn't 100% effective, but it helps a lot.

As an engineer, the thing that interests me is that you could, potentially, have self driving cars have defenses that a regular car didn't have. Like, once it calculates a collision is inevitable, fire off external airbags under replaceable body panels, to cushion it.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think you're getting away from the original point; accidents do happen and in the case of EVs what might have been a minor incident can become very expensive if say the battery pack is involved.
As a case in point. Air bags have played a significant role in reducing injuries and fatalities but have also greatly increased repair costs even for minor accidents when they deploy.
Years ago I was involved in one of those types of minor accidents when a young driver decided to make a left turn into a driveway cutting in front of me. This was on a local street at speeds of 25 mph or less and though I braked hard and turned he managed to hit the left front corner of my car with enough force to deploy both front air bags (only two back then). Unless you were looking directly at the point of impact you would not notice any damage, yet the repair cost was just under $9000.00
(this was in 1994).

[Idihax]

I think Brett Bellmore's point is that you'd have to do an analysis to know whether the expected loss from battery costs from accidents is outweighed by self-driving heuristics avoiding other accidents.

[Brett Bellmore]

At present, my understanding is that the safety level of the self driving systems is about equivalent to a teen who has just gotten his full driver's license. Safe enough to be a legal driver, but not really as safe as an average driver.

But they'll keep improving, and eventually be better than the safest human driver. Though that's still going to cause some unfortunate headlines, because they'll probably have accidents that are different than a human driver would.

I do wonder, though, how low the accident rate has to be, for the elevated repair costs not to eat up all the maintenance savings.

[damikesc]

Hell, they can just decide to not support your battery and your car itself becomes utterly useless.

Why would anybody insure something with so many things that can go wrong and all cost an arm and a leg to deal with?

[BrotherMovesOn]

And each additional superior self driving car that replaces a human driven pushes down the overall accident rate in the environment.
That's an interesting topic - thanks.

[Bob from Ohio]

"superior"

"Self-driving car runs over pedestrian hit by human driver in San Francisco"
David Ingram
Updated Wed, October 4, 2023 at 1:32 PM EDT

[Dr. Ed 2]

I always favored an ejector seat -- when it's clear you are going to hit the tree, punch you out of there.

[Mr. Bumble]

If I remember my physics correctly you will continue to travel forward at the same speed as the car was going until you hit the tree.

[John F. Carr]

My insurance will pay for collision repairs regardless of fault. I care about insurance premiums, time to repair, and whether an expensive repair causes the car to be totalled.

I worry about uninsured repairs, like if a headlight breaks and needs a $1,000 replacement headlight instead of a new piece of plastic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, if you have collision it will pay for damage caused by an accident. Of course minus the deducible which you are out of pocket for.

[BrotherMovesOn]

And you call other posters 'captain obvious'.
Thanks. We were confused about that deductible thingy...

[Joe_dallas]

Accident rates for different types of vehicles tend to be associated with the types of individuals that purchase the cars. For example, Mini vans tend to have the lowest accident rates because they tend to be purchased by moms with young kids. I would suspect that EV drivers fall into the category of drivers that are less aggressive drivers, thus EVs have lower accident rates.

[Nige]

As with the fossil fuel and motor industry it's going to need loadsa subsidies. The UK government are busy fucking up their public transport system, of course, like good little cronies.

[Voize]

A few weeks ago a Tesla rear-ended a Honda CRV driven by a friend of mine. The CRV got a barely visible 3-inch crack in its rubber rear bumper, but the front end of the Tesla was a crumpled mess with the hood folded almost in half.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, when you saddle a vehicle with 12-1300 lbs of batteries instead of a ~200 lb gas tank, you have to do something to keep the curb weight in a rational range. None of it particularly conducive to safety or repairability.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, the Tesla has an excellent crash rating. You may be sure the front end turning into a crumpled mess absorbed an awful lot of collision energy, which is WHY that crash rating is so good.

Weight, safety, repairability. Pick any two.

[apedad]

‘Police are free to ask questions, and the public is free to ignore them’: Cops denied qualified immunity for arresting man who refused to show ID

A federal appeals court ruled that two Alabama cops who arrested a mechanic for refusing to produce identification are not entitled to immunity from a civil lawsuit.

https://lawandcrime.com/civil-rights/police-are-free-to-ask-questions-and-the-public-is-free-to-ignore-them-cops-denied-qualified-immunity-for-arresting-man-who-refused-to-show-id/

Love it!

[Michael P]

Yes, thank goodness the appeals court recognized that the police officers went well beyond what was reasonable. The same case was mentioned in last week's Short Circuit: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/29/short-circuit-a-roundup-of-recent-federal-court-decisions-230/

[Brett Bellmore]

Hmm.

Planned Parenthood is Helping Teenagers Transition After a 30 Minute Consult. Parents and Doctors are Sounding the Alarm.

"Fred arrived at his local clinic, on North Fullerton Ave. in Montclair, New Jersey, at around 11:00 a.m., according to phone tracking data his parents used to monitor his whereabouts. By 11:39, they received a text message from CVS: Fred’s estrogen prescription was on its way. Instead of a months-long evaluation by expert psychiatrists, a nurse practitioner had, in little over 30 minutes, prescribed their special-needs son a powerful drug without their knowledge or consent."

[Commenter_XY]

The wonders of a one-party state: The People's Republic of NJ.

To me, the people involved were taking advantage of an autistic child. But to be fair, let's see if this story develops (meaning, do the facts suddenly change). I am not at all surprised by this, considering the representation we elect (state, and federal).

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think Planned Parenthood's leadership is elected. This is about PP's policy of handing out transitioning drugs after a few minutes consultation.

You know, not the extensive psychiatric evaluation we've been told happens?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey it's only estrogen.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's definitely not the same thing as "transitioning".

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, in reading, this is more problematic than it looks.

Estrogen (like this) is a prescription only drug, because it can have severe adverse effects on fertility and mental health. The reason we have prescriptions like this, is to treat a diagnosed disease.

It sounds like PP wasn't actually doing the diagnosis. People would just show up, say "I want Estrogen" and PP would read them the warning label and give it to them. Not actually diagnosing a disease.

That may be considered medical malpractice, akin to just handing out OxyCotin to whoever wanted it, without actually diagnosing their condition to determine if it was necessary.

Medical Malpractice like this could result in lawsuits and having one's license to prescribe medicine revoked.

[Martinned]

Medical Malpractice like this could result in lawsuits and having one’s license to prescribe medicine revoked.

I think you've spotted why I'm skeptical about how this story was reported by the lovely people at freebeacon.com.

[Brett Bellmore]

But it's actually in keeping with PP's approach to medical practice, which is, "You want it? You get it."

Remember Kermit Gosnell, doing unsafe, illegal very late term abortions? How did he get his customers?

Referrals from Planned Parenthood, that's how.

And, how did Gosnell keep going for so long, when his clinic was being regularly inspected? Easy: The inspectors didn't report what they found, because they didn't want to shut down the availability of illegal late term abortions.

I expect PP is relying on the same thing: Political protection from the laws they're theoretically required to comply with.

[Idihax]

Planned Parenthood, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU, and the DNC are all terrorist organizations, and should be treated as such.

[Nige]

“You want it? You get it.”

At least the parody version right-wingers like to attack which, of course, is fueld by opposition to people accessing health care without massive expense and obstruction as well as sheer misogyny.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/gosnell-house-horrors-trial-abortion-inspections/1952635/

‘Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic went nearly two decades without being inspected by Pennsylvania health officials.’

Liar.

Of course it wasn’t inspected. He was ‘serving’ poor peope who were mostly black. I wonder if they ever got a replacement clinic?

‘Pa. Department of Health employee Elinor Barsony testified Monday about conditions she found during a surprise inspection of the Women’s Medical Society in 2010. Days later, the clinic was shut down. She said the inspection was the first conducted by the state since the early 1990s. ‘

It was a belated inspection that shut him down.

Now I wonder if there’s any overlap between sources that told you Gosnell was regularly inspected and kept open deliberately in order to enable late term abortions and sources feeding you shit about trans people and PP.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's true, he wasn't inspected by "Pennsylvania health officials". Pennsylvania was allowing abortion clinics to be self-regulated, he got his inspections from the National Abortion Federation, instead.

Report of the Grand Jury

"So too with the National Abortion Federation. NAF is an association of abortion providers that upholds the strictest health and legal standards for its members. Gosnell, bizarrely, applied for admission shortly after Karnamaya Mongar’s death. Despite his
various efforts to fool her, the evaluator from NAF readily noted that records were not properly kept, that risks were not explained, that patients were not monitored, that equipment was not available, that anesthesia was misused. It was the worst abortion
clinic she had ever inspected. Of course, she rejected Gosnell’s application. She just never told anyone in authority about all the horrible, dangerous things she had seen."

[Brett Bellmore]

He didn't go on as long as he did without people knowing what was going on. He went on as long as he did because the people who knew what was going on refused to report it.

[Nige]

That's one inspection - and led to his application being rejected, which sort of cuts against your fantasy that this was somehow seen as desireable, as opposed to good enough for poor and black people, which that very report posit as the reason for regulatory failure. Where are your 'regular inspections' liar?

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's time to talk about what has happened to Brett.

From certainty that "The Democrats" will try to kill Trump if "they" don't get him put in prison, to outright lying about "regular" inspections which ended with the inspectors not reporting what they saw when, in fact, as he seems to have confirmed, there were merely two inspections, one of which led to denial of his application for admission to the NAF and the second resulting in the shut down of his clinic, Brett has turned from a quirky, conspiracy-leaning far right commenter who was at least coherent most of the time to a full on lying, tinfoil-hatted nut.

What happened to Brett?

[Nelson]

"Remember Kermit Gosnell, doing unsafe, illegal very late term abortions? How did he get his customers?"

What does Kermit Gosnell have to do with Planned Parenthood (the organization)? Nothing. Anti-abortionists just can't help but insinuate that Gosnell was a part of a vast conspiracy to perform illegal abortions instead of what he was, an individual criminal who had other individual criminals helping hom in his criminal endeavor. Which is why the vast majority of pro-choice supporters were horrified by what he did.

"Referrals from Planned Parenthood, that’s how."

That has been proved, repeatedly, to be a completely deceitful and misleading characterization. Gosnell, because he was an abortion provider, received patients from PP, who were completely unaware of his illegal activity. Saying otherwise is just disingenuous.

"I expect PP is relying on the same thing: Political protection from the laws they’re theoretically required to comply with."

Of course you do. Because that's what you want to believe.

Why would PP, a national organization who has a goal of providing reproductive health (the vast majority of which is completely unrelated to abortion), endanger their existence by knowingly conspiring with a criminal? The only way that makes sense is if you assume their goal is to provide any abortion, any time, for any reason, regardless of the law, as an organizational objective. Which is insane.

That, of course, is why anti-abortionists believe it.

[Nige]

Don't worry, if this story fails to stand up, the lie will still be out there.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The costs of that clear line are already piling up. At least two high-profile detransitioners, Cat Cattinson and Helena Kirschner, received testosterone from Planned Parenthood after a 30-minute appointment, which, in Cattinson’s case, took place over the phone. Kirschner stopped taking testosterone once her mental health deteriorated; Cattinson, a singer, stopped after it permanently destroyed her singing voice."

[Sarcastr0]

Remember how you said a couple of days ago no one was really concerned about adults and trans stuff?

No one bought that, and here is why.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember a few days ago when we were assured that you couldn't start this sort of treatment without careful evaluation?

Nobody bought that, and here is why.

Guys normally have to go through ten times this much hoop jumping to get a T prescription, prove we have clinically low T levels. Here they're treating it like an over the counter drug.

You think a guy could go to his doctor and say, "I want to get ripped, can you give me a prescription for Testosterone?" Any doctor who wouldn't tell him to take a hike would be considered to be running a prescription mill!

Well, that's what PP has become: A prescription mill for "transitioning".

[Nige]

Remember when places like freebeacon could be relied on for accurate reporting? Me neither.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got to make up for reduced income from fewer abortions.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know the legal requirements. It seems like neither do you, and neither does your source.

If this is illegal, so be it. If it's legal, so be it. If it's legal but you want it to be illegal, you'll need more justification than a partisan source telling an anecdote.

[David Nieporent]

Assuming for the sake of argument that the reporting on this anecdote itself is accurate, the point wouldn't be whether it's legal or illegal. The point is that it would contradict the claim that these sorts of treatments are only given out after long-term care and careful diagnosis.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, anyone saying 'this never happens' is asking for trouble.

This is, after the layers of fear, a policy argument.

And then the question is 1) whether that long term diagnosis is really important (I'd say yes), and 2) whether this happens enough to set up a whole regulatory thing to make sure it's mandatory and enforced (questionable from an anecdote)

[Nige]

‘it would contradict the claim that these sorts of treatments are only given out after long-term care and careful diagnosis.’

That was said in a discussion about children, not adults. If PP is one of the few places that doesn’t force adults to jump through hoops to placate transphobic culture warriors, then good for them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This appears to be Planned Parenthood's general practice:

In most cases your clinician will be able to prescribe hormones the same day as your first visit. No letter from a mental health provider is required.

[Nige]

That’s for an adult. Do you have something against adults getting prompt access to the health care they need?

'If you’re starting gender affirming hormone therapy, you’ll have an initial appointment with baseline lab work (blood draw) and then follow-up appointments'

I reckon this is primarily used by people already on hormone therapy.

[David Nieporent]

That’s for an adult. Do you have something against adults getting prompt access to the health care they need?

Um, you're begging the question, which is whether they in fact need it.

[Nige]

That's between them and their health practitioner.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That’s for an adult."

That's what this thread's about. Please try to keep up.

[Nige]

So what's the scandal?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's pretty well spelled out upthread.

[Nige]

So performative outrage at adults accessing health care.

[shawn_dude]

This is also false.

If you want testosterone and your employer-paid health insurance won't pay for it (which is likely in most cases), there are plenty of private-pay practices that will prescribe it. In larger cities, this is going to be more common given population densities. Where I live, they send someone to your door regularly to take blood samples and monitor your health for about $500/mo including the prescription. If you have the cash and a passably low testosterone count, you can get the drug legally and easily.

Note that the sort of prescription they'll give you won't get you jacked like some roid ranger in the gym.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now get the prescription a half hour later based on your just saying you want it.

I'm on T, cancer treatment basically neutered me, so I had a perfectly legit basis for the prescription. I still couldn't get it that fast, even with the diagnosis.

[Nelson]

Maybe you should have gone to Planned Parenthood.

[Voize]

On Tuesday you wrote:

Pronouns communicate information about the person they’re used for. If you demand that somebody use a pronoun that communicates information they know is false, you’re demanding they lie.

Now that you have been neutered do you still have preferred pronouns you expect others to respect?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why not? I'm still a male, in every cell of my body. I'm just sterile.

[Voize]

Because anyone who addresses you doesn't know what's in every cell of your body, any more than you have the results of a chromosomal analysis of anyone you address. You make that determination based on observations of secondary sex characteristics that may be maintained by means of sex hormone therapy, whether it is for a male cancer patient or a post-menopausal woman or a transgender individual.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think we are inexorably heading toward a civil war and when it is all over, those who survive will ask WHY.

It's just the mounting cumulative insanity.

[apedad]

You know, if there was some type of mass armed violence against the US, you would seriously lose.

Not only your immediate goal(s) but I'll say you'd lose 2A too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't think it will start as an armed revolt -- instead it will be more like what happened in Poland back in the '80s.

[Frank Drackman]

Who's going to "win"? the US Military? which is either 1: full of Right Wing MAGA Nazi's who are going to listen to some Fat ass (Redacted) Secretary of Defense, in which case "We" win or 2: full of Woke LGTBQ-MOUSE pansies, in which case "We" win.
How well did the US Military suppress the Afghanistan "Freedom Fighters"??

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I tend to think it would looks somewhat like the book, "Unintended Consequences", only without the happy ending. No set piece battles, nobody conveniently lining up in formations to be strafed, just a rising level of political assassination that threatens to make the nation ungovernable.

[Frank Drackman]

So like San Fran-Sissy-co/Seattle? not bad

[Nige]

Or The Turner Diaries.

[Frank Drackman]

which had a happy ending

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "I think we are inexorably heading toward a civil war and when it is all over, those who survive will ask WHY"

Nostradamus Ed makes his two-thousandth prediction of civil war!

[Idihax]

And yet you leftists think the people who desire to peg other men are going to be on the winning side. LOL

[David Nieporent]

The Spartans were famously terrible soldiers.

[Nelson]

No, I think a lot more military members take their oath to the Constitution more seriously than you assume. Just because they're conservative doesn't mean they're traitors.

[Martinned]

Leaving to one side whether any of that story really happened, why would an 18 year old need his parents' permission for anything?

[Michael P]

https://www.healthyplace.com/parenting/learning-disabilities/how-do-you-define-a-special-needs-child

In this case, the boy's diagnosis included ADHD with autistic traits, and even if he was 18 he may not have been able to give informed consent as a legal matter. The relevant legal mechanism is usually called conservatorship.

[Martinned]

Had he been placed under conservatorship? And what is the mechanism for any given doctor to be aware of any such thing if a patient walks into their practice?

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe talking to the person for more than a few minutes might help?

My point here was just that there wasn't any extensive psychiatric evaluation, or anything like that. Just walk in, and a half hour later you've got a prescription for a life changing drug.

We're told there are extensive safeguards to keep irreversible actions from being taken on a whim. Maybe at one time there were.

They're gone now.

[Nige]

Generating a bit of fuel to go after adult treatments are we?

[damikesc]

Yes, because they are certainly really strict on how they handle kids...they require EXTENSIVE counseling before they prescribe stuff.

...sure, no evidence exists that they do and some exists that they very much do not, but you do you.

[Nige]

No evidence 'exists' because there is absolutely no way in hell you or your favourite transphobic media outlets will ever talk to ordinary trans people going through the system. Just transphobic weirdos and angry detransitioners blaming everyone but themselves for what is a genuinely unhappy outcome.

[Michael P]

Healthcare providers are supposed to evaluate the capacity of a patient when providing care, and use a more formal process "if there is reason to question a patient's decision-making abilities". https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2018/0701/p40.html

That's a large part of why it is so shocking that this kind of life-altering prescription could be written in 30 minutes. It seems unlikely that a new provider could assess capacity and informed consent in that time, especially when the patient had severe autism-spectrum disorder and ADHD.

[Nige]

So shocking, in fact, that one almost doubts the veracity of the story and would like some corroboration.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - as usual - you are disregarding facts to push your agenda

[Nige]

Corroborate the facts, then get back to me. Adults using their special needs kid to run some sort of sting op is ethically dodgy on its face, who knows how much af any of the rest of it is true?

[Joe_dallas]

Planned Parenthood offers gender affirming hormone care for transgender and non-binary patients at our health centers in Alaska, Hawai'i, Idaho, and western ...

Gender Affirming Hormone Therapy available at several health centers.: - Feminizing Hormone Therapy including estrogen and spironolactone - Masculinizing ...

Hormone Therapy - First Visit

Planned Parenthood

No letter from a mental health provider is required. If you're starting gender affirming hormone therapy, you'll have an initial appointment with baseline lab ...

[Nige]

But these are for adults. Even the kid used in the story was an adult, albeit apparently conflating ADHD with mentally disabled. All the wailing has been about children. What happened to it being ok for adults?

[Joe_dallas]

PP is violating professional medical standards - providing hormones without proper mental health evaluations

Again - intentionally ignoring facts to promote your agenda

[Sarcastr0]

violating professional medical standards

Another area of Joe's expertise!

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 53 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
violating professional medical standards

"Another area of Joe’s expertise!"

Sacastro - Supposedly you have a college degree - can you at least try to demostrate some level of basic knowledge expected from a high school graduate

[Nige]

'providing hormones without proper mental health evaluations'

Just for hormones? For an adult? What's 'proper' in this case?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, this ain't high school stuff, Joe. Proper is a tricky thing, medically.

I didn't go to medical school, so while I have a take I also have humility to not put it forth as the obvious truth.

That's more your thing.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Yeah, this ain’t high school stuff, Joe. Proper is a tricky thing, medically.

"I didn’t go to medical school, so while I have a take I also have humility to not put it forth as the obvious truth."

Seriously - supposedly you have a college degree - How many doctors do you think would prescribe hormonal treatment for a 18 year old with autism without a proper mental evaluation. probably close to zero - yet you and nige defend the indefensible.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd need more info, autism, being a spectrum and all.

And you are begging the question as to what's a proper evaluation for this treatment. Which is, as I said, not a simple question.

[Nige]

'or a 18 year old with autism'

Being autistic is not the same as being mentally disabled.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 13 hours ago
"I’d need more info, autism, being a spectrum and all.

And you are begging the question as to what’s a proper evaluation for this treatment. Which is, as I said, not a simple question."

Sacastro - which is exactly why it is unethical to prescribe hormonal treatment without a full and proper medical and mental health evaluation.

[Nige]

Why? They're an adult.

[Sarcastr0]

*I* need more information than the shitty article you are citing.

That doesn't mean a medical professional needs more after they meet the person.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Michael Pinocchio extends his nose further.

First it was - as cited in the 'news' article "ADHD with autistic traits." Suddenly when his argument proves that he's just a fucking moron, Michael changes his diagnosis to "severe autism-spectrum disorder."

[Joe_dallas]

Jason -
As stated above - "PP is violating professional medical standards – providing hormones without proper mental health evaluations"

So, its relevant whether the guy had mild autism or severe autism, PP is still violating professional medical standards. Its one thing to prescribe the Pill, its quite another to prescribe hormonal treatment without a proper mental health professional , without consultation with a specialist in the field.

The depths you and nige will go through to push an agenda

[Nige]

I think the agenda here might actually be to deny health care to adult trans people.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm not pushing any agenda here, and haven't commented on the appropriateness or not of the situation.

I did comment on Michael's inability to tell the fucking truth.

Learn to read.

[Joe_dallas]

jason - It doesnt matter whether MP was exagerating the level of autism or not - Its simply not relevant to the inappropriate and unethical medical treatment by PP. Its virtually impossible to proper mental health and medical evaluation in 30 minutes , especially when done by a non speciallist.

In sum, you lashing out at MP for a non relevant issue and / or trivial issue that doesnt address the unethical medical treatment.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Falsely portraying the facts of the situation - aka lying, absolutely matters to anyone with a sense of ethics or morality. This isn't a court case where you can weasel out of accountability by claiming it isn't 'material.' It's a fucking lie.

Thank you for announcing clearly that integrity does not matter to the likes of you.

[Frank Drackman]

So he's got 2 made-up conditions, good thing they didn't know what Autism/ADHD(I thought it was "ADD") when Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Patton, Einstein, most normal men were growing up. Not wanting to sit still listening to some jerk-wad pontificate isn't a "Condition" it's frigging normal.

Frank "They said I had AD or something, wasn't really paying attention"

[Nelson]

"ADHD with autistic traits"

Neither of which prevent someone from understanding and consenting to pretty much anything. There us a vast difference between mental illness and legal incompetence.

"The relevant legal mechanism is usually called conservatorship."

And is there a conservatorship?

[VinniUSMC]

Fred was 18.

The line is drawn in the sand. It applies to everyone. Even people with special needs. Wise or not, the arbitrary line exists.

[Kazinski]

Not exactly, that's why they have conservatorships, to protect people with special needs from poor decisions.

Its not just for Brittany Spears.

[VinniUSMC]

Fair enough. I should have said, it applies to nearly everyone.

[Nelson]

"that’s why they have conservatorships"

Was there a conservatorship in this case? If not, why are you mentioning it as if it's relevant?

[shawn_dude]

If only the right was equally concerned regarding who can purchase a semi-automatic AR-15.

I've never heard of semi-automatic estrogen being used to take out a classroom full of children. Have you?

[Nige]

Oh no people getting prompt health care! The horror!

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot thinks chopping off dicks is "Health Care"

[Dr. Ed 2]

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

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah, the joys of fake-bipartisanship.

We always hear for calls of bipartisanship, and how politicians should have centrist proposals and ignore the extremist wings of their parties. And we just had that.

The GOP put up and passed a clean CR, which attracted significant numbers of votes from both sides of the spectrum, ignoring their hard right wing. You would expect this is a gesture of bipartisanship which would encourage cooperation from the Democrats in the future. You'd be right...just the wrong sort of cooperation.

Instead, the entire Democratic Caucus cooperated with the handful of hard right Republicans (who they claim to hate) to remove the speaker who just put up that wonderful bipartisan bill.

Yay, very short term political gain for the Dems!

Long term....well it's pretty clear what bipartisanship with Democrats gets you. The next GOP speaker will clearly know better.

[apedad]

"Instead, the entire Democratic Caucus COOPERATED (my emphasis) with the handful of hard right Republicans (who they claim to hate) to remove the speaker who just put up that wonderful bipartisan bill."

Ah, the joys of fake-truthfulness.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Cooperated is a strong word. Call it "Voted with" if you like.

[Sarcastr0]

'We didn't shut down the government yet, why are you so ungrateful?'

You have a real problem of only every looking left, AL.

Your party of choice is full of empowered lunatics and assholes. That's a GOP problem, it is not a Dem thing to solve.

[Armchair Lawyer]

When Democrats contribute to the problem, and vote out the moderate who just compromised with them.....

[Sarcastr0]

What did the Dems do to contribute?
The opposition party to the current speaker voting against the current speaker is how it's always worked.

Quit looking left - your house is in disorder and blaming the Dems harder won't fix it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's a fun bit of game theory, the iterative prisoners dilemma.

You can vote to betray or cooperate. And then you do it again. And then you do it again. and so on.

Typically both sides do well if they cooperate, while both sides do poorly if both betray. But the best case is if your side betrays, while the other side cooperates. Then you "win." The worst case is if you cooperate, while the other side betrays.

What typically happens is, both sides end up betraying over and over. But occasionally, one side makes a peace offering to cooperate. This can lead to an era where the other side takes up that cooperation, and it's generally pretty good, as both sides cooperate for a while.

Alternatively, that peace offering can just be betrayed for immediate gain. Then back to betrayals for a while.

That's what just happened. The GOP put up a cooperation flag. And the Democrats said "Ah HAH!" and betrayed.

[Nige]

‘Help us, we hate you have vowed never to co-operate with you, get punished by our own side when we do co-operate with you and are profoundly dysfunctional and unserious, help us!’

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not going to comment on your game theory analysis of the situation, though the idea that you've solved the prisoner's dilemma and the answer is the Dems are wrong is hilariously ignorant of the whole dilemma.

Bottom line - this isn’t game theory, AL. This is real life, not some tactical optimization drill.

One clue that you're just out to lunch is that you’re taking game theory and trying to make a moral argument out of it. What a laugh.

And in real life, the GOP fucking sucks and the Dems are not responsible for picking their opposition up when it’s fighting with itself.
This is the case even if the GOP manages not to shut down the country for 40-some days.

[Krayt]

“Reward your friends but punish your enemies” — The Kennedy Rule

In any case, the past 6 ye...12...50 years have been one upsmanship of betraying norms tit for tat worse and worse.

[shawn_dude]

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, since you don't understand game theory and how it applies to real world situations, it's better that you don't comment.

But, for those more educated among us, it's worth looking up and considering.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh I understand game theory at least as well as you do.

And I understand it's limits. Which you do not.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You apparently understand "its" limits about as well as you understand grammar.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, I sure am owned.

[hobie]

Amos 'whatabout' Arch. Do you not recall that right up until the minute he was voted out, McCarthy was blaming all this on the Democrats. So why would they cooperate with a guy who is insulting them?

[David Nieporent]

And, indeed, reports are that there were conversations between McCarthy and the Democrats, and he said that he wouldn't offer them anything for their support.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd primarily criticize him for expecting them to defend him. It wasn't a reasonable expectation.

[Nige]

What are you on about? He didn't expect them to defend him, he just wants to blame them for what his own party did.

[Don Nico]

"That’s a GOP problem, it is not a Dem thing to solve."
true enough, but the chances of funding bills by mid-November have been lowered.
helping to choose chaos was not good for the country

[loki13]

It is not the Democratic Party's job to bail out the GOP from their self-inflicted mess.

As has been pointed out, McCarthy did not offer anything (anything) to the Democrats for their support, and while he did, at the very last minute, do the right thing in order to keep the government open, the number of times he did the wrong thing before that made him a completely untrustworthy partner.

It does take a certain odd view to look at this and say that what happened to McCarthy is the Democrat's fault.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Murc’s Law.

[Kazinski]

But the Democrats also voted for the motion to vacate, so its not just a GOP mess is it?

We'll sort it out, and I certainly hope that the result will be spending cuts that McCarthy wouldn't go along with. And once the house does pass a budget, I don't think they will care to negotiate further.

[Sarcastr0]

The opposition party always votes for any motion to vacate. How is this time somehow special?

[Don Nico]

Because this country cannot stand another all year CR or worse a pork loaded omnibus bill.
Once in a while put the nation ahead of partisan politics.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's the GOP's fault.

You're the one playing partisan politics by pretending this is not the GOP's fault. Their fucking nuts, and that's not some background state that the Dems must navigate in.

It says a lot that you insist the Dems 'gotta be responsible' and give the GOP a pass.
The Dems are acting responsible by making the GOP deal with the consequences of it's actions as the majority party.

[Don Nico]

"You’re the one playing partisan politics by pretending this is not the GOP’s fault."
Where the hell do you read that?

You are so blinded by partisanship that you always find that fault is one-sided.
Of course it is the fault of the Wing-nut caucus. Where did I say that it wasn't. What I said is that the malfeasance of the GOP does NOT excuse the Dem's from amplifying the paralysis caused by the GOP.
Where did say that the Dems should give the GOP a pass? Nowhere. But that is your usual BS style of argument that grossly distorts what others say and then refutes your own BS in an insulting way. No wonder you get so many insults from the right wing commenters on this blog

[Sarcastr0]

No, I’m looking beyond 45 days.

It’s not statesmanship or adult to indulge this. And make no mistake, it is giving the GOP a pass. This is their leadership fight.

And it’s not the wing-nut caucus it’s *the entire GOP*. They’re enabling the caucus. The Dems have their wackoes, and yet none of this drama.

It's pretty partisan to blame Dems for anything in this whole nonsense.

[Nige]

You can acknowledge the assymetrical dysfunction and craziness of the GOP and still demand or expect bipartisanship?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Allowing the entire nation to see that the GOP is corrupted with dipshit nutjobs who cannot govern is good for the country.

Republicans did this to themselves by allowing people like Gaetz, MTG, etc. into their midst. It's their fucking problem to solve.

[shawn_dude]

This assumes that McCarthy was good for the nation. That is debatable. This might force the moderate wing of the Republican party to push their fringe to the side and find a candidate for speaker who can navigate a House with a 6 vote majority. McCarthy wasn't that person; he was a Trump apologist who found it easier to get 8 extremists to vote for him in exchange for promises he would or could not keep.

Speaking of politics over the good of the nation... where was the GOP during Trump's second impeachment? The Democrats aren't the only adults in the room, even if they're the only ones acting like it. If the GOP is unable to police its own whackos and "put the nation ahead of partisan politics," it doesn't automatically imply the Democrats are obligated to enable them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"candidate for speaker who can navigate a House with a 6 vote majority"

Scalise and Jordan are the leading candidates.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Putting a former wrestling coach involved with sex offenses into the speakership would be a classic GOP move. Although I suppose it’s a step up to have a mere non-reporter involved in a cover-up instead of an actual child molester.

And here I thought the GOP was incapable of moral growth.

[loki13]

"But the Democrats also voted for the motion to vacate, so its not just a GOP mess is it?"

WHAT??????

There is a reason that this never happens!

1. The GOP were the idiots that allowed a motion to vacate to be brought by a single member.

2. The GOP were the idiots that elected Matt Gaetz.

3. The GOP were the idiots that allowed Matt Gaetz to bring the motion to vacate for .... reasons. Hey, ya gotta fundraise, right?

4. Finally, the GOP could have simply voted to keep him in. Without a single vote from the opposition. And they didn't.

Once again, it is not the job of the Democratic Party to make sure that McCarthy is the Speaker! The Democrats would always vote for a motion to vacate. The Democrats do not want McCarthy. They want Jeffries. Because he's a Democrat. That won't happen. But never, in the history of ever, has it been the job of the opposition in a legislature to vote against this type of motion.

I can't even. This is bizarro-land. Oh, and if McCarthy actually wanted some ... ANY ... Democratic support, he probably should have offered them something. Oh well.

[OtisAH]

Yes, MAGA voted for the rule change but it was McCarthy himself who agreed to the single senator threshold. (Another data point in the “McCarthy is a dumb” hypothesis.)

Also, I suspect that if McCarthy had given Dems even the slightest indication he could be trusted and negotiates in good faith, they probably would have saved him. Yet another data point…

[Don Nico]

"the Democratic Party’s job"
True enough, but it is their job to be adults and hold their nose until finding bills get passed by late November. Instead they opted to stand on the sidelines and laugh. I am not impressed.

I did not say what happened to McCarthy was the Dem's fault. Parse what I said more carefully. They committed the management error of letting sunk cost determine a future action. Does not work in business, in war, or in governing.

[loki13]

You're assuming (facts not in evidence) that McCarthy was worse than the possible alternatives.

Based on what we've seen so far this year, that's not necessarily true. The majority of the GOP caucus will continue to be ... if not moderate, at least reachable on occasion. And the loonies will continue to try to burn everything down.

If anything, this might have a salutary effect on the GOP. And if not, the situation isn't any worse than it was. Again, there was absolutely no reason for the Democrats to trust McCarthy, and the fact that he eventually did one right thing, kinda, at the last minute, doesn't mean that all the rest of his leadership wasn't an utter s***show.

[Sarcastr0]

it is their job to be adults

And nothing whatsoever about the GOP.

In the long run, being 'the adults' is not acting over and over to enable lunatic children.

[Don Nico]

"nothing whatsoever about the GOP"
a typically partisan complaint from you.

You care more about the politics of "bailing out" that doing the best thing for the Nation.

Let's not hear you bitch and moan when there are no spending bills in November.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep calling me partisan, which is a tellingly empty name-calling.

So is saying 'do what I say For The Good Of the Nation.' Wrapping yourself in the flag doesn't make you any more right, dude.

I think your idea of the moral equities is wrong. I've explained why, both formally (the is the GOP's mess), and functionally (this doesn't stop in 45 days if you indulge it).

Your responses are getting less and less substantive, for some reason.

[shawn_dude]

There is no evidence McCarthy would have been able to pass any spending bills before December. All he needed to do to keep his speakership was reach across the isle and make a deal with about 10 Democrats. He wasn't willing to do that. If he couldn't do that this week, where is the evidence that he'd do it next month when yet another motion to vacate would hit the floor?

If the GOP is unable to govern, keeping them afloat isn't the responsible thing to do. If this fiasco leads to the GOP moderates taking control, then we're all better off and the likelihood of spending bills increases.

[Bob from Ohio]

"GOP moderates taking control'

Scalise and Jordan are the leading candidates for speaker.

[Nelson]

Neither of them can get 218. One is always crazier than the other, but who's worse depends on the day.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It sure seems pretty childish to vote out the Speaker who just gave you a clean CR....

But that's my view. Two sets of children. The handful of hard right Republicans. And the entire Democratic Caucus.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Thank god we all know how objective you actually are...

[Nelson]

“It sure seems pretty childish to vote out the Speaker who just gave you a clean CR….”

Why? No one wanted a CR, clean or otherwise. And Democrats are among the overwhelming majority of people who don’t trust McCarthy, so it makes sense that they’d roll the dice and hope for a more trustworthy Speaker this time.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure that's true, given the GOP's constant drama over this baseline requirement.

And even if you were correct, Dems stepping in to save the GOP from itself and thus letting the GOP take the government hostage over and over is not a sustainable policy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Republicans love wife-beater logic.

[OtisAH]

“C’mon, baby, you know I don’t want to crash the economy and upend our government to replace it with an authoritarian system. So don’t make me, okay?”

[Sarcastr0]

Kevin Drum has a list of shit McCarthy has done:

*Kevin McCarthy was one of the first Republicans to make a U-turn on the January 6th insurrection and deny that anything wrong happened.
*McCarthy negotiated a spending level of $1.59 trillion for discretionary programs during the debt ceiling standoff. Within days he reneged on that and demanded a much lower spending level.
*He did the same dozens of times, agreeing on some legislation or other and then immediately reneging under pressure from the MAGA wing of his party.
*He made a handshake deal with President Biden to provide more funding for Ukraine. Practically before he made it back to the Capitol he had reneged on that.
*He promised he wouldn't open an impeachment inquiry without a full vote of the House, and then did it anyway on his own.
*He took a bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act that passed 58-1 in the House Armed Services Committee and larded it up with right-wing poison pills that then passed only on a pure partisan vote and never had any chance of passing the Senate.

At the end, McCarthy offered nothing to Democrats as a token of good faith and even said he didn't expect any of their votes.

[Armchair Lawyer]

He already made an offer of good faith. A Clean CR, no spending cuts.

Actions speak louder than words. When push came to shove, Democrats said "we'd rather have disfunction than the guy who just gave us a clean CR we can vote for"

[Sarcastr0]

That is being baseline responsible.
You don't get a cookie for keeping the country open. Especially given all the other bullshit I posted and you just ignored because you don't like to look at the GOP.

The GOP can't stop punching itself in the face and you can't stop blaming the Dems.

[Michael P]

In fact, prolonging an unsustainable status quo is baseline irresponsible.

[Sarcastr0]

Take that up with the GOP.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Murc’s Law.

[Michael P]

We were talking about McCarthy's agency. Thanks for playing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Were we? Seems pretty clear this was about democrats’ responsibility

[shawn_dude]

Republican Gaslighting.

[Michael P]

Leftist troll stupidity.

Even if you ignore the whole start of the thread, you can be assured that S_0 would not say “That is being baseline responsible. You don’t get a cookie for keeping the country open.” about a Democrat. In his book, Democrats are bravely saving America from dire threats like expecting people to work hard and be on time. They get cookies for not running over children in the crosswalk.

[Sarcastr0]

Counterfactual hypocrisy sure does prove stuff!

[Don Nico]

Sure, that is all water under the bridge and we face a funding crisis in 40 days. So look backwards not forward. And shoot McCarthy in December

[Brett Bellmore]

So, don't go on vacation, get back to work on the funding bills.

I gather actually having a budget is a bridge too far, at this point.

[Nelson]

Regular order has been a bridge too far for over a quarter century. It's been omnibus or shutdown for way too long.

[Sarcastr0]

Your time horizon is incorrect.

McCarthy/GOP will just do this and other bad stuff again and again unless the Dems act like the opposition. Which is what they are doing.

Long-term responsibility to the country is let the GOP fuck it up - they're in the majority and have determined to fuck it up.
Papering over their shit over and over again will just result in more shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

"let the GOP fuck it up "

I don't want to hear you complaining about the November government "shutdown" and no more Ukraine money then.

[Nige]

'Please don't point out how the GOP are fucking everything up.'

[Bob from Ohio]

He wants those things to happen.

[Sarcastr0]

What do I want to happen?

[Bob from Ohio]

A shutdown and no Ukraine aid. Its the foreseeable result of the Dems joining the 8 mutineers and letting the "GOP fuck it up".

Foreseeable things are intended.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you know that's not what I want. Fuck off with that consequentialist bullshit.

[Nige]

No, Republicans want those things to happen.

[shawn_dude]

"Look what you made me do!"

Pure gaslighting.

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP is in the majority, Bob. I don't want to hear you ignoring how much they suck.

[Don Nico]

"Your time horizon is incorrect."
No, your sense of what responsible action is what is incorrect.

[Sarcastr0]

No U is a childish argument, Don.

I'm hardly the only one telling you you're full of it here.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bad stuff like...another clean CR?

Well, McCarthy sure can't do that now. And you've basically ensured whatever future speaker there is won't.

[Nelson]

Yes, another short-term CR is a bad thing. Just like the first one was. The only thing worse would be a shutdown.

[Frank Drackman]

Damn, didn't realize McCarthy was that good!

[Nige]

'well it’s pretty clear what bipartisanship with Democrats gets you'

Have they tried actually being bipartisan or just whining that the Dems actually want something out of bipartisan deals therefore bipartisanship is fake?

[Armchair Lawyer]

See the CR that just passed....

[Nige]

Wow, the bare minimum to keep government functioning for a while longer, give them medals.

[Bob from Ohio]

Enjoy it, probably will not be another one this calendar year.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Only if the GOP "moderates" don't take back control of their party. There are more than enough people who know what the right thing to do is that can, at bare minimum, pass a CR. The Democrats are willing to. They just need a responsible House leader and about 10 Republicans.

If the GOP grinds the country's government and economy to a halt, that's obviously on them.

But here you are hoping for that outcome. What a loser.

[apedad]

BTW AL, your hero Newt Gingrich disagrees with you.

“'These are opportunists who are totally irresponsible,' Gingrich said. 'All eight of these guys should get defeated in the next Republican primaries because they’re not really Republicans.'

The Republicans who voted to end McCarthy’s Speakership had complained that he put a government-funding measure, known as a continuing resolution (CR), on the House floor Saturday that ended up winning more support from Democrats than Republicans. That bill was quickly passed by the House and Senate and prevented a shutdown.

But Gingrich pointed out the eight Republicans voted with every Democrat in the chamber to win the vote ending McCarthy’s Speakership Tuesday.

'[For them] to have the hypocrisy to say they were mad at Kevin McCarthy because he had worked with the Democrats on the CR, while … the only hope they had for winning [last night] was to have all the Democrats vote with them,' Gingrich said."

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not sure how that disagrees with what I said.

[apedad]

Re-read the last sentence and also, look up the definition of cooperation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Cooperation is a strong word. Call it "voting with".

[Nige]

How come they couldn't get Republicans to cooperate/vote with? Why are Republicans blaming Dems for something Republicans voted for? Oh, because Republicans are infants and not held responsible for their actions.

[apedad]

The NFL is in full swing and you're not allowed to move the goalposts.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Many people consider "cooperation with" and "voting with" to be synonyms in the context of a Congressional vote.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Maybe it's many, but only those who don't understand the word games you are trying to play and the blame shifting you are trying to achieve.

The GOP did this to the country and to themselves. If the 90+ GOP members angry at Gaetz would look in the mirror and choose not to be adults rather than more timid versions of Gaetz, then they would easily elect a responsible leader of integrity and work with Democrats (who control the White House and Senate) to keep the government funded and the economy humming.

Only anarchists who want to burn everything down so they can loot the rubble want a different outcome.

[Armchair Lawyer]

McCarthy tried "working with" the Democrats.

Look what that got him. An entire Democratic Caucus voting him out as speaker.

This is on the Dems.

[David Nieporent]

When did he try working with them?

[Sarcastr0]

An entire Democratic Caucus voting him out as speaker is the usual thing the opposition party does.

Retroactively making there be a deal for the CR is a lie, and also looks pretty bad for the GOP.

But anything to punch left for you!

[NOVA Lawyer]

If by “working with”, you mean "lying to, lying about, and otherwise abusing the trust and good will of", sure.

He made multiple promises to them that he then broke. You might retort that he didn't only do that to Democrats, he also did that to Republicans. Well, yes, he did. But that's even more reason no one should want him as speaker. He has no credibility.

As Sarcastro consistently points out and you ignore, the minority party typically votes against the majority party speaker. The Democrats did what minority parties do AND, in this instance, they had good reason to as McCarthy had broken deals with them on multiple occasions. They owed him less than nothing.

This is on McCarthy and the "moderate" Republicans who, rather than trying to govern responsibly and tell their constituents the truth, invited in and coddled the likes of Matt Gaetz, MTG, and the other self-promoting, soulless loonies.

Like Trump, Matt Gaetz is simply an execrable symptom of the rot at the core of today's GOP. Hopefully, they'll realize that integrity does matter and start showing some.

This is on the GOP.

[Nelson]

"McCarthy tried “working with” the Democrats."

No he didn't. He repeatedly lied to them and reneged on deals. None of them trusted him any further than they could spit because he wasn't trustworthy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gingrich is the guy who promised Republicans balanced budget and term limits amendments. Then brought them to the floor in multiple versions so that everybody who needed to be able to say they'd voted for them could, without risk of any one version actually passing and being sent to the states.

Afterwards his defense was essentially, "I only promised a vote on them, not that we'd try to pass them."

So, yeah, Gingrich knows about hypocrisy. First hand.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not so much that you'd expect continued cooperation, as that McCarthy had apparently actually sought and received a promise from Pelosi that the Democrats would save him from any motion to vacate the Speakership.

And she reneged.

Why he didn't anticipate that I have no idea, anymore than I understand why he'd think he could continue to be an effective Speaker in a majority Republican House after relying on Democratic votes to survive such a motion.

[apedad]

" . . . that McCarthy had apparently actually sought and received a promise from Pelosi . . . . "

Not sure how much of that is true but Pelosi is in CA for the memorial services of Sen. Feinstein this week and did not vote on the motion to vacate Tuesday, so she wasn't on-site to try something - if your statement is true.

[Sarcastr0]

McCarthy was all over the map on what deals he had made with Dems:

McCarthy said Tuesday he wasn't expecting Democrats to back him up. "If five Republicans go with Democrats, then I'm out,"

[Armchair Lawyer]

You don't expect Democrats to keep their promises. You expect them to betray them.

[Martinned]

What promises, exactly?

[Nige]

The made-up ones in their heads.

[Mr. Bumble]

See Bellmore above.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : “See Bellmore above”

But there’s three problem’s with Brett’s post:

1. It’s just another example of his endless victimhood whinging.
2. It relies on McCarthy’s honesty, which is dubious in the extreme.
3. And if Pelosi promised? That was before a dozen broken promises by McCathy to the Dems.

So why expect the Democrats to do what no opposition party has ever done? To save a man that repeatedly screwed them over and lied to their face? Perhaps Brett or Bumble can answer that.

As for McCarthy’s honesty, just look at his endless whining press conference. He attempted to explain why he broke every promise made to the Democrats in the debt ceiling agreement. The spending amounts he agreed to (McCarthy said) were only “upper limits”, therefore he could reduce them at will. (Plus I think he had his fingers crossed behind his back)

An “explanation” like that is more humiliating than leaving the lies unaddressed.

[Don Nico]

"So why expect the Democrats to do what no opposition party has ever done"
Because they claim to hold the country more dear than political gamesmanship.

[Sarcastr0]

The reason why minority parties don't get involved in the majority party's internal struggles is *to avoid political gamesmanship*.

[Don Nico]

yet that is what they did at a most inopportune time.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Don.

This is the same as it ever was - minority parties not getting involved in the majority party’s internal struggles.

Seems you should do some reading on the history and context here before you pop off again.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's precisely, as Sarcatro says in different words: It's because Democrats hold the country more dear than their political ends that they refuse to band-aid the sucking chest wound to the nation that the GOP is currently inflicting.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The minority party got involved already.

If they didn't want to get involved, they all could have just abstained from the vote.

[grb]

1. No minority party – Democratic or Republican – has ever supported any faction in a speakership vote.

2. Every previous speakership election in modern political history got a unanimous “no” vote from the minority party, be it Republican or Democratic.

3. So why should it happen otherwise here? Remember: McCarthy repeatedly lied to the Democrats. He repeatedly lied about the Democrats. He repeated broke his promises to the Democrats. He refused to offer anything for their support.

4. I suppose you’ll say, sure, McCarthy is a spineless lying weasel, but whoever replaces him will be worse. First, that may not be true: Steve Scalise would probably be an improvement over the invertebrate previously holding the office. Second, it’s not the Democrat’s problem the GOP is such a shit-show.

5. And of course that’s the real source of your whining, Armchair. Your party is a pathetic joke and it has to be someone else’s fault.

6. But it isn’t.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh...

Look at history. We've had votes for Speaker in the 20th Century, where the speaker was voted in by unanimous voice vote.

So, the rest of your points are nonsense.

[Magister]

The two cases in the 20th century where the speaker was chosen by unanimous voice vote were to replace the speaker who had died suddenly. In both cases there was a substantial Democratic majority, so it wasn't likely to change the result if the minority party had objected to unanimous consent. It has never been done at the usual start of Congress, ever. (19th century case where the speaker resigned to become vice president and there was unanimous consent to a speaker was for one final day of the previous Congress.)

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t expect Democrats to keep their promises. You expect them to betray them.

Weird choice for McCarthy to get a promise from Pelosi, then, eh?

Your mania to only look left has made you pretty inconsistent.

[Nige]

Weirder to invoke it when she's absent.

[David Nieporent]

Weirder still to invoke it when Pelosi isn't the Democratic leader and couldn't speak for them. Not that the actual Democratic leader (Jeffries) could make such a promise either.

[Don Nico]

when a caucus votes unanimously, they have been whipped to do so

[David Nieporent]

I mean, this is ignorant and wrong under any circumstances, but it's particularly stupid here. This is a vote for speaker, not a vote on ethanol subsidies. No member of one party has ever voted for the other party's speaker candidate. No whipping needed.

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case, I find my self in agreement. This was a perfectly normal vote, it would have required whipping to get votes across the aisle.

Why McCarthy would have ever expected the Democrats to save him in the event of a vote is beyond me, but if he really did expect that, it demonstrates he really wasn't fit for the job.

[OtisAH]

You are literally the only source I’ve seen report that Pelosi, who was out of town for Feinstein’s funeral, promised McCarthy Dems would keep cleaning up the shits he leaves on the House floor.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kevin McCarthy, At Farewell Press Conference, Settles Some Scores And Offers Advice To Next Speaker: “Change The Rules” – Update

"McCarthy also chided Democrats, claiming that before he became speaker, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told him that she would have his back should he face a motion to vacate. Instead, all Democrats voted for it."

[OtisAH]

“Before he became speaker.”

Which means “some 9 months ago.”

Which means “Before he started reneging on every deal he struck with Dems AND turning around, going on the Sunday Showz, and accusing Dems of wanting the government to shutdown the day after they joined him to pass the continuing resolution.”

Which means “Once again, you’re a disingenuous POS.”

[David Nieporent]

Based on multiple reports, what apparently happened there is that McCarthy put forth the CR assuming that the Democrats wouldn't vote for it. So the GOP had their talking points all ready: Democratic intransigence shut down the government. But the Democrats surprised him by supporting it, and it passed. So McCarthy and other GOPers resolved that inconvenient issue by pretending that this hadn't happened and going on the talk shows and attacking the Democrats for failing to support it.

But of course that didn't fool the Crazy Caucus in the GOP, who knew that McCarthy had used Democratic votes to pass his bill, and decided to take him down.

[OtisAH]

Along with those is also years of people, including folks he likes, allegedly saying “McCarthy is a dumb.” I subscribe to this for many reasons but don’t know. However, heading into the Showz with the same talking point he wanted to use if the CR was defeated is a data point in favor of the allegation that McCarthy is a dumb.

[shawn_dude]

There was an awful lot of McCarthy's actions in between Pelosi making any agreement then and the vote this week. Also, Jeffries is the minority leader now, not Pelosi. What deal did McCarthy make with Jeffries? Did he reach out to Jeffries when the motion to vacate was brought up and negotiate support from a mere 2 Democrats?

With a slim 6 vote majority, any party in power is going to have to strike a more bipartisan tone to get anything done. That means treating the opposition party with some deference and building trust with a governing body of moderates from both parties.

[bernard11]

McCarthy had apparently actually sought and received a promise from Pelosi that the Democrats would save him from any motion to vacate the Speakership.

I'm sure you have that from a reliable source.

[jb]

McCarthy's problems was that he was a liar who wouldn't actually stick to deals he made. Sarcastr0 already posted a list of such reversals, but the cherry on the cake was probably him publicly the case that the Democrats wanted a shutdown just days after more of them voted for the CR than Republicans did. That's not bipartisanship, even if he needed their help to prevent the shutdown.

To prove this point: one of the Republicans that voted him out, Nancy Mace, didn't do so because he put forward the CR but rather because he had also repeatedly lied to her about legislation that he'd said he would bring to the floor but never did.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Besides being a reprehensible person and a weak leader, he was in a no win situation. There are more Democrats in the House than Republicans who support him. And if he reaches out to make deals with the Democrats, he loses almost all of his Republican support. He never had a chance, and the deals he made to initially win the speakership just papered over the cracks.

[Sarcastr0]

I thought he was safe, with only Gaetz angling for his slot. Welp.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yeah, I didn't think House Republicans as a group would let this happen. It never would've happened when ol' Tom DeLay was part of the House leadership. Gaetz would've been squashed like a bug.

[Don Nico]

"Besides being a reprehensible person and a weak leader, he was in a no win situation. "
That is correct. At least he took the loss personally rather than shutting down the government

[shawn_dude]

The GOP is largely ungovernable right now, but he knew that going in given his flip-flop on the insurrection, the 15 votes to seat him, and all the deals he had to make with his far-right wing that he probably knew were unlikely to happen.

What does it say about the GOP that he loses his own party's support if he makes bipartisan deals? I'd always thought the wrangling between opposition parties is what resulted in solid, bipartisan law-making that reflected the best of our government. But if the majority of the Republicans would have voted against him if he had gotten even 8 Democrats to vote to keep him? that's a solid example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"if [the Republican Speaker of the House] reaches out to make deals with the Democrats, he loses almost all of his Republican support"

Does everyone understand this is the problem? The Democrats control the White House and the Senate and the Republicans have a narrow numerical in the (quite obviously) uncontrolled House, yet Republicans will revolt if their leader makes a deal with the Democrats?

Where are all the people talking about the good of the country? The Democrats are just supposed to let Republicans get everything they want for the good of the country despite controlling the White House, Senate, and basically half of the House?

How about 10, it only takes 10, Republicans put the good of the country above partisanship?

[Nelson]

"Ah, the joys of fake-bipartisanship."

When your opponents are in the process of screwing themselves, conventional wisdom is to let them.

The CR wasn't a bipartisan bill that McCarthy put to a vote because he wanted it. He put it up because he had to. That isn't bipartisanship by any sane definition of it.

Bipartisanship involves including the opposition in the crafting of legislation. Passing a bill with bipartisan support is a completely different beast. It's the difference between substance and form.

Do you think "bipartisan votes" and "bipartisan bills" are interchangeable terms? Completely synonymous? Exactly the same thing? Or do you think there is a difference between form and substance?

[Magister]

I would think that "bipartisanship" would cover a range of "working together"; I don't see the distinction over bipartisan votes versus bipartisan bills. Can you have a bipartisan bill that passes but doesn't get a bipartisan vote? I suppose you could propose a bipartisan bill that nobody votes for, or a partisan bill that gets some irrelevant votes from the other party, but a bill that doesn't pass or one that would have passed with only one party isn't what I would call bipartisanship.

"What party should the speaker of the House be from" is pretty unlikely to be decided by bipartisan compromise; "keep the government functioning a little longer" is an important interest for all but a few radical nuts, and sane people from either single party were not a majority, so it had to be bipartisan, and it's not fake just because something else could not get a bipartisan result.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Looks like Biden and his appointees may have been interfering in his son's case.

16 days after Biden took the presidency, Biden appointed AAGs were demanding a briefing on the criminal charges against Hunter Biden.

Why are newly appointed AAGs demanding a briefing on a fairly low level case? Do they do this will all of them? Or just the ones who have the last name Biden?

https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/new-biden-administration-doj-officials-requested-briefings-hunter

[Sarcastr0]

Briefings about a politically spicy case you have authority over is not evidence of interference.

This stuff gets weaker and weaker.

[Armchair Lawyer]

When the politically spicy case is about your son, or the son of the guy who just appointed you....

Step one to interfering is getting the briefing.

[Sarcastr0]

You're arguing to conflict out everyone appointed by Biden in any investigation of Hunter.
That's not how conflicts of interest have ever worked.

So you get that wrong, in an instrumental way.
And then you claim it's not just a conflict but actual evidence of interference.

As I said, incredibly weak.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"You’re arguing to conflict out everyone appointed by Biden in any investigation of Hunter."

Well, did they NEED to be involved at all? No.

Why did they get involved? Because it was Hunter.

[Sarcastr0]

did they NEED to be involved at all? No.

This was a case under their authority, and one with plenty of potential for trouble due to GOP politicizing it.

I think it’s good that they kept an eye on it, actually.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I see... because of the GOP (who had no authority over the case or individuals in it), the Biden Appointed Peoples (who DID have authority over the case and individuals involved in it), they NEEDED to be involved and give "oversight" to the career individuals who were handling the case without politics intervening...

Wow. The doublethink involved here is stunning.

[apedad]

Are you the same guys who complained about the FBI having LACK of oversight of their personnel?

[Michael P]

No, we usually complain about that fish rotting from the head.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say need, that's your weird goalposts. People do stuff that's a good idea to do but they don't strictly need to do it all the time.

The idea that the GOP is not politicizing the Hunter Biden stuff because they have no formal authority over it may be the dumbest thing you've ever written.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Of course it's a "good idea" for Joe to order his newly appointed AAGs to "check in on" his son's case. For Joe.

That way he can see what he needs to do to help out his son. Maybe have his men order the IRS agents investigating the case off it.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe didn't order anything, though.

Nor does does he have 'his men.'

Your source supports none of that.

[Brett Bellmore]

You’re really big on things just magically happening after Joe took office, without Joe having had anything to do with them.

Illegal immigration skyrockets when he takes office. Nothing to do with him.

Classified documents followed him around. Wasn't him taking them, though.

And Hunter gets special treatment by the DOJ as soon as he takes office. But Joe wasn't behind that, either.

Things just magically happen around him, it's mysterious.

[Nige]

There's stuff that's attributed to direct intervention by Biden regardless of whether he directly intervened or not, and there's stuff that Trump actually did, like commit fraud and sexual assault, that just don't matter.

[Sarcastr0]

In general, I require evidence of causation. I don't res ipsa my way into a puppetmaster.
You, on the other hand....

People managing a case asking for an update is not evidence of Joe Biden's puppetmastery, Brett.

That's normal stuff, not some magic thing happening.

You're absolutely getting worse at critical thinking lately.

[Nige]

'Why are newly appointed AAGs demanding a briefing on a fairly low level case?'

Why are Republicans applying so much pressure and drawing so much attention and telling so many lies about a fairly low level case? If 'getting briefings' is the best 'interference' you can dig up, you're pretty desperate.

[LawTalkingGuy]

New DOJ supervisors : hey what’s going on with the Hunter Biden case?

House Republicans during their umpteenth hearing on Hunter Biden: for the second time i would like to show you Hunter Biden’s penis.

[Krychek_2]

Um, no. As politically sensitive as that case has the potential to be, it would be wholly irresponsible for them not to be kept in the loop. Being kept in the loop is not the same as interfering. As usual, Sarcastro nailed it: This just gets weaker and weaker.

[David Nieporent]

If you say "demanding" fifty more times, maybe it will stop being your silly spin and become reality.

[OtisAH]

Hah!

[Mr. Bumble]

On a lighter note:
Does anyone else see a resemblance between Judge Engoron and Austin Pendleton, the actor who played the speech impaired public defender in "My Cousin Vinny"?

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of, but closer to Larry David, and nowhere near the resemblance between Hunter Biden and Jack Smith, I still want to see them in the same place.

Frank

[apedad]

Washington Man Sentenced for Hate Crime Targeting LGBTQI+ Community at Seattle Nightclub

Kalvinn Garcia, 26, of Sedro Woolley, was sentenced to 48 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release for his bias-motivated arson at Queer/Bar, a nightclub and event space in Seattle.

According to facts admitted in his guilty plea, on Feb. 24, 2020, Garcia set fire to the contents of a dumpster in the alley directly behind Queer/Bar. Garcia was arrested only minutes after setting the fire. Garcia admitted to law enforcement that he set the fire and that he targeted Queer/Bar because it angered him to see a sign that said “queer.” Garcia also told officers, “I think it’s wrong that we have a bunch of queers in our society.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/washington-man-sentenced-hate-crime-targeting-lgbtqi-community-seattle-nightclub

Okay . . . which one of you is Kalvinn?

[Nelson]

I would guess Rob Misek or BCD.

[Martinned]

Is this a good place for complaining that the Nobel committee gave the Literature prize to a Norwegian? And one that writes Nynorsk to boot? How about giving it to someone who isn't Scandinavian or writes in English or French for a change?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well any group that could give the Peace Prize to Arafat shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Martinned]

They gave it to Kissinger too.

But you know that that's a different Nobel committee right? The peace prize is even in a different country.

[Mr. Bumble]

[Bob from Ohio]

Who cares. Its a joke award.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's. Sorry, pet peeve. Carry on.

[OtisAH]

You are just the saddest loser imaginable. And around here that is quite an accomplishment.

[Don Nico]

no Bob, that is the peace prize.

[Bob from Ohio]

Both are jokes. The one recent criteria seems to be that no one reads your books.

[Don Nico]

Bob, you consistently show that there are even more topics about which you know zip.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Bob from Minnesota won one. A few people do listen to his songs.

[Don Nico]

They give prizes to those from other countries on a regular basis. But I would have preferred that the Prize went to Lars Gustafsson with whom I share a book.

[John F. Carr]

Is there any good place? The Nobel for literature has never felt relevant to me. I was exposed to world literature in school and it was never relevant to me. I have read works by about 10% of the winners.

[Don Nico]

John,
Tell us how attosecond pulses have changed your life.

[John F. Carr]

I have not read up on the history of the attosecond pulse award. Some past prizes have been for life-altering inventions, for example:

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2019 is awarded to John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino for their contributions to the development of the lithium-ion battery. This rechargeable battery laid the foundation of wireless electronics such as mobile phones and laptops. It also makes a fossil fuel-free world possible, as it is used for everything from powering electric cars to storing energy from renewable sources.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A panel of UN human rights experts says U. S. plagued by systemic racism and overincarceration, blames police abuse on racism, too.

"They say that racism in the US, “a legacy of slavery, the slave trade, and 100 years of legalized apartheid that followed slavery’s abolition”, continues to exist in the form of racial profiling, police killings and many other human rights violations."

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141652

[Martinned]

These kinds of UN reports can be monumentally stupid, like the report that said that Julian Assange was unlawfully detained during the period when he was hiding out at the Ecuadorian embassy without any police presence outside. But this seems like a no-brainer, unless there's something you've left out.

[Nige]

'without any police presence outside'

Assange is a creep but there's no way he could have left without being picked up sooner or later.

[Martinned]

What does that have to do with him being "detained" at that point in time?

[Nige]

If a person can't leave a place without being arrested, I think that's 'detained.' Not sure it's 'unlawfully' though.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I don't think hiding out in a sanctuary to avoid being arrested (i.e., detained) is being detained. His freedom of movement was restricted because he was under threat of being detained if he left his sanctuary, but he still wasn't detained in either a colloquial or legal sense.

[Nige]

I suppose... yeah, okay, fair enough.

[Davedave]

"I can't leave my hideout, where I holed up because I'm on the run from the police, without being arrested" is "in detention" now? Come on, even for you that's pretty batshit.

And 'a creep' is whitewashing the man: he confessed under oath to a string of rapes, at least one of them violent. The Assange cultists have done a good job obscuring things over the years, but his defence was a point of law - 'I found a legal loophole allowing me to rape with impunity' - rather than a denial of the facts. He is a rapist, plain and simple. Also a right-wing MRA arsehole and massive racist, but that's less important than the fact he confessed under oath that he is a rapist.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"unless there’s something you’ve left out"

Shall I cut and paste the text of the full report...or perhaps you could follow the links and read the report yourself and then tell us whether I've left anything out.

[Martinned]

You'd rather I don't disclose that I was too lazy to click the link?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Petition in Mobile calls for removing statue of Father Ryan, ‘Priest of the Confederacy"

"A group of concerned community members on Monday night sent a letter and petition to Mobile Mayor Sandy Stimpson and the city council, urging them to remove the statue and rename Ryan Park....

"[Retired University instructor Leo] Denton and a few other Mobillians included quotes in their letter to the city this week.

"“We hold that the White Race is superior to the Black, as a general principle, and that the Government of the United States and its several subordinate State and Municipal Governments belong to the white people of the land,” he penned in The Banner of the South, a newspaper based in Augusta, Georgia, in 1869. He was the editor of the publication."

https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2023/10/petition-in-mobile-calls-for-removing-statue-of-father-ryan-priest-of-the-confederacy.html

[John F. Carr]

I wish I had the space, money, and police protection to build a museum of rejected statutes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure Stone Mountain would be glad to take them, but for the most part the people demanding these statues be taken down actively want them hidden, if they can't get away with just smashing them.

[Martinned]

Well yes, no one minds if you want to put a statue of a confederate leader in your back yard. But maybe it shouldn't be in the town square.

[Frank Drackman]

So you're cool with the 1: Washington Monument?, 2: Jefferson Memorial?., 3: Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill? 4: Mount Rushmore (see 1:, 2:)
don't read the bio's of 1: and 2: you might not the answers you want to.

Frank "Oh well"

[Nige]

It’s kind of weird that statues, as a class of object, are now somehow so intrinsically sacrosanct that subjecting them to removal or destruction is some kind of sacrilege.

[Brett Bellmore]

So you were down with the Taliban smashing statues?

I don't think it's "sacrilege", unless maybe somebody comes into my church to smash the statue of Mary. But I'm not impressed with iconoclasm.

These statues are typically pretty artistic, I don't like seeing them vandalized, nor do I like the way of thinking by the people who engage in that sort of thing. I find myself wondering how much longer the monuments on the Mall will last.

I'm perfectly serious about Stone Mountain. They'd be glad to take any Confederate monuments somebody wants to remove, and maintain them in a park. Why do they have to be hidden or destroyed, instead?

It's wasteful, is what it is.

[Nige]

‘So you were down with the Taliban smashing statues?’

See? Sacrosanct, all statues, ever. Racist confederate statues are the same as ancient archeological wonders.

These statues are typically pretty shit, but even if they weren’t, it would be no defence.

It was wasteful using money to commemorate racist slavers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Let us know when you're ready to blow up Mt. Rushmore and implode the Washington Monument.

[Nige]

Mount Rushmore is an abomination. Not sure blowing it up would help, though.

[Davedave]

What is the relevance of Mt Pareidolia? It's a natural rock formation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you ever seen the statue of Teddy Roosevelt that used to be in front of the Museum of Natural History in NY? It's an excellent piece of statuary., not "pretty shit". But they took it down anyway.

[Nige]

Yes statues get taken down, moved, put away, put back up, put back up somewhere else, it actually happens all the time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Really? How about an example outside of a museum display.

[Nige]

https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/nachtwey_baghdad_1.jpg

[bernard11]

So you were down with the Taliban smashing statues?

When did you get so fucking stupid?

[Nelson]

"I find myself wondering how much longer the monuments on the Mall will last."

The false equivalence of Founding Fathers who were slaveowners with a traitorous uprising that killed over half a million Americans is staggering. They aren't even close to the same thing. One group started America, the other tried to destroy it.

[shawn_dude]

Note that most of the Confederacy monuments were erected by racists as part of a political fight in favor of segregation, Jim Crow, and against the civil rights movement. The point of these statues wasn't to say "this guy was a great man" but "we agree with the racist shit this guy stood for."

How common is it that the losers of civil wars get to have statues honoring their leaders sitting proudly in city squares over 150 years after their loss? When the Third Reich fell, the Germans chiseled the swastika off stone buildings. When the Soviet Union and Iraq fell, Lenin and Saddam Hussein's statues fell with it. But in this country, where a group of traitors and losers failed to topple the US government in order to preserve slavery, we erect statues to them years after their loss in places of honor to commemorate their devotion to the superiority of the white race. And you're upset that people want to remove those statues and either destroy them or hide them? Personally, I think destroying them or hiding them is the chickenshit way out. They need to be gathered up and displayed in context so future generations understand how morally bankrupt those people were and also the people, 150 years after, that seek to preserve that message of racism by defending these statues. Maybe include the still-existing United Daughters of the Confederacy (hqudc.org) in that presentation to show how the effort to preserve racist symbols is ongoing.

Don't hide or destroy--name and shame.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The context I suggested a year ago was Stone Mountain GA. Round up all the lost cause statues from all over the South. Take them to the park at the base of Stone Mountain, and turn the place into a well-curated museum managed with an eye to illustrate Lost Cause racist ideology, and its continuing role down to the present. Feature inevitable protests against establishing the museum as part of the theme.

[Nelson]

Yes, but considering the context, would they accurately portray the Confederacy as a traitorous uprising or use it as a vehicle to push Lost Cause narratives?

I wouldn't trust Southerners to be honest about Civil War history.

[Martinned]

Some of those examples work better than others.

- Lenin's mausoleum is still in Red Square, and Stalin and the others are still in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis
- They've been putting up Lenin statues all over the place in Russia in recent years, as part of a Soviet rehabilitation programme of the government
- In 1986 the Austrian's elected a Nazi war criminal president *after* they found out about what he'd been up to during the war.
- Don't even get me started about Italy. (Where they think they were on the allied side during World War II anyway.)

[John F. Carr]

The Italians were on the Allied side... from late 1943.

[Nelson]

"the people demanding these statues be taken down actively want them hidden, if they can’t get away with just smashing them."

Gee, I can't imagine why people think that honoring traitors who caused the deaths of half a million Americans because they were afraid they might not be able to keep enslaving other people is a terrible idea.

The Confederacy and everyone who supported it was an obscenity. When you cause that much death, nothing you ever did in the rest of your life could ever balance the scales. If there's a hell, the Confederates are there.

[OtisAH]

As is sure to be noted it was the *Democrats* who installed that. Therefore the democrats are free to dispose of it however they like. No MAGA need weigh in. They had nothing to do with it.

[Jerry B.]

But the Democrats who installed it are different from the Democrats now. Just ask them.

[Nige]

So which is it?

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone hear about the "Woke" activist in Filthy-delphia who ridiculed all the news about the crime in Filthy-delphia, murdered in a home invasion in Filthy-delphia?
https://www.inquirer.com/crime/josh-kruger-killed-point-breeze-shooting-philadelphia-journalist-20231002.html

Frank

[SRG2]

Murder rates are not just a problem in Philly: https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-two-decade-red-state-murder-problem

[Jerry B.]

Now subtract the murders in Democrat controlled cities in Red states and get back to us.

[Martinned]

It's almost as if cities suffer because they are unable to keep the guns from flowing in from redneck states.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's utterly irrational. Seriously, it is. Guns all over the place, the problem is enormously worse in these cities, and it's supposed to be because the places that DON'T have the problem won't sacrifice their rights?

It's like a city that has an arson problem demanding that neighboring states ban gasoline.

[Martinned]

Everybody in America has an enormous gun problem. But it's worse where more people live close together, i.e. in cities. The only sane solution is to get rid of the guns.

[Brett Bellmore]

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
― Cesare Beccaria

[Nige]

Some people are still living in the 18th century, I see.

[Nelson]

"the problem is enormously worse in these cities"

Per capita, that isn't true. Cities have more murders because they have more people. A LOT more people.

[SRG2]

You are aware that there are Democratic-run cities in blue states as well, right?

[Bob from Ohio]

All of the "Red" states have high black populations, black men commit more than 40% of murders.

[Martinned]

Poor people commit lots of violent crimes too. I wonder what the racial breakdown is of poor people in racist states?

[Nelson]

"All of the “Red” states have high black populations, black men commit more than 40% of murders."

So if it weren't for all those blacks, we wouldn't have a crime problem? Idiot.

[John F. Carr]

After a judge found New York's "stop and frisk" policy to be unconstitutional Chicago authorities ended that city's stop and frisk program. Black people were not any better off, because police compensated by making the same number of pretext stops for motor vehicle violations, about 0.2 per capita per year.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh3017

I care about Whren v. U.S. a lot more than I care about Roe v. Wade.

[shawn_dude]

It's almost like institutional racism isn't accidental...

[SRG2]

September warming: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67017021

We're getting close to the tipping point - that is, where all the people who previously denied warming will accept that it is happening but is due to anything other than human activity.

We might also be close to another tipping point, where all the people who previously accepted that warming is happening but that it was due to anything other than human activity, accept that it is due at least in part to human activity, but it is our fault for being insufficiently convincing earlier.

[Martinned]

It almost sounds like you saw Yes, Minister...

[SRG2]

I was a huge fan. My father, who worked as a civil engineer for the civil service, assured me that it was very accurate!

[Nige]

It’s more likely that normal people will start to overwhelmingly demand something be done even against the obstruction and sabotage of culture warriors, political reactionaries and fossil fuel shills. Perhaps it’s in anticipation of something like this that Republicans are working so hard for minority rule.

[damikesc]

Perhaps if climate "science" showed the tiniest semblance of predictive value, people would take it seriously.

[Nige]

Perhaps if you were remotely interested in the truth you wouldn't spout bullshit.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

[Martinned]

How about this prediction that Exxon scientists did in the 1970s? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

[Davedave]

Ah, the climate-science denier and conspiracy theorist continues... You're just the same as them, but a different set of conspiracies and science-denying nonsense.

Meanwhile, the grownups will get on with doing what the science says we should do.

[Nige]

I still don't know what you're actually on about, you just keep saying the same thing over and over.

[Davedave]

You won't accept the science. You have been shown the chapter and verse from the IPCC, and you denied that the IPCC report on climate change is the scientific consensus, as well as denying that it contradicted you even though it clearly states something that is the opposite of what you choose to believe.

This really isn't complicated. You're choosing your own alternative facts, and then doing exactly what the Trump nuts do when reality conflicts with them: denial, pretending not to understand, lying about being shown to be wrong, and so-on.

[Nige]

You just said a whole lot of nothing. You don’t even know what you’re on about.

[Davedave]

And QED. The IPCC report is the definitive factor here. You didn't like their conclusions, so you became a science denier rather than admit you were wrong.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf

Still talks about mitigation, however much you deny it and prefer the thing the same report says leads to megadeaths mostly among Africans and Asians.

[Nige]

Ah yes, somewhere in the IPCC report's 81 pages it says Nige something something mitigation something something megadeaths.

[Frank Drackman]

Why do you idiots always talk about this Global Warning Bullshit just before a cold front hits??
https://www.kcrg.com/2023/10/05/second-cold-front-coming-resulting-chilliest-air-season-so-far/
it's almost like there's some kind of seasonal variation of the weather...

Frank

[SRG2]

Quackman: are you aware that there is a rest of the world?

[damikesc]

If the problem is not "GLOBAL", then it is just weather.

[VinniUSMC]

We’re getting close to the tipping point

Is Guam going to capsize?

[Don Nico]

"We’re getting close to the tipping point " There is not scientific evidence that this system has a tipping point, especially near current values.

[Nige]

More likely to have several. The Greenland ice sheet, the West Antarctic ice sheet, AMOC, the Amazon rain forest, a few others.

[not guilty]

The Colorado Supreme Court has granted Jack Phillips's application for review of the intermediate appellate court's decision in favor of Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman who sought to purchase a cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop. Ms. Scardina sued for violation of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act. The Court of Appeals opinion is here. https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2023/21CA1142-PD.pdf

The customer requested a custom pink cake with blue frosting. The shop indicated it could make the cake as requested. The customer then told the shop’s employees that the cake was intended to celebrate her birthday and her identity as a transgender woman. Upon learning this additional information, the
shop refused to sell the cake to the customer.

[Frank Drackman]

So they refused to sell a cake to a man? Isn't that already against the law?

[Ed Grinberg]

The customer requested a custom pink cake with blue frosting. The shop indicated it could make the cake as requested. The customer then told the shop’s employees that the cake was intended to celebrate her birthday and her identity as a transgender woman. Upon learning this additional information, the shop refused to sell the cake to the customer.

A private business owner should be free to serve whoever he likes, and, conversely, to refuse to serve whoever he doesn’t like, for whatever reason. Any laws to the contrary should be repealed.
This used to be a free country…

[Estragon]

Who else had “heart of Atlanta motel vs. us was wrongly decided” on their huckleberry bingo card?

[VinniUSMC]

For a cake shop... this is applicable, why?

[Nelson]

"For a cake shop… this is applicable, why?"

You think certain products or services are special cases and immune to equal treatment? Or that certain people are special cases and immune to equal treatment?

For cultural conservatives, the answer to the second one is "always", the first is just "yes".

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The ban on racial discrimination (as the Court explored in its Heart of Atlanta decision) was based on evidence that black people were being forced to sleep in their cars, etc., etc., because of the pervasiveness of discrimination by innkeepers – discrimination, incidentally, which IIRC was contrary to the good old common law.

Do we have similar evidence for people with gender dysphoria and bakeries?

Could an Aryan Nations supporter commission an all-white cake, or a Black Muslim commission an all-black cake, to celebrate the (alleged) superiority of their respective races? Would it be racial or religious discrimination to deny such demands?

[Brett Bellmore]

It was a classic example of hard cases making bad law, and now the bad law gets applied to easy cases.

[Nelson]

"Could an Aryan Nations supporter commission an all-white cake, or a Black Muslim commission an all-black cake, to celebrate the (alleged) superiority of their respective races?"

Yes. It's not that hard to understand. What part of "equal treatment" is confusing you?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So you have no sympathy for a Jewish baker facing ruinous litigation and severe financial penalties for refusing to bake an Aryan Nations cake?

Equal treatment, indeed.

[Magister]

What's an Aryan Nations cake?

If it's just the previously described all-white cake, the baker should just bake it same as he would for any other customer.

If it's a cake in the shape of a swastika or has "Exterminate Jews" on it or some other explicit Aryan Nations message, then the baker can refuse to make the cake on the grounds that it would be compelled speech (but must refuse to make the same cake for any other customer). The Colorado appellate court opinion discusses William Jack, who requested cakes with offensive messages which bakers refused to make.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you can communicate a message by burning some cloth containing particular colors (U. S. flag), you can communicate by the colors of a cake. The Supremes say the former is protected, and they should affirm that the latter is too.

So in answer to my question, I suppose that “you have no sympathy for a Jewish baker facing ruinous litigation and severe financial penalties for refusing to bake an Aryan Nations cake.” Of course if the white cake is, in my hypothetical, to convey a message, just as surely as a rainbow cake ordered by a gay person would be intended to convey a message.

[Magister]

A US flag is more than "some cloth containing particular colors", and I imagine you can't force someone else to burn one. You are of course free to bake your own Aryan Nations cake. (Hey, anyone care to guess what Margrave is going to be doing this weekend?)

In addition to your other questionable reasoning, you make an incorrect supposition about what my sympathies might be. I would have sympathy for a Jewish baker forced to bake a cake with swastikas and white supremacist slogans, but of course this law does no such thing. It is possible although unlikely that an unadorned white cake might come to symbolize Aryan Nations support to the exclusion of other meanings, but in that case such a baker would not make it for anyone. What the baker can't do is decide what the message is based on the identity of the person ordering it.

It is possible that rainbows are now closely enough associated with gay pride that a homophobic baker might refuse to make rainbow cakes for anyone, which would be legal, or only refuse if they decide that the person ordering it looks gay, which would be illegal.

[SRG2]

This used to be a free country…

Dates, please.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I had to throw away my dates after the Nazis poisoned them.

[Nelson]

"A private business owner should be free to serve whoever he likes, and, conversely, to refuse to serve whoever he doesn’t like, for whatever reason."

We tried that. It was called Jim Crow and it overwhelmingly proved to be catastrophic to disfavored groups.

No ideal should ever be applied in an absolute form. Free speech is vastly more important than commerce and there are multiple examples where an absolutist approach to speech isn't justified.

Legal discrimination in the public square has a powerful historical example of the practical consequences of an absolutist approach to commerce. Like in examples of the limits of free speech, it illustrates where the limits of commerce should be.

Disfavored groups have to be assured of equal access to commerce or the detrimental effects will be unacceptable to a just society. If you want to be a bigot, knock yourself out. If you want to punish someone by refusing to allow them equal access to commerce because you are bigoted against them, you should not be allowed to do so. Banning blacks from buying food in a diner is the same as banning gays or trans people from buying a cake at a bakery.

Jim Crow was awful. It's trying to make a comeback. Personal biases should never be allowed to restrict someone else's access to commerce. That's over the line in commerce, just like terroristic threats are over the line in speech.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Masterpiece Cakeshop."

Maybe one day Colorado will get a second cake baker.

[Martinned]

You're right, the Robert Bork theory of how competition will drive out discrimination has worked so well to drive out racism, I'm sure it will work just as well against homophobia and transphobia.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/new-republic.pdf

[Nelson]

"Maybe one day Colorado will get a second cake baker."

That argument didn't hold water at the counter at Woolworth's in Greensboro, NC. Why do you think that has changed?

[damikesc]

Don't understand why CO feels it necessary to consistently harass the guy. He should sue the ever-loving shit out of them. Then leave the state as they will have to raise taxes to pay their settlement to him when he sues.

[David Nieporent]

Sue them for what?

[Nelson]

Being mean to bigots. It hurts their feelings when people point out that they are terrible human beings.

[bernard11]

So wait. You mean Phillips was lying when he said the reason he wouldn't bake a cake for gay wedding was his religious objection to SSM.

Does he have a similar objection to transsexuals celebrating their birthdays?

[Nelson]

Yes. He's a bigot, but that's his religious belief.

[OtisAH]

Alright, show of hands (be honest now):

How many of you turned your phones off yesterday so the emergency alert signal didn’t trigger the Marburg Virus and turn you into a zombie? Also raise your hand if you didn’t turn your phone off because you’re un-vaxxed and decided you are not at risk of activating the virus and turning into a zombie.

[SRG2]

LOL. I got the alert twice, once on my phone, and once via WQXR online. For some reason it didn't trigger the secret 5G receiver implanted with the vaccine, so obviously the alert didn't work 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

Like you, I got the alert 2X: work phone (iPhone), personal phone (Android). Obnoxiously loud. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

My phone buzzed, I took it out of my pocket, clicked "OK", problem solved.

I had to opt out of emergency weather alerts, which otherwise would have been a good thing, because they were waking me up at night when there was a bad thunderstorm 100 miles away. A little more granular, please!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Amber alerts also, same problem. I live on the Outer Banks, got an Amber alert for someone in Asheville. Same state, but almost 9 hours away. Way closer to you than to me.

[Commenter_XY]

Is it really that beautiful? I have been eyeing the Outer Banks and took a peek at Zillow. Not a lot of inventory, but also not outrageously priced, either.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I like it. I can see the Hatteras Lighthouse from my front porch, and I'm a short stroll to the beach. It's crowded up in Kill Devil Hills and Nags Head, but down here on Hatteras Island it's very small town, with lots of tourists in the summer. I think it's beautiful, but I've always been an ocean person.

[MoreCurious]

For anyone who has ever ridden an Outer Banks ferry, your name is a pretty good clue of where you live.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

They've actually decommissioned that particular ferry, unfortunately. My dog is named Alpheus W. Drinkwater, and he never got to ride his namesake ferry.

[John F. Carr]

I didn’t notice the alert when it arrived. I saw it once on the lock screen 45 minutes after the missiles would have hit. I don’t know how to recall it in case it is about a slower moving catastrophe.

[apedad]

‘It’s already tragic’: Mom of teen fatally shot by his best friend in alcohol-fueled Memorial Day gun ‘prank’ decries murder charge against son’s accused killer

Wedding officiant accidentally shoots 12-year-old grandson with blank fired by revolver

Ex-sheriff's captain shot door-to-door salesman because she thought he was a hitman: Cops

(stories from Law & Crime website)

Any suggestions to help prevent accidental, stupid, or senseless uses of firearms by otherwise law-abiding citizens?

[OtisAH]

All of those people were Responisble Gun Owners™️ but they are no longer Responsible Gun Owners™️. That means that any proposed gun control measures would not affect them. Because gun control measures only harm Responsible Gun Owners™️.

[Brett Bellmore]

Returning gun safety classes to K-12?

[Nige]

'School shootings done safely.'

[Brett Bellmore]

It's like if, in the face of a lot of traffic accidents, you suggested restoring driver safety classes, and somebody responded by suggesting it would just result in students deliberately running each other over in the parking lot.

The question was, "Any suggestions to help prevent accidental, stupid, or senseless uses of firearms by otherwise law-abiding citizens?"

Safety training, obviously. We used to provide it in school, it got largely discontinued. Most of these accidents represent gross violations of basic gun safety rules.

[Nige]

Thousands of peope die in car accidents every year, nobody has driven one through a school killing children. Thousands die from gunshots every year, people semi-regularly use guns to kill children in schools.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I said "parking lot", Nigewit.

[Nige]

Well that's okay then. Parking lots are free-fire zones, well known fact.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wrong. There HAVE BEEN documented mass-murder incident involving motor vehicles deliberately driven over people. None in the past few years, but a decade ago there was a rash of them.

And before you mention inside a school -- a motor vehicle won't fit inside a school...

[Magister]

Very few cases from a Wikipedia list. Three in the US from the decade between 2010 and 2020:
Drunk driver trying to evade a traffic stop killing 4 and injuring 21 in Austin in 2014.
Woman (claimed mental illness but apparently not enough for an insanity defense) drove into a homecoming parade killing 4 and injuring 46 in Stillwater, Oklahoma in 2015.
Islamic terrorist killing 8 and injuring 11 in New York City in 2017.

In the same decade, about a dozen mass shootings with at least 11 killed.

[SRG2]

Firing because you think someone was a threat but they weren't is not an accident.

Perhaps people need to be better informed about probability of adverse events so that they don't think that every street has dangerous prowlers every night, for example. (One of the serious problems with US cops, IMO, is that during training they appear to acquire the impression that their jobs are very high risk and so they go into every encounter thinking that the risk of adverse outcomes is high.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Teach gun safety in high school, like we used to do.

[apedad]

(Brett too)

Mandatory training before being allowed access to a weapon?

Otherwise what's the use.

And how about annual refresher training since it would be a long time since a 40- or 50-year had attended school.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mandatory training before exercising a civil liberty? No. On principle, no.

Besides, we've seen how that gets implemented: Deliberately hard to get and extra expensive, because it's seen as just another opportunity to make life hard for gun owners.

Under the militia clause, the government could require EVERYONE to undergo gun safety classes. Under the 2nd amendment, they can't make gun ownership contingent on it.

[Martinned]

The oxy addition pandemic clearly has consequences: You're all high. No part of this conversation would make any sense unless you are all on drugs all the time.

JUST SAY NO.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do: To tyranny.

[Martinned]

Really? You want to stand on your front porch with whatever fire power you own and fight off the US army?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've already explained before what a silly suggestion that is. Did the IRA do that? Did any guerilla force in history do that? No they did not.

So forget Joe's fantasies about having the Air Force strafe his opposition, that's not how it would go down, if it ever happened.

[Nige]

Since you refused to stand up and be counted when people took to the streets to object to violence and murder by agents of the state, it’s pretty clear that you support a version of the state where violence and murder is inflicted on some class of people, so long as that class precludes you. As such, you and your guns would more likely to be put to use rounding up your ‘unreliable’ neighbours for transportation to the camps.

[Nige]

You support a man who tried to overturn an election. You lie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's the use?

Before 911, we used to teach children the 7 digit phone number of the fire department, even though most of them would never need to call it. Cub scouts are taught how to pull a fire alarm, although, again, most of them never will have reason to.

"Wedding officiant accidentally shoots 12-year-old grandson with blank fired by revolver"

Wouldn't have happened if taught to Never, EVER, point a gun at anyone, EVER...."

"Ex-sheriff’s captain shot door-to-door salesman because she thought he was a hitman:"

That's not just a police officer but a pretty high ranking one. You wish to disarm the police?

[apedad]

And what would the training involve?

Lawful usage
Lawful storage or safeguarding
Tactical usage, i.e., proficiency training (and again would that be an annual requirement?)
Penalties for unlawful or stupid usage

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought we were addressing a safety problem, not a crime problem? Why not safe usage, safe storage?

[apedad]

What's the difference?

Lawfully safeguarding a weapon would be safely safeguarding a weapon (provided the law actually did proscribe appropriate safeguarding measures).

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't think there's a difference between what's "safe", and what's "legal"? Really?

[apedad]

No, I said - if the law is appropriately written - it would be considered the legal AND safe way.

There doesn't have to be a difference.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could you live with an annual road test to keep your driver's license?

There are a LOT of drivers out there who ought not be driving.

[Brett Bellmore]

"if the law is appropriately written"

Yeah, and and if the segregation laws had been appropriately written, separate would have been equal.

What you don't get is that the people writing these laws don't have appropriate aims, so they don't write them appropriately. In the real world, gun laws get written by people with an animus against gun ownership, so they deliberately get written to unreasonably burden it.

Surely you can see that going on in places like California!

[Frank Drackman]

I thought all you guys believed in Evil-lution? If Darwin was right (he wasn't) in a billion years we'll have 3 eyes, wings, and won't do stupid things.

[SRG2]

If Darwin was right (he wasn’t)

He was right broadly speaking about his theory of evolution explaining the observed diversity of life on earth, At the time, genes hadn’t been discovered.

What do you think he was wrong about?

[Frank Drackman]

Only everything

[SRG2]

Be specific

[Moderation4ever]

We can start by admitting that while American citizen older that 18 has the right to own a gun, that does not mean they should have a gun. Owning a gun like many other items requires a degree of good sense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Having an abortion involves a great deal of good sense and understanding of the consequences.

[Magister]

More states have waiting periods for abortion than for gun ownership.

[Frank Drackman]

More bullshit, show your work.

[Magister]

Even Dr. Ed 2 has managed to search the internet on his own. Why don't you give it a try?

[Ed Grinberg]

I was taught to never point a gun any anyone unless I meant to shoot them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Ex-sheriff’s captain [allegedly] shot door-to-door salesman because she thought he was a hitman"

So, disarm all ex-law enforcement people?

[John F. Carr]

I would repeal the The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act which overrules state licensing laws for retired LEOs.

Not to say they shouldn't have guns. They shouldn't be special.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"They shouldn’t be special."

It will take more than an arbitrary licensing law to make ex-cops less special.

[Estragon]

Firearms just surpassed auto accidents as the number one cause of accidental death of children in this country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/health/gun-deaths-children.html

[Frank Drackman]

are you surprised? Cars are designed to be safe, you really have to go out of your way to kill yourself with one, whereas guns, duh, are dangerous.
And again, I thought you'se guys believed in Evil-lution? in a billion years we'll have 3 arms, supercomputer brains, and kids who don't stupidly shoot themselves.

Frank

[OtisAH]

PSA: Keep an eye on the news. It looks as if maybe Matt Gaetz might be about to get Cawthorned over his mutiny.

And as an aside, his old man announced this week he’s planning a return to the Florida state senate. That came a couple days or so after Gaetz announced he might run for governor, but a few days before his betrayal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Exclusive: Donald Trump Followers Targeted by FBI as 2024 Election Nears

I'd be a lot less concerned about this if they weren't simultaneously denying that there was any similar threat from the left, after all the left-wing attacks during the Trump administration. So the idea that there's no political bias here is ludicrous.

[Nige]

Well, yes, both sides are constantly threatening civil war and sending bomb threats to schools and childrens’ hospitals and trying to overturn an election in a riot and occasionally blowing themselves up at FBI offices.

You really think the FBI aren’t all over BLM? Targeting black activists groups is a venerable FBI tradition.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/20/1029625793/black-lives-matter-protesters-targeted

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, Nige. Massive riots. Court houses and police stations set on fire, often with people inside. Attempts to permanently blind cops with lasers. Dozens of deaths, billions in property damage.

January 6th was a rounding error next to the Antifa/BLM riots.

But "No enemy to the left" has become a mantra at the FBI. Politically, they're just incapable of admitting the left poses a violent threat.

And THAT is why they're increasingly seen as the Democratic party's Gestapo. Not because they go after violent groups on the right, because they DON'T go after them on the left!

[Nige]

'January 6th was a rounding error next to the Antifa/BLM riots.'

So what? The FBI monitor groups and people who've never done or threatened to do anything violent. You just think MAGA is special and exempt from the same shit as black people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nige, when you look at the economic impact of credit card fraud and ransomware, you'd like to think that the FBI would be civic minded enough to dedicate some of its limited resources to this stuff instead of harassing people who aren't harming anyone.

[Nige]

They don't?

[damikesc]

Also ignore the bombing of pro-life clinics. Burning of churches. Just because Biden and the media do not care does mean they did not happen.

Hell, people were MURDERED inside CHOP. And nobody has been punished for it.

[Sarcastr0]

How wide a net you need to cast to equal a fraction of the shit that went down J6, even if you utterly ignore the stated intent.

[Bob from Ohio]

"wide a net you need to cast to equal a fraction of the shit that went down J6"

A 3 hour riot with no rioter caused death, no fires and no use of tear gas, with minor building damage. Lets see

"Minneapolis sustained extensive damage from rioting and looting during the protests—largely concentrated on a 5-mile (8.0 km) stretch of Lake Street south of downtown[26]—including the destruction of the city's 3rd police precinct building, which was overrun by demonstrators and set on fire.[30] At cost of $350 million,[31] approximately 1,300 properties in Minneapolis were damaged by the civil unrest,[32] of which nearly 100 were entirely destroyed." wikipedia

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, nothing special about a riot when it’s in the Capitol.

This is the kind of myopic argument you end up with when your vision for America is just 'my side wins'.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its just a fancy government building. All that happened was broken doors and windows, easily replaced.

I bet some of the owners of the nearly 100 destroyed buildings had emotions about their buildings and the things in them. You don't care about them though because you agree with the rioters.

[Brett Bellmore]

They laughed off riots that DID happen in DC, though. Like the one at Trump's inauguration, or the one where they set fire to a church not far from the White House.

You can't get away from the fact that on any metric you want to name, worse riots got treated more lightly. Yeah, even including invasions of legislative chambers.

[Sarcastr0]

J6 didn't kill anyone in our leadership, but not from lack of intent and opportunity.

That's why it's a big deal.

You can point to undirected violent yahoos, but you are bad at connecting them to a national party, and really get ridiculous when you pretend those are at the J6 level.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, bullshit. If they'd meant to kill anybody, they would have brought their guns.

Undirected violent yahoos who somehow manage to show up in the same place, at the same time, dressed in the same uniform. Maybe you only think they're "undirected" because the feds have no interest in finding out who pulls the strings?

[Sarcastr0]

Evidence - and convictions - say otherwise.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There were convictions for murder? For attempted murder? No?

Surprise..

[Sarcastr0]

Attempt and conspiracy, AL. They’d meant to kill people, in contradiction to what Brett said.

Do you have a memory problem? This blog has been over the charges and evidence a lot.

[Brett Bellmore]

They meant to kill people. They just, somehow, failed to come equipped to do it, or to make any real effort to.

But they totally meant to, despite that.

[Nige]

Take that up with them.

[Nige]

'You can’t get away from the fact that on any metric you want to name, worse riots got treated more lightly'

I actually can, because you're making it up.

[shawn_dude]

"A 3 hour riot with no rioter caused death," Bullshit. Just simple bullshit.
5 people died as a result of the riot and insurrection. Ashli Babbitt died during the insurrection, shot by Capitol police while attempting to break through a barricaded door protecting the House members caught inside while people hunted down Pelosi and chanted "Hang Mike Pence." Police officers were bashed with their own riot shields, flagpoles, and fire extinguishers.

FFS, if you're going to lie, get better at it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Five people. Sheesh.

Babbitt, certainly. One person died of the crush of the crowd, same as occasionally happens at any big event. And a few people died of natural causes, as you'd expect where a lot of people were involved.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice new goalposts. Gonna compare an entire summer nationwide to one day in our national capitol? Because that's why I said "How wide a net you need to cast..."

[Brett Bellmore]

Shawn is claiming 5 people killed by the rioters in DC that day. I might give you the trampling death, though it's the sort of thing you see at sporting events and concerts occasionally.

But the bullshit here is Shawn's, and that needs to be pointed out.

And you? You're standing things on it's head, you're trying to make years of rioting less of a big deal because it went on for years.

[Nige]

You're trying to make out like every Trump supporter is being targeted by the FBI.

[Sarcastr0]

Above you said maybe Trump's justified to do a bit of insurrection now, he's been so persecuted.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually I didn't.

I said that they may have driven him to it, by making it his only plausible way of not ending up ruined and imprisoned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's scary is that it's not just Trump.

The left is adopting a scorched earth approach without learning the larger consequences of that.

It's the one thing Woodrow Wilson got right -- his warning that taking such an approach to a defeated Germany would only lead to another war in twenty years, and he was right. And the left refuses to learn from history.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why the Union largely gave up on Section 3 after just a few years, and amnestied basically everyone. They knew they couldn't put the country back together AND treat half of it as criminals.

Now the left wants to use it, without even bothering to win a war first.

[SRG2]

Giving into force, basically.

So we should do nothing, in order to avoid alienating MAGAs We're not all as cowardly as GOP politicians...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Read Machavelli sometime.

There are *reasons* why the Prince wants to be loved by his vanquished foes. Very good reasons...

[SRG2]

I did read him.

But this is akin to paying Dane-Geld.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you want to call not going nuclear over a riot after laughing off much worse riots "Giving into force", anyway.

[Nige]

Who laughed what off?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett has fully disengaged from reality at this point.

Thousands of people were arrested and convicted in connection with other riots. But if he acknowledges that, he can’t “own the Libs”, so he simply chooses to reside in an alternate universe where there were no consequences to anyone for other riots. And, of course, pretending J6 wasn’t categorically different in that the express purpose was to stop the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our nation’s history.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Please link to "thousands" convicted.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I should have said "thousands of people were arrested and, at least, hundreds convicted in connection with other riots."

Washington Post (17,000 arrested) - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/investigations/george-floyd-protesters-arrests/

Multiple links are frowned upon, but more recent articles document at least hundreds of convictions/guilty pleas. Moreover, it's easily thousands who, if they weren't convicted, were put in diversionary programs in which they had to perform community service, undergo treatment, or otherwise participate in rehabilitative services.

As an example, Philly alone had 834 arrests (of the 17,000 total), and 486 opted into the diversionary program and 285 completed the diversionary program. 300 were ineligible for that program and were charged with crimes, not clear how many were ultimately convicted or pleaded guilty. If similar patterns held across other jurisdictions, it likely was thousands convicted and certainly thousands who did suffer some criminal penalty. But it's hard to find comprehensive data on all the convictions as they are spread across so many different jurisdictions/court systems.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have to factor in that the Antifa riots were on a vastly huger scale than January 6th.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And I understand you are more concerned with the dollar value of the damage more so than attempting to undermine the Constitution and stop the peaceful transfer of power to the actual winner of the election. Just different values.

But the idea that summer of 2020 protesters were not arrested in large numbers, were not charged in large numbers, and suffered no consequences is not true.

[Nige]

Plus you’re lying about them not being targted by the FBI. You have no idea whatsoever how the FBI treated antifa, BLM, and any actual rioters.

[shawn_dude]

Or like when we let the Confederate survivors redefine the Civil War to make themselves the victims and now we're still fighting the racists and neo-confederates in the form of the MAGA party and douchebags in white polo shirts wielding tiki torches chanting "you shall not replace us."

Letting the people who attempted a coup loose to try again is just dumb.

[Nige]

'I said that they may have driven him to it,'

However you justify it, you're forecasting violence from the right, or using it as a threat.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't see why stuff like that is why the FBI might take more of an interest with someone like you than someone like me?

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, I've been on the relevant lists for most of my life, due to attending political rallies where the cops cruised through the parking lot photographing license plates, so I don't sweat it.

I'm not concerned about them having more of an interest in me than you. Any investigation into me is going to find that I'm as clean as a fab line. The worst they'd be able to nail me for is suburban chickens.

I'm concerned about them having more of an interest in me than in people who tried to burn down federal court buildings.

[OtisAH]

Okay, I’m gonna go ahead and add “Main Character Syndrome” to Brett’s list of disorders. Any others before I close up shop for the day?

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I'm more of the side character that passes through historical events, but never, ever is at the forefront. I've gotten to witness a lot, but I'm gonna leave no ripples in history when I'm gone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"By focusing on former president Trump and his MAGA (Make America Great Again) supporters, the official said, the Bureau runs the risk of provoking the very anti-government activists that the terrorism agencies hope to counter."

It's not just that but what some conservative Federal judge may rule as a result of this. Injunctions against the FBI are not unprecedented and can be problematic, but what if a judge throws out election results on the grounds of FBI interference, voter intimidation or some combination thereof?

Of course it would be appealed but that would (psychologically) be a moot issue as MAGA would believe the initial judge. Throw in states with Republican legislatures but large Dem cities and the legislature could refuse to certify the election as well.

[not guilty]

The FBI is investigating Donald Trump supporters? I wonder why.

With due regard for the wag who complained that he doesn't like Shakespeare because his work is full of cliches, what's past is prologue. The Tempest Act 2, scene 1.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" and occasionally blowing themselves up at FBI offices."

Homicide bombers at FBI offices? Really…

Where and when?!?!?

[Nige]

My mistake! He got shot trying to attack an FBI office after the Mar A lago search.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said, the larger problem is that they're NOT investigating Antifa, despite much greater cause.

They could get away with investigating right wing violent groups, if they were also doing the same on the left. But, no, they're pretending that it's only a problem on one end of the political spectrum.

And that creates the impression that they're politically biased. Hell, it confirms that they're politically biased, forget impressions.

That they're going after "hate crimes" and largely ignoring attacks on pro-life centers, too, doesn't help.

[Nige]

How do you know they're not investigating people who have at one time or another called themselves antifa? It'd actually be really uncharacteristic if they weren't, they've always loved infltrating and monitoring lefty groups.

'if they were also doing the same on the left.'

The ones that aren't threatening civil war and didn't try to overturn an election and sending bomb threats to hospitals and schools? We already know they're doing it to BLM, who else?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because they SAY they're investigating the right, and they don't say they're investigating the left. And they refused to even admit that Antifa even is an organization. Though they're better organized than half the clubs I've been a member of...

[Nige]

Oh they SAY. YOU say they say. That clears that up. They're definitely monitoring and infiltrating BLM but they didn't TELL YOU?

Antifa isn’t an organisation. No more than MAGA is an organisation.

[SRG2]

Is “white supremacists” an organisation?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whistleblowers.

Honest FBI agents going to Congress and essentially saying that what they are being ordered to do ain't right.

[M L]

This is an interesting article, I didn't read it in detail yet but:

1. Of course the FBI and many others, governmental and not, are tracking you, your political beliefs, your online interactions, communications, searches, etc. And of course the FBI is targeting conservatives and anyone who dissents from the regime, they are knocking on doors and intimidating people all over the place, there are countless examples. So this seems like nothing new. Is there anything surprising or new here? Is this guy the "FBI whistleblower" and has been talking about this for a while?

https://twitter.com/RealStevefriend/status/1709606222100382080

2. A news outlet such as Newsweek isn't writing this article as some defiant act of journalism or anything like that, they have permission from their intelligence people that they work with. So what's it about? Just part of a broad voter/speaker intimidation strategy?

[M L]

Predictable leftist reaction:

Well yeah, of course 75 million Trump voters should be investigated by the FBI.

Probably need to be locked up too.

Antifa doesn't exist by the way, it's just an idea. QAnon is a well organized terrorist organization, though *QAnon creator Agent Johnson sniggering in the back*

[Nige]

'Well yeah, of course 75 million Trump voters should be investigated by the FBI.'

Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth! This is the security state a proud and upstanding tough-on-crime GOP helped bring about, it's not supposed to apply to us!

[damikesc]

When the GOP turns these weapons against you, do not bitch or moan.

[Nige]

Threats from the party of domestic terrorists, noice.

[David Nieporent]

I guess we should be grateful for small favors: he's not claiming that there were 80 million Trump voters.

[M L]

Of course the GOP helped bring about this surveillance security state.

I don’t agree that it’s a good thing. Or that its political weaponization is a good development. And even though I said it’s predictable, I’m disappointed and still a little bit surprised to see rank and file liberals saying otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been warning people that we were building a police state for literally decades. And, yes, Republicans were as guilty as Democrats in this.

It was inevitable that somebody would eventually notice it was done, and fire that sucker up.

[Sarcastr0]

One great way to undercut your privacy concerns is to go off with bullshit like every Trump supporter is going to be under FBI surveillance.

[Nige]

Oh I think it's terrible. But I also think you're trying to pretend that despite all the threats of civil war and the heavily armed paramilitary militias, there's something peculiar in the FBI taking an interest in a few MAGAs

[Sarcastr0]

Well yeah, of course 75 million Trump voters should be investigated by the FBI.

Everyone on the left sure is saying that!

[Frank Drackman]

"This Court is Bullshit"
Jerry Rubin
So why are the "Chicago 7" considered heroes among the Intelli-gista's but "45" says the same thing and he's Adolf Hitler 2.0??
Frank

[apedad]

Minnesota pastor's viral post about people drinking coffee in church ignites fiery debate

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/minnesota-pastors-viral-post-people-drinking-coffee-church-ignites-fiery-debate-online

Nothing to add since the joke is already in the headline.

[OtisAH]

I’m as lapsed as can be and the idea of taking coffee into church would never occur. Although allowing it wouldn’t be enough to get my ass back to mass, it would be a step in the right direction. But don’t nobody go changing things for me. I’d rather not return.

[Yogis_dad]

Fear not. Pastors are all protestants, and don't celebrate mass.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, a friend's "mega-church" literally has a coffee bar and fitness center. My regular Catholic church as a water fountain by the bathrooms off the narthex.

I guess it keeps them awake during Mass, anyway.

[Yogis_dad]

I have never met President Trump. I have never met a court official in New York State. However, as a sentient human, it is clear to me that kangaroos in the court are bent on destroying a decent man who has served our republic well, and they are motivated not only by envy but also by corrupt influencers whose financial status is imperiled by the good President Trump has done and will do.

[Nige]

'a decent man'

How far gone do you have to be to say this?

[Ed Grinberg]

Donald Trump is certainly no less decent than the current White House occupant.

[Bored Lawyer]

Which is a sad commentary on the state of our country. Both are truly awful.

[David Nieporent]

No. Joe Biden is about as bland and unlawful as it's possible for a politician to be. I don't agree with the vast majority of his policies, but that's nothing special, and doesn't make him a bad person.

In contrast, Donald Trump is the antithesis of "decent." He's a sociopath with no redeeming qualities of any sort.

[Bored Lawyer]

Disagree. Biden is an inveterate liar about things big and small, including his own family. He has engaged in shameless race baiting ("They want to put y'all in back in chains"), and he has outright lied about many things, including that he is a "moderate," although he has governed like a radical. And he has used the apparatus of the federal government for his own political ends.
You can argue that Trump is worse, but Biden is still very awful. More than the run-of-the-mill lying politician.

[Sarcastr0]

You wrote this out, and you know Trump, and you still posted this weak sauce.

Biden has governed like a radical. After Trump you call this radical.

Holy moly.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, I meant unawful, not unlawful; that was autocorrect.

[Nige]

Apart from the fraud and the sexual assault and threatening civil war and demands to be immune from prosecution.

[damikesc]

...but enough about Biden.

You realize that he fits EVERYTHING you listed, right?

[David Nieporent]

No.

[Nige]

Only so long as you're not talking about actual courts of law that need evidence and such.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is why the people like damikesc, Brett, Michael P, Bob, Dr. Ed, etc. are unreachable: Their feelings about what they thing someone did is equivalent to actual proof in a court of law.

Trump has been found to have sexually assaulted a woman.

Trump has been found to have engaged in fraudulent behavior (or he has settled such claims in the face of a mountain of evidence that he did, e.g. Trump University).

Trump's own tweets prove the civil war thing. Cite for Biden?

Trump claims every prosecution of him is an illegitimate witch hunt and has otherwise claimed immunity from prosecution for multiple alleged crimes. Do you have a cite for claim by Biden that he was immune from prosecution (as opposed to denying right wing fever dreams of his guilt)?

Of course you don't have cites, because the things you think Biden did only happened in your imagination. But you need them to have happened so you can remain a member in good standing of the Trump personality cult, so you choose to believe they did. It's embarrassing what is happening in this country.

[grb]

Here's a quote about Trump which nails it down precisely:

"No books, No reading, No friends, No music,
No curiosity, No patience, No integrity, No compassion,
No empathy, No loyalty, No conscience, No courage,
No manners, No respect, No character, No morality, No honor,

Not even a dog"

[VinniUSMC]

A quote... by who? The voices in your head?

I'd guess Trump is a cat person, one of those horrendous naked cats too.

Has anyone seen Trump and Dr Claw in the same room? Get Inspector Gadget on the case, pronto!

[Bob from Ohio]

Its from "Unfit: The Documentary Film" from 2020 from some insane leftist.

[grb]

It’s also spot-on. Has there been any other politician in modern U.S. history so devoid of human traits and virtues as Donald John Trump? He’s a totally broken human being. If you subtract the megalomania, empty greed and unlimited narcissism, there’s absolutely nothing left. Only an emptied-out hollow husk.

[Bob from Ohio]

"megalomania, empty greed and unlimited narcissism"

You just described Hillary Clinton.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The only people who don’t think there is a meaningful moral character difference between the guy who was making fun of an old man for being brutally attacked with a hammer and Hillary Clinton are people with the same personality disorders as Trump. Even his own voters generally recognize the moral difference between the two deep down. If Republican parents were forced to choose which one of the two they would want to babysit their kids, they absolutely would not choose Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump is just a buffoon, Clinton is actively evil.

A big part of Trump's appeal is that he beat her.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Just a buffoon? Have you ever heard Clinton say or do anything close to the vile things that he’s said and done? He’s been found civilly liable for actual rape. John Kelly confirmed all the vile things he said about service members. He cheated on all his wives. He’s an absentee father. He says disturbing stuff about his eldest daughter.

In fact I don’t think you actually believe Hillary is “actively evil” and Trump is just a buffoon. You’re lying to yourself to make you feel better about what you support.

And you would never, ever, leave your daughter or any young woman you care about in the hands of Donald trump over Hillary Clinton. And you know it too.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This. They excuse themselves for supporting a man that any sentient person realizes is a severely defective person by labeling people they disagree with as "actively evil."

It's sad and pathetic to watch grown people engage in this pathetic flailing about to avoid admitting the truth about Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Have you ever heard Clinton say or do anything close to the vile things that he’s said and done? "

"Better put some ice on that."?

Remember what he did with the Travel office? Wanted to replace the existing staff for patronage reasons, and could have legally done so! But doing it for that reason would have looked bad, so instead they accused the head of the travel office of embezzlement. Just so as to have an excuse for getting rid of him.

The case was so weak that the jury acquitted in a couple hours.

But, you know, that was mostly Hillary. Bill was a horndog, but she was the real nightmare in that administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett came of political age with the Clinton conspiracies. Every once in a while he drops a deep cut. He's extra off these days, be he's always believed right wing myths long after they've been shown to be lies.

[Nige]

'but she was the real nightmare in that administration.'

'Evil' and 'nightmare' are doing a lot of work backed up by absolutely nothing.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Remember what he did with the Travel office?”

Yeah. In fact, I remember it far better than you. For instance, Travel Office Director Billy Ray Dale heard some inspectors were coming in to do a spot audit, rushed to his bank to withdrew thousands of dollars from his private account, and then said the cash had been sitting in an office drawer. Hell, even Dale’s attorneys conceded government funds were “co-mingled” in his personal bank account, but claimed that was for the convenience of off-book payments. Do you think that explanation would be acceptable in any other government or business setting?

The travel office was a complete mess. A full accounting review by KPMG Peat Marwick discovered Dale kept an off-book ledger, had $18,000 of unaccounted-for checks, and kept chaotic office records. When put on trial, his defense was he grotesquely incompetent – but not dishonest. He was supported in this by his buds in the media, who said he regularly paid government expenses out of his own pocket – thus explaining why he regularly put government money in his own bank account.

And that defense worked. But he’s not the holy martyr of this, your latest loopy fantasy. Apparently you couldn’t follow the news honesty back then either. Somehow you always lack three-quarters of the facts. Why?

[Don Nico]

I think that says all that needs to be said about the Orange Clown. He is a despicable human being

[PaulS]

Which of the last 10 presidents would you list as "decent"?

[Zarniwoop]

If we're using "decent" as shorthand for some description of moral character, I think pretty much everyone in the world would apply the "decent" label to Pres. Carter.

For any other of the last 10 ex-POTUS folks, we need a more nuanced question...

[Longtobefree]

I can think of 66 exceptions - - - - - - - -

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not really sure of that. I mean, after the Presidency he did sort of devote himself to endorsing the validity of rigged elections run by various strong men. That election monitoring gig of his.

I guess you could put it down to being credulous, but I'm not sure I buy that.

[David Nieporent]

I'd say that 9 of the last 10 were patriotic.

[Frank Drackman]

I agree, that Skinny Kenyan Barry Osama sucked, I don’t care how clean and "articulate"* he was.

*Apparently Parkinsonian Joe thinks anyone who says "uh" every other word and stutters worse than Spider in "Goodfellas" is "Articulate"

Frank

[NOVA Lawyer]

Although he was a pretty good President, I think it’s a stretch to call Bill Clinton a decent person. And his deficiencies of character were mostly irrelevant to his performance of his duties, at least as things played out.

Nixon was an actual criminal. He was a decent President and was sufficiently patriotic to not do the sorts of things Trump is doing, but I think it’s too much to say the tax cheat and felon is a decent person.

So, I’d have to say, 7 out of the last 10 were decent, patriotic people. Some weren’t decent Presidents, but they were decent people.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, I could point out some policy actions the Clinton administration took that were consistent with his personal ethics, stuff that was clearly contrary to the law, but they did it anyway. Like violating the Brady law's prohibition on retaining background check records. He was less than honest in policy, not just his personal life.

And a lot of his scandals were directly traceable to his lack of ethics, they wouldn't have happened in an administration headed up by somebody with a personal sense of right and wrong.

But, I don't think he was out to ruin the country, if that's what you mean.

[SRG2]

it is clear to me that kangaroos in the court are bent on destroying a decent man who has served our republic well

Some posters here are thinking, man, he must be on some good shit, where can I get some?

[Sarcastr0]

From this post, I'm not sure you're sentient where politics are concerned.

All too human, though.

[loki13]

Poe's Law.

[grb]

Another work of architecture (linked below) : Girl’s School in India, by the NYC firm Diana Kellogg Architects.

Like anything else, architecture is valued in different ways. Even solely by aesthetics, its art is manifest thru countless means. The Parthenon commands city and surrounding area as an object in the landscape; the Pantheon creates an ideal internal order. Both have perfect beauty, but in complete opposite ways. No single definition works, and that’s judging solely by art alone. But there’s also the functional utility of the building for any given use in time. Or the way it fits with (or challenges) the built and cultural fabric around it. Or whether it serves any larger social goal. And increasingly buildings are also judged by environmental standards, since they use 40% of global energy, 25% of global water, 40% of global resources, and emit approximately 1/3 of GHG emissions.

This tiny building checks a lot of boxes. Its form is simple & elegant and constructed with rigorous logic. The school uses local stone and masonry craftmanship to create its perforated Jallis screen walls, sun canopies, rain basins and flower medallions. Its oval plan is turned to the prevailing winds to draw ventilation in while shading against the harsh desert sunlight. And it was built to teach girls living below the poverty line, in a region where female literacy reaches only 36%. It’s a perfect little piece of work.

https://worldarchitecture.org/article-links/evpff/diana-kellogg-architects-ovalshaped-girl-s-school-is-made-of-handcarved-sandstone-in-rural-india.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/world/asia/architect-kellogg-india-girls-school.html

[SRG2]

I like it. Not too plain or austere, but simple nonetheless.

An architect explaining some philosophical or political point behind the design is for amusement only. I don't care, just as I don't care about what point a modern artist is making when producing a painting, regardless of whether I like it.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's actually a fairly nice building.

[grb]

YEAH! (fist pump)

Now if we can just get Bob on board.....

[Bob from Ohio]

Its fine. Make a good fortification.

Building around a central courtyard has only been done for 3 millennia so congrats on the cutting edge design.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I like that they hired the poor locals to do the work, so it boosted the local economy.

[grb]

Good to see that MAGA sour spite reappear! There's comfort in the familiar, however silly.

Two points :

1. A design parti done for three millennia is often the most cutting edge of all.

2. Poor locals? Sure. I doubt you’d get Bechtel or AECOM out in the Thar Desert to build it….

[Brett Bellmore]

They could have brought in pre-fab materials, rather than using locally quarried and shaped stone, is what I meant.

[grb]

It's remarkable how little efficacity there is in prefab construction. It seems like prefab has been just about to turn the corner all my life, but never does so.

[Brett Bellmore]

I built my last home by using a house kit, with the wall panels framed but not skinned. Arrived on a huge flat bed truck.

While I'm pretty sure I could have done it from a pile of lumber and nails, (I'd helped build my parents' home that way.) it would certainly have taken me a lot longer.

I'd say that prefab roof trusses have pretty much taken over the market, at this point, wouldn't you?

[grb]

I don't consider roof trusses as "prefab" in the the expanded sense because they're virtually all custom and made to particular dimensions and specifications. To me, the term means whole building packages. A large percentage of building components are made to order off drawings and approved submittals.

I have a facsimile of a very old Sears catalogue that sold house packages right out the book. I think that was very successful nationwide. In commercial construction, prefab is mainly centered around Butler-type buildings with clear-span steel frames. Some of them deliver a near-complete building package.

[Bob from Ohio]

"MAGA sour spite "

Blah, blah, blah.

[M L]

What's going on with this Trump case? I haven't been following, but this seems like yet another new low in banana republic type stuff.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/27/donald-trumps-mar-a-lago-worth-at-least-300m-sources/

It appears this judge is being blatantly biased and/or corrupt regarding basic matters of real estate valuation. It doesn't sound like Trump's valuation of Mar A Lago was outside the realm of reasonableness. Ultimately, valuation is subjective, especially for unique real estate, it's worth whatever the owner would sell for.

But mostly, the entire idea of a fraud case for allegedly overstating real estate values, where there was no harm suffered by any lender party or anyone, strikes me as extremely ludicrous. Can anyone make it make sense?

I doubt there's precedent for it, perhaps maybe other cases of political or personal persecution. Even if there had been some remote or de minimis harm, it's really the lender's job to decide what collateral is "worth" and whether it is sufficient security for whatever credit risk they are taking in light of the profit to be gained. Big banks have extremely smart people deciding the value of collateral like this and are well informed, in many ways in a better position than even the borrower to evaluate some things. I'm more than willing to consider any counterarguments.

[John F. Carr]

According to the judge state law allows the Attorney General to sue even if no harm was done. If Trump says his assets are worth $3 billion but they are only worth $2 billion, he loses. That billion is such a large figure it does not matter that it is not a large fraction of the total. So says the judge.

Trump did not present his own appraisals to counter those offered by the Attorney General, except for one property and there the judge rejected his expert witness.

[M L]

Are your billions figures just for illustration, or did Trump actually collateralize all or a substantial portion of his assets in one shot like that?

Why would the judge reject a professional appraisal and expert witness? Maybe that just goes to show that it's a waste of time for Trump bother with it.

"The law" as codified in statutes is often endlessly malleable, particularly at the federal level but also at the state level and perhaps particularly in blue states (and perhaps most particularly in the State of New York when it comes to laws that give super special privilege and favor to Wall St and big banks!), such that it may "allow" for just about anything, for example it is famously postulated that the average American could be guilty of 3 federal felonies per day. But is there any precedent for this circumstance? What is your view of the matter normatively speaking, should a borrower be prosecuted for allegedly overstating real estate values when there was no default, no harm, and the lender made their expected profits?

[SRG2]

What is your view of the matter normatively speaking, should a borrower be prosecuted for allegedly overstating real estate values when there was no default, no harm, and the lender made their expected profits?

Do you think that it should be a defence to actual fraud that nonetheless the investor got their money back? Or should it be a mitigation only? Think of the mens rea consequences - "I know I lied to the investor but I genuinely believed that I would be able to repay him in full and so I didn't know I was committing fraud, so you should acquit me."

[M L]

Usually or maybe always, injury is a necessary element of fraud. If so, then yes, lack of any injury would be a defense to a fraud claim.

[SRG2]

But your question was whether it should be.

And the issue gets more complicated when you consider economic P&L.

Suppose your credit model as a bank says that a particular borrower should be paying you 8% a year interest on a 5-year secured loan for a LTV of say 75%. The borrower lied to you, and the effective LTV is actually 125%, which had you known would have resulted in a rate of 15% - if indeed you would have lent any money at all.

Interest is paid and in 5 years' time the loan is repaid in full. Did you really lose nothing? Or did you lose 7% p.a. in economic cost because you didn't get paid the amount you should have done for the risk you took?

[M L]

Yes, I think so. We don’t go around suing people and awarding ruinous judgments for misrepresentations or saying false things that didn’t harm anyone.

If they can show that they were injured, then my comment about a circumstance where there is no injury does not apply. In your example, the lender would at a minimum need to prove that this model was actually in use and their other loans are consistent with those metrics, even then I’m guessing they would have an uphill battle to qualify this as an injury.

[shawn_dude]

A loss of income (and increase in risk) due to fraud is a harm.

Inflating assets in order to get more favorable rates and then deflating the same assets to lower your tax burden is a harm to the government.

Properly run banks and other investment firms apply this sorts of policies all the time. They're formalized and used as boilerplate. Anyone who's bought a house with a mortgage has experienced this.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the question is, what WAS the size of the loan relative to the valuation of the property? As far as I can tell, it was well below even the uninflated value of the properties used for collateral. Even the judge doesn't dispute that, he just dismisses it as irrelevant.

Not only was the loan paid off in full, it was paid off in full long enough ago that the statute of limitations would appear to have applied. Evidently the only thing that happened recently enough to NOT fall within it was some post loan paperwork.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that, absent political animus, this case would never have been brought.

[Mr. Bumble]

Have any similar cases been brought?

[M L]

See the WaPo article at my link below for a flavor of the precedent. It reveals just how shocking and absurd this is - pure lawfare.

[Bob from Ohio]

"borrower lied to you"

No bank, none, nada, zero, zip, gives loans based on what the borrower said the property was worth. Especially 7 and 8 figure loans!

They get a third party appraisal. They require audited financials. They look at the income and expenses to see if the cash flow will support the payments. Review credit history. Maybe get personal guarantees.

[John F. Carr]

He got a loan before the period for which is was on trial. Until the loan was repaid he was required to submit statements of financial condition saying how rich he was. I think, but I do not know, that there was no mortgage involved.
Quoting the judge:

OAG has submitted conclusive evidence that between 2014 and 2021, defendants overvalued the assets reported in the SFCs between 17.27-38.51%; this amounts to a discrepancy of between $812 million and $2.2 billion. Even in the world of high finance, this Court cannot endorse a prpposition that finds a misstatement of at least $812 million dollars to be "immaterial."

[David Nieporent]

Why would the judge reject a professional appraisal and expert witness?

If you're talking about the Mar-a-Lago assessment specifically, the judge rejected it because all the expert offered was a conclusion, not any expert analysis. Whatever the topic, it's not admissible for an expert to merely say, "Trust me, the answer's X." And that's all the guy that Trump offered said. His affidavit offered no facts or analysis to support his valuation. (It referenced "formulas" but didn't say what those formulas were or how he used them.)

[M L]

Ok, instead of being lazy and asking questions, I read a bit more about this.

1. Here's the NY statute:

"Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law   3 or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper.  The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.  The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct."

That raises numerous questions, and is far more complicated than "if your number was wrong you lose." Such as what is "fraud" or "illegal" or "restitution and damages" or "appropriate." Maybe I'll read the partial summary judgment and see if the judge offers any insight. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991876/trump-ny-fraud-ruling.pdf

2. The contractual representations at issue apparently included the following:

"Assets are stated at their estimated current values and liabilities at their estimated current amounts using various valuation methods. Such valuation methods include, but are not limited to, the use of appraisals, capitalization of anticipated earnings, recent sales and offers, and estimates of current values as determined by Mr. Trump in conjunction with his associates and, in some instances, outside professionals. Considerable judgment is necessary to interpret market data and develop the related estimates of current value. Accordingly, the estimates presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the amount that could be realized upon the disposition of the assets or payment of the related liabilities. The use of different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated current value amounts."

3. With that said, it seems plausible that Trump may have subjectively valued some of the properties outside of a reasonable FMV range.

[M L]

So - this matter gets even far more outrageous. The judge ordered that all of Trump's business entities be "canceled" and ordered the appointment of "independent receivers to manage the dissolution of the canceled LLCs.."

Incredibly, even a left-wing writer in left-wing rag Washington Post wonders if they have gone too far :

"The punishment in his case is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented in its scale...forcing the sale or other disposition of his businesses, as the judge ordered in his opinion last week, seems both unnecessary and unduly punitive, disproportionate to the offenses charged. And I worry that this consequence would not have been meted out to another defendant who engaged in similar misconduct...

“This is a version of business law capital punishment,” said Columbia Law School professor Eric Talley, a corporate law expert. “I’m not aware of a precedent at this scale.” Talley said he was particularly struck by the judge’s move to cancel all Trump-related business licenses in the state, not just those involving the overvalued properties.
Lee Bergstein, a real estate lawyer and veteran of the New York attorney general’s office, agreed. “Legal experts are trying to grapple with this in real time because to the extent that this remedy has been utilized before it hasn’t been utilized for a remedy of this scale and scope,” he said."

She goes on to discuss precedent which involved "egregious fraud with actual harm to unsophisticated parties, not banks and insurers clearly capable of looking out for themselves."

[Voize]

You should read the opinion. The arguments in these comments - "no harm, no foul", valuation variability is normal, immateriality, scienter, the disclaimer - are answered there. Plus, on many issues the judge cites precedent applying the same statute ten or twenty years ago, which should help dispel the belief that it is "Trump law".

[John F. Carr]

The precedent I read concerned a company with a business model that involved getting default judgments in an inconvenient forum. It was totally unlike Trump's organization, which has a legitimate business model with scattered instances of financial crimes and wrongdoing.

[Voize]

You are describing People v. Northern Leasing (2020). Whether factual differences in the precedent makes it inapplicable depends on what proposition it is cited to support.
That case was cited once by the defense and once by the court, both times to support conclusions about Executive Law §63(12). Neither argument depended on similarities between Northern Leasing and Trump, other than that they involve the same statute.

[bernard11]

I challenge "scattered."

Trump is a crook - always has been. Financial crimes and wrongdoing is part of his business model.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we get that the law, facially, permits what is going on, even if it has never before been utilized in this way. Legally doesn’t matter that nobody got hurt, legally doesn’t matter that the overvaluation was irrelevant because the true value of the assets was more than sufficient, legally doesn’t matter that the lenders were warned not to rely on the numbers, or that they in fact didn’t rely on the numbers.

The only thing that legally matters is that the judge disagreed with them. Off with his head, financial death penalty!

Sometimes the problem isn’t that the law doesn’t literally mean that, the problem is that what the law does literally mean is unreasonable, and would never be applied to its limits if they weren’t out to get the defendant.

[Nige]

Fraudster gets punished: Republicans mad.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

This will come as a shock to absolutely no one, but you might want to check David's response to ML, below.

It would appear that your claims are, once again, bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nothing David said addressed what I had to say. I conceded that the law could, read literally, be applied in this way, I just argued that doing so would be a vast and novel injustice, such as you’d never see if the prosecutor and judge didn’t have it in for the defendant.

In fact, I think we're looking at an 8th amendment case here, given the mind boggling gulf between the penalty and the harm.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As a matter of fact, the one thing you 'conveniently' left out of your response to me was your claim the law had never been utilized in this way.

"This ongoing flouting of this Court’s prior order, combined with the persistent nature of the false SFCs year after year, have demonstrated the necessity of canceling the certificates filed under GBL § 130, as the statute provides. People v Northern Leasing. 70 Misc 3d 256, 279-80 (Sup Ct, NY County 2020) (denying a trial on the petition and ordering the LLC respondents to dissolve upon a finding of persistent fraud under Executive Law § 63( 12))."

As I said: bullshit.

[M L]

Voize – You should read the WaPo article. The remedy here especially is orders of magnitude beyond any precedent. This corrupt judge’s opinion does absolutely nothing to address that.

Taking a look at the opinion –

1. There is nothing to justify the absurd result of “canceling” the entities, much less of dissolving and forcing a sale of all of the defendant’s assets.

2. There is no attempt to explain why this conduct constitutes “Fraud” when nobody was harmed. All sources seem to indicate that injury is a necessary element of fraud in New York, just as it is elsewhere. The judge muddles through various competing state court opinions to decide that “disgorgement” is an available remedy under Executive Law 63(12). That remedy goes beyond a particularized loss incurred by a particular individual to capture “ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct.” But even if this allows a broader remedy, the statute still requires “fraudulent or illegal activity” in the first place, and a necessary element of fraudulent activity is injury. There is really no explanation of this in that part of the opinion. Later on, the judge just makes conclusory statements that don’t address the issue at all, such as: “A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud.” No explanation of why it can only be considered fraud despite harming nobody, which has always been a classic necessary element of fraud, must a misplaced emphasis on the scale of the supposed discrepancy.

If I tell you that I live in a 50,000 square foot Grinch lair on top of a mountain, can you now sue me for fraud? Or would you need to show that you detrimentally relied on this statement somehow?

Aside from that, the judge makes no attempt to explain how anyone obtained any “ill-gotten gains.” Disgorgement is not an impermissible penalty, the opinion further says, only because “the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct.” So what is that position? What are the illicit gains? How does this translate into ordering the dissolution of Trump's assets? No explanation.

In all of this, the judge relies on the case of Ernst & Young, in which it might be noted the State of NY extracted its measly pound of flesh for the 2008 financial crisis by going after Lehman Brothers’ accountants. That opinion explains “disgorgement” decently well as a remedy, but again fails to explain how activity can be fraudulent in the first place if nobody was injured. And THAT opinion, which is rather short and imprecise ( https://casetext.com/case/people-v-ernst-young-1 ) relies in turn on the case of Applied Card Sys. I just read the cited pp. 125-126 and . . . it does NOT contain, or even support, the proposition that it was relied on to establish. Take a look and see if you agree.

3. The section addressing the so-called “worthless clause” is not compelling.

“defendants’ reliance on these “worthless” disclaimers is worthless. The clause does not use the words “worthless” or “useless” or “ignore” or “disregard” or any similar words. .. Indeed, the quoted language uses the word “current” no less than five times, and the word “future” zero times.”

This blather simply does not address the content of what the disclaimer actually says.

The judge goes on to provide an “additional” argument in which he states the law incompletely based on what is stated earlier in his own opinion. The judge says that a disclaimer is no good if it concerns “facts peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge,” ignoring that such a disclaimer is only no good as a defense to a “justifiable reliance” claim of fraud. The cited case (once again a case arising out of the 2007 financial crisis, this one against Goldman Sachs) involved real harm and “sufficiently detailed” allegations of fraud. The issue in that case was whether a plaintiff could establish the “reliance” element of fraud given some very vague and general disclaimers. But here, first, the disclaimer is specific as to the particular type of fact, second, there is no plaintiff otherwise alleging fraud and injury, and third, the valuation of real estate is not remotely “peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge” in the way Goldman Sach’s mortgage-backed securities may have been as detailed in that opinion. The judge makes no attempt to explain any reasoning. He just uses the word “obviously” to say so at the top of page 14.

[David Nieporent]

1. There is nothing to justify the absurd result of “canceling” the entities, much less of dissolving and forcing a sale of all of the defendant’s assets.

That's directly in the statute, and he does explain it: the fraudulent activity continued even during the pendency of this case:

Even with a preliminary injunction in place, and with an independent monitor overseeing their compliance , defendants have continued to disseminate false and misleading information while conducting business. This ongoing flouting of this Court's prior order, combined with the persistent nature of the false SFCs year after year, have demonstrated the necessity of canceling the certificates filed under GBL § 130, as the statute provides. People v Northern Leasing. 70 Misc 3d 256, 279-80 (Sup Ct, NY County 2020) (denying a trial on the petition and ordering the LLC respondents to dissolve upon a finding of persistent fraud under Executive Law § 63( 12)).

2. There is no attempt to explain why this conduct constitutes “Fraud” when nobody was harmed. All sources seem to indicate that injury is a necessary element of fraud in New York, just as it is elsewhere.

Actually, there is. Because this isn't a "fraud" case. It's an Executive Law § 63(12) case. And he explains very clearly — citing caselaw — that a showing of harm is not required under § 63(12). You can't just handwave that away as you try to do here. Nor can you decide to substitute your own definition of fraud, or the common law definition of fraud, for the statutory definition:

The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.

I just read the cited pp. 125-126 and . . . it does NOT contain, or even support, the proposition that it was relied on to establish. Take a look and see if you agree.

Even if you were right, what does it matter? If the Appellate Division says — as it did in Ernst & Young — that disgorgement is an available remedy regardless of harm, it doesn't matter whether you think it got the law wrong; Engoron is bound by it. (Note that the AppDiv repeated that holding in an earlier appeal by Trump in this very case.)

If I tell you that I live in a 50,000 square foot Grinch lair on top of a mountain, can you now sue me for fraud? Or would you need to show that you detrimentally relied on this statement somehow?

I cannot sue you for fraud, no. But the New York AG can sue you for violating § 63(12), if your telling me that was part of your carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, and it was repeated or persistent.

What are the illicit gains? How does this translate into ordering the dissolution of Trump’s assets? No explanation.

First, Footnote 21 in fact explains both harm and illicit gains. Second, you're mixing up two things: disgorgement requires illicit gains, but ordering dissolution of the business is an independent remedy under §63(12).

This blather simply does not address the content of what the disclaimer actually says.

In fact, he does address what it says: that the valuations are estimated current values. Here's what it doesn't say: "These valuations are worthless; we pulled them out of our ass." Rather, the disclaimer essentially says that this isn't an exact science. Not remotely the same thing. (By the way, although Trump pretends that this is a thing, the notion that it's called a "worthless clause" is belied by the fact that he seems to have made up that term. Google it, but eliminate the references to this lawsuit. See the lack of results.) That disclaimer might be sufficient to insulate Trump if an independent appraisal says a property is worth $30m and he calculates it as $35 million. But it doesn't protect him if he says $250 million, and then tries to justify that by saying that he feels like it could be worth $250 million someday if contingent events happen.

[Sarcastr0]

I remember when ML had some good legal analysis on here. Years ago, now.

[M L]

1. “That’s directly in the statute, and he does explain it: the fraudulent activity continued even during the pendency of this case”

a. No, there is nothing in the statute about appointing a receiver and forcing assets to be liquidated. To be fair, the opinion doesn’t seem clear to me on that point – a “dissolution” does not necessarily mean any public or even private sales. But that’s the way media outlets are reporting it.

b. Cancelling a certificate is in the statute, but the judge doesn’t provide any authority for the idea that “disseminating false and misleading information” warrants a liquidation of your assets, or that it makes this an “appropriate” case for canceling a certificate. People v Northern Leasing is about persistent fraud. Here, the judge conspicuously doesn’t find any further or ongoing fraud. Instead he just says “disseminating false and misleading information.” Even that much is not demonstrated, much less any ongoing fraud. There is no look at what these numbers are that are supposedly false and misleading, no indication that the documents are even in evidence, instead just a snippet from his colleague about some “preliminary” nitpicking apart of various documents and claiming there are a few things incomplete.

c. Interestingly, I also looked at People v. Northern Leasing and it doesn’t seem to support what the judge claimed it supports, anyway. That case did not even involve canceling a certificate under 63(12). Instead, court dissolved the corporation under Business Corporation Law § 1101 (a) (2) which includes similar language (This would be the much more familiar and typical provision of a corporation statute that allows an attorney general to bring an action for dissolution). And again, there is no mention of forced liquidation (which is different from dissolution), appointment of a receiver, or any indication that the corporate entity would have assets anyway, and the parties were also enjoined from engaging in the business altogether in that case, among other relevant differences.

d. I had been assuming that “certificates” referred to certificates of formation or incorporation, so that canceling would essentially mean dissolution. But upon looking at section 130 of the General Business Law, I was very puzzled because that only talks about assumed names. I now see Voize makes that point below. Like Voize, I do not see how 63(12) provides authority even to dissolve an entity or cancel its certificate of formation.

2. “Actually, there is. Because this isn’t a “fraud” case. It’s an Executive Law § 63(12) case.”

63(12) is only about fraud and illegal activity. The judge doesn’t mention “illegal activity,” only fraud. So, it is a fraud case.

I will concede, for the sake of argument, that a close textualist parsing of this statute could yield a revolutionary new definition of “fraud” – that doesn’t make much sense and I don’t know if that would hold up. But in any case, the judge doesn’t make that argument. Instead, he just ignores the issue altogether, and erroneously focuses on the fact that disgorgement as an equitable remedy isn’t limited to specified individual losses.

3. “Even if you were right, what does it matter? If the Appellate Division says”

I agree, in general, it doesn’t necessarily matter to a trial court if a controlling appellate case got something wrong. I looked up the cite and mentioned it because it seems like such a novel and backwards proposition. And sure enough, scratch the surface and it seems to unravel. It could matter, if the trial court is picking and choosing from among authorities that are conflicting or in tension, or of differing quality and clarity.

4. “If the Appellate Division says — as it did in Ernst & Young — that disgorgement is an available remedy regardless of harm”

What the court said was that disgorgement is available as an equitable remedy, when there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, and that it was premature to categorically preclude it at the pleading stage. That’s because as a remedy, the court explained, disgorgement is distinct from restitution, and does not require/is not measured by specific losses to certain individuals or independent restitution claims brought by individuals. But it still requires a “claim based on fraudulent activity” to survive pleading. Such a claim would presumably involve harm of some sort (Ernst & Young paid $99 million to Lehman investors in a civil action in this same matter) even if the attorney general wasn’t required to detail specific or “direct” harm in pleadings.

5. “Footnote 21 in fact explains both harm and illicit gains.”

It does not explain, it only asserts, without any evidence.

6. “Second, you’re mixing up two things: disgorgement requires illicit gains, but ordering dissolution of the business is an independent remedy under §63(12).”

As explained above, I’m not sure that ordering a dissolution of the business is a remedy under 63(12). But assuming that it is, it is a remedy that is available for repeated fraudulent or illegal activity. Again, fraudulent activity generally requires injury. It is the judge that is mixing up two different things, by saying that fraud doesn’t require injury, just because this separate equitable remedy of disgorgement is not measured by specific or direct injury. The judge’s reasoning interpreted most charitably seems to be that because the equitable remedy of disgorgement doesn’t require specific and direct harm, therefore fraud doesn’t either, and therefore he can dissolve these entities. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

7. “In fact, he does address what it says: that the valuations are estimated current values. Here’s what it doesn’t say . . ”

This is probably the stupidest part of the whole opinion of the parts I read closely. The judge did not address any of the parts of this provision that are favorable to the defense. He harps on the word “current” because that is maybe the only word in there that is good for his side. Otherwise he spends time talking about words that aren’t there, like “future.” Presumably the judge is smart enough to understand things like “different market assumptions” and the fact that any current value is necessarily based on assumptions about future values. The most significant sentence in the disclaimer of course is this: “the estimates presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the amount that could be realized upon the disposition of the assets or payment of the related liabilities.”

[David Nieporent]

Otherwise he spends time talking about words that aren’t there, like “future.”

He spends time talking about that because that was Trump's argument. (Well, one of them.) Trump argued that the properties could be worth as much as he claimed they were at some indefinite point in the future, if various things happened that there was no basis for assuming would happen. But his financial disclosures stated — even including the disclaimer — that he was providing current values.

You can't get (e.g.) Trump Tower appraised at $100m but then tell banks that the current value of the building is $500m based on the undisclosed premise that, after all, if they discover oil deposits under the building, and get permission to extract said oil, the property would be worth a lot more.

[Kenneth Almquist]

1. Even with a preliminary injunction in place, and with an independent monitor overseeing their compliance, defendants have continued to disseminate false and misleading information while conducting business.

This. Trump has made it clear that ordering Trump to stop violating the law won't work. Trump will just go on violating the law anyway. Shutting down the his businesses is the only way to stop him.

It's like the classified documents case. If Trump has returned the documents when they were subpoenaed--or filed a motion to squash the subpoena and returned the documents if he lost the motion to squash--that would have likely ended the matter.

[Voize]

I'll agree with respect to one action, the dissolution of the LLCs. It is relief the AG didn't request, and I don't understand what authority the court has to order it.

Executive Law §63(12) provides for injunctive relief, damages, restitution, and canceling certificates issued under General Business Law §130. But canceling those certificates doesn't dissolve the business, they are registrations of "doing-business-as" names. An entity can still operate without a certificate, it (whether an individual, a corporation, or an LLC) just has to do so under its legal name instead of an assumed name.

The opinion does cite Northern Leasing with the parenthetical

denying a trial on the petition and ordering the LLC respondents to dissolve upon a finding of persistent fraud under Executive Law 63( 12)

but this is not correct. Northern Leasing ordered the dissolution of a corporation for doing "business in a persistently fraudulent or illegal manner" as provided in Business Corporation Law §1101(a)(2), but LLCs are not corporations and that statute doesn't apply to them.

[Sarcastr0]

So many experts on here about real estate fraud alluva sudden.

FFS.

[OtisAH]

One really funny thing that’s going on is he has stood in front of cameras each day this week after court and confessed to tax and bank fraud on national television.

[Commenter_XY]

One aspect I question here, ML: Does the punishment fit the actual crime?

I have never seen an individual criminal case where the imposed penalty for 'questionable paperwork' (I am being charitable here) was a complete forfeiture of billions of dollars in real assets, and immediate dissolution. I cannot think of such an instance in American history. If the penalty for questionable paperwork in NYC is going to be potential forfeiture of all real assets held by that person (or company), I think that represents a very big change in what we consider as proportional punishment for what is described as a victimless, paperwork violation.

How many other NYC firms have real assets w/in NYC that are forfeitable (and without a jury trial, to boot) because of alleged misrepresentation of the value of an asset (questionable paperwork); I can assure you, it is not a small number. Those businesses are now just one yank of a business certificate away from forced dissolution by a judge who could be having a seriously bad hair day.

Sometimes, we should think about the shoe being on the other foot.

[David Nieporent]

You're being incredibly charitable to Trump there. And he isn't going to forfeit all of the assets; he just may lose control over them.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's going to "lose control over them" in the sense of their being handed over to somebody to sell at a ruinous loss, to pay the fines and maybe he gets a pittance if there's a pittance left over.

[OtisAH]

Are people suppose to weep at the end of that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, why not, when it's being done for political reasons, in response to something that didn't hurt anybody?

Yeah, I know you're not going to weep over people you dislike being ruined as part of a political vendetta.

[OtisAH]

What a singularly ridiculous person you are.

[Nige]

Working hard to persuade yourself Trump isn't a fraudster.

[Ed Grinberg]

Your Guide to the New Right

A New York Times "conservative" (David French) invites a Reason Magazine "libertarian" (Stephanie Slade) to talk about how horrible "the New Right" is.
"Be very afraid!!!"
Too funny...

[Longtobefree]

You lost me at "New York Times"

[MoreCurious]

Too many big words for you? Or are you just offering evidence that your mind is permanently closed?

[M L]

Biden Administration Desperate to Erase Memory of Covid Mandates

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/10/biden-administration-desperate-to-erase-memory-of-covid-mandates/

The Biden Administration is rewriting the history of COVID. Today, the head of OSHA claimed "we didn't demand that anyone be fired" despite issuing a worker vaccine mandate for 84 million Americans that was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Previously, HHS Secretary Becerra claimed "we didn't force anyone to do anything" despite imposing a toddler mask mandate and Education Secretary Cardona baldly denied his past support for student vaccine mandates.

[Zarniwoop]

Welp:

NEW YORK (AP) — Prosecutors say the ex-campaign treasurer for U.S. Rep. George Santos will plead guilty to an unspecified felony in connection with the federal investigation of financial irregularities surrounding the indicted New York Republican. Nancy Marks is a veteran Long Island political operative. Marks was a campaign treasurer and close aide to Santos during his two congressional bids. Marks resigned amid questions about Santos’ campaign finances and revelations Santos fabricated much of his life story. Marks’ plea is scheduled Thursday in a Central Islip courtroom. Santos faces a 13-count federal indictment centered on charges of money laundering and lying to Congress in an earlier financial disclosure. Marks and Santos haven’t returned messages seeking comment.

Anyone think there's not an agreement requiring Marks to testify against Santos?

[Dr. Ed 2]

This sort smells badly — I really don’t approve of a schmuck fabricating his resume, but being a schmuck ought not be a crime.

Why the bleep didn’t the opposing candidate spend the 10 seconds to Google the guy and notice that his resume didn’t add up? And if the NY Dems didn’t, well, sucks to be them — bringing criminal charges now isn’t right.

If he actually laundered money, that’s one thing — but this is the sort of thing that smells bad.

[Zarniwoop]

Santos told some whoppers, sure, but try re-reading what his accountant is pleading guilty to: a felony in connection with campaign finance irregularities.

Santos told some whoppers, sure, but try re-reading what he's been charged with: "Santos faces a 13-count federal indictment centered on charges of money laundering and lying to Congress in an earlier financial disclosure."

Not lying about his resume. Money laundering and lying on campaign finance forms.

Just in case you're still willfully ignorant and unclear on the concept: Santos is NOT being prosecuted for "being a schmuck" for lying on his resume. Never has been. Financial crimes. Where there's evidence. Where there's no 1st Amd "but I was campaigning, I can exaggerate!" defense. None zip zero nada.

[SRG2]

FFS, you're arguing that if one political party doesn't do the due diligence on another party's candidate that the other party failed to do, that candidate should be immune from criminal liability.

[Zarniwoop]

Perhaps there’s not an agreement (yet!), so we’ll have to stay tuned:

Prosecutors said that Ms. Marks and Mr. Santos, who was not named in Ms. Marks’s court documents, agreed to falsely inflate the Santos campaign’s fund-raising numbers. The goal, they said, was to hit a $250,000 benchmark for a program run by a Republican Party committee that would allow Mr. Santos to get logistical and financial support….
Ms. Marks waived her right to face a grand jury and agreed to the charges, according to court papers. Ms. Marks’s lawyer told reporters that Ms. Marks had not formally agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in their case against Mr. Santos.

But it is kinda hilarious that the victim of the fraudulent filing was a Republican congressional campaign funding committee, and that Santos&Marks were grifting their own party. Can’t make this stuff up!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Walmart plans to drop college degree requirements for most management positions. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/yourmoney/consumer/article-12594117/College-degree-no-longer-required-Walmart.html

This is *big* because they are one of the nation's largest employers -- and the college degree requirement evolved out of the Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) decision where management aptitude tests were verboten as racist -- but one could require a college degree (in *anything*, from *anywhere*) without being racist.

Several state governments have gone this route because they are not bound by the EEOC, but WalMart doing it is BIG.

[M L]

Jon Stewart: I Faced “Swift” Backlash For Promoting Lab Leak Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX35Smjfng&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow

[Sarcastr0]

Seems the left has less of a cult of personality thing, and are willing to call out folks ostensibly on their side when they promote a dumb thing.

Seems like you think if Jon Stewart said it, Dems not reflexively swallowing it is a bad thing.

Which...yeah I can see why you would think that.

[M L]

The left has far more of a cult thing, but there are a few of them willing to dissent from the party line – Jimmy Dore being one of the few, he’s a treasure just based on this: https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1665078398828576769 . By comparison the right is nothing but dissent and disagreement within, they can’t hang together to save their life, widespread opposition to GOP leadership and recent historical GOP policy, etc.

[Nige]

Since the lab leak theory stubbornly remains a theory, you are mistaking 'party line' for 'correct, based on current evidence.' The distinction is even stronger in the case of RFKjr and his anti-vaxxery.

[M L]

The non-sequiturs offered by you and Sarcastro don’t give me much to go on, but I’ll give it a shot.

Sarcastro said the left is less culty. I beg to disagree since they all fall in line much more than the right, regardless of the topic. That was my point in the previous comment. Doesn't matter what the topic is.

“Yes, that’s because our party line is the truth!” ROFL, thanks for that response Nige.

The lab leak stubbornly remains a theory – and always will. And the theory that it was not a lab leak also remains a theory – a substantially stupider and less likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

[Sarcastr0]

[the left] all fall in line much more than the right, regardless of the topic

You don't know anything about the left. They will argue about everything.

You also have suddenly left the merits argument behind. Not surprising.

Go follow everything Trump says while you call the left a cult some more.

[Nige]

“Yes, that’s because our party line is the truth!”

I know that's a rough concept for you to parse, but gve it a go. True things, like up is up and down is down aren't really party lines. That the lab leak thery is still just a theory is also true.

'a substantially stupider and less likely theory'

Where oh where did all the major outbreaks of viral disease come from before they had labs to leak from?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not right next to labs researching the exact same virus, I'd assume.

[Nige]

No, back then they'd blame the Jews.

The viruses are studied in a place where the viruses are found? Shocking.

[SRG2]

Find me any example of a US moderate or left-wing politician with the same cultic appeal as Trump.

[Jerry B.]

Joe Biden. He’s a demigod to the Progressives who read WAPO and/or NYT.

[Nige]

A whole bunch of people went to jail trying to keep Trump in power. Who's done that for Biden?

[Frank Drackman]

Jeffrey Epstein, temporarily

[Sarcastr0]

Joe Biden. He’s a demigod

Hahaha you don't know anyone at all who is a liberal, do you?

Biden the demigod. LOL.

[Bob from Ohio]

"same cultic appeal as Trump."

Clinton.

The least successful candidate in modern US history gets treated like she is a sage. Constantly on TV and getting awards. Standing ovations when she goes somewhere.

Watch the Hallelujah song from SNL and tell me she doesn't have a cult.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Dems and liberals love Hillary Clinton!!

My lord.

[Don Nico]

He meant Bil, I hope

[Bob from Ohio]

"Dems and liberals love Hillary Clinton!!"

They seem to give he a lot of awards

"On 26 October 2017, she was given the first Women's Media Center Wonder Woman Award.[75]
In November 2017 Clinton received the award for being the Democratic Woman of the Year from the Woman's National Democratic Club.[76]
In March 2018 it was announced that Clinton would be honored by the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study in May 2018 with the Radcliffe Medal, which "honors individuals whose lives and work have had a transformative impact on society."[77]
In April 2018 Clinton received the inaugural Ida B. Wells Legacy Award from a political action committee formed in tribute to that early feminist and civil rights figure.[78]
In June 2018, Clinton got an honorary doctorate from Trinity College Dublin.[79]
On 10 October 2018 She was awarded the Honorary degree of Doctor of Laws from Queen's University Belfast.[80]
On 23 September 2021 she was awarded the honorary doctorate in Civil Law from the University of Oxford.[81]
On May 18, 2022, she received an honorary Doctor of Laws (LL.D) degree from Columbia University.[82]
On September 28, 2023, she won the Emmy Award for Outstanding Politics and Government Documentary for In Her Hands at the 44th News and Documentary Emmy Awards.[83]"

[Bob from Ohio]

Libs just hate her!

" Hillary Clinton Visits Broadway's 'POTUS', Gets Cheers Over Questions of Why She Isn't President
"I laughed so hard," Hillary Clinton told POTUS stars Vanessa Williams, Julianne Hough, Rachel Dratch and more after the performance on Wednesday night
By Dave Quinn
Published on July 7, 2022 04:38PM EDT"

[Bob from Ohio]

Just hate her

"Clintons, Buttigieg inspire Vanderbilt students, Hillary gets standing ovation"
Keith Sharon, Nashville Tennessean March 2023

[Bob from Ohio]

Pure hatred!

"Hillary Clinton returns to the White House for arts celebration"
By Jeff Mason
September 12, 20237:19 PM EDTUpdated 24 days ago

"The crowd roared in applause at her welcome.

"Wow. You are so loved," the current first lady said to the former one."

[Nige]

Yeah, hated by some, popular with others, appreciated more after four years governed by her rival, on a round of retirement back-slapping – a far cry from a cult figure that inspired Qanon, Jan 6th, and the insistence amongst 'normal' supporters that his every self-inflicted misfortune are conspiracies and plots and miscarriages of justice.

[Nige]

And they cover up all her murders, too.

[grb]

M L : “Jon Stewart: I Faced “Swift” Backlash…”

Here’s the ironic thing: Let’s say you shrug-off the Right’s whinging over people being mean & hurtful about the Lab Leak Theory, ignore which celebrities are for-or-against, and finish tallying all the alphabet-soup of government agencies to score whether your team is winning. Guess what’s left?

The scientific evidence, which still solidly supports a zoonotic-origin.

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00583-23

[M L]

https://img.ifunny.co/images/ba8ef4fc6db657190253374159779de8507009e223e77d563fff3bc6ef02a0d4_1.webp

[SRG2]

Argument by meme? Not very logical.

[Sarcastr0]

Anti-intellectualist bullshit.

You don't know how science is funded, you don't know how scientists think.

You just don't want to believe stuff scientists say.

[Frank Drackman]

Because it's bullshit

[Don Nico]

"Anti-intellectualist bullshit."
Oh, come on. You know full well that many scientists are accused to conflicts of interest in there research because they have been funded by drug companies, for example.
Left and right polemicists have a strong habit in that direction.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sarcasto thinks science funding is some esoteric mystery.

NIH and other government funding, corporate grants as you say, foundations, money raised by charities. Anything I'm missing?

[grb]

Don Nico : “Left and right polemicists have a strong habit in that direction”

Is that your final word? M L says you can’t trust scientific studies any more than Jon Stewart and you hold that view is immune from criticism. Because (per Don via Mozart): così fan tutte (So do they all).

Right-wing polemicists have a strong habit in that direction, finding in convenient to disparage all science and expertise. It seems like anti-intellectualist bullshit to me, but what do I know? You are (as I understand it) the scientist. Not me.

Anyway (to return to the original topic) the American Society of Microbiology analysis of covid origin theories is linked below. Give it a read. We’d love to hear your opinion on something other than the unfairness of criticizing conservatives.

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00583-23

[Magister]

The thing that irritated me when I saw Jon Stewart on Colbert's show was the claim (really from both) that little advance in combating pandemics had been made in a hundred years and that the advice in 1918 was the same as in the recent pandemic - "wear a mask, wash your hands" - when Stewart expected advice like "drink a tincture of mercury with butterfly juice". Of course, 1918 was rife with a different set of quack remedies and advice than COVID ("wash inside nose with soap and water each morning and evening" and "Is it a fact that a sure preventative against influenza is cocoa taken three times a day?" and "In some factories, no-smoking rules were relaxed, in the belief that cigarettes would help prevent infection", all from https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-52564371 ). At the same time, this skipped over the consistent advice known then and now: quarantine, closures, social distancing; and it ignored the huge advances in just knowing what viruses are and the ability to develop a vaccine for a novel one in less than a year -- the thing that let them come together in a crowded room only a year and a half after the pandemic started.

Stewart's support for the lab leak theory bothered me less; unfortunate that Jon Stewart apparently wanted to be some weird cross between Sam Kinison and Bill Maher, but easy to see as just an overblown comedy routine. And Colbert actually pushed back on that part, so there was that.

[Don Nico]

"The scientific evidence, which still solidly supports a zoonotic-origin."
That is just not true. I work with several virologist who serious doubt zoonotic origin. But no of those will that that there is conclusive evidence of any particular theory of origin

[Frank Drackman]

Pretty Horrible Murder in Brooklyn Monday, Black Community Activist-Poet stabbed to death by deranged White Guy,https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-deadly-stabbing-poet-caught-camera-police-custody Boy! BLM will have a field day with this one! gonna be a long hot October in Brooklyn!!!! Oh wait, it was a White Community-Activist Poet stabbed to death by a deranged Black Guy, never mind, (HT E. Litella)
Good thing the White guy didn’t have a gun! he was in a “Public” area! could have gotten a really stiff fine.

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Trump has just moved to dismiss the election theft prosecution in D.C. on the grounds that it's part of the president's duties to try to steal an election and stay in power after he loses his bid for re-election, and therefore he is immune from prosecution for doing that.

Note that this is basically the same argument that Mark Meadows and Jeffrey Clark lost on in their attempt to remove the Georgia case to federal court.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.74.0.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

You do understand that when people speak, they speak their own words, not the meaning you attribute to them, right?

I'm not saying that his argument for dismissing the prosecution is valid, mind you. Just making a general point about the rhetorical technique you employed.

[David Nieporent]

You do understand that quotation marks are for citing someone's exact words, right? And that the absence of quotation marks makes clear that it's the reporter's description of the person's words, not the person's words themselves, right?

[Frank Drackman]

Wrong!
People that say "right" all the time are real dickheads, "right"???
Do you have a more successful relative named "David Immerpotent"
that would be German for "Always Potent"

Frank "Manchmal Potent"

[Moderation4ever]

As far as I can tell the President has no official duties associated with the election. The Constitution gives the President no duties regarding the election.

[David Nieporent]

You noticed that, huh? Trump's acts were about Trump's personal attempts to get reelected, which of course is not an area of concern of the office of the presidency.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the D.C. indictment is wholly unpersuasive. For the most part, it conflates a former president's immunity from being sued civilly for damages, recognized in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), with an immunity from criminal prosecution after leaving office -- an immunity that courts have never recognized.

[Magister]

Nixon having to be pardoned would seem to argue that such immunity was not expected with certainty.

[David Nieporent]

Meanwhile, in other MAGA legal news, MyPillow Guy has apparently bankrupted himself because he fell under the Trump cult; he can no longer after to pay his lawyers in the lawsuits he's facing for his delusions about voting machines:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.227759/gov.uscourts.dcd.227759.195.1.pdf

[Zarniwoop]

I'm shocked, shocked!

[David Nieporent]

#ETTD.

[Zarniwoop]

had to Google ETTD. Thanks for the learning moment!

Also, I'm completely unshocked, unshocked! at that abbreviation.

[Life of Brian]

If accuracy is at all a concern, I'd suggest something more like #ETTIGAWK [Everything Trump Touches Is Gleefully and Wantonly Killed.]

[Magister]

Murc's Law.

[Life of Brian]

Sorry, didn't mean to make you interrupt your routine, gleeful cheering on of the demise of anyone who has the temerity to not spit in Trump's eye to throw out cutesy catchphrases innocently denying same. Please do carry on.

[Magister]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I expect some Democrat made you say it.

[OtisAH]

Delusions he continued to spill publicly for months after the suits were filed.

[M L]

This woman's parents were public school teachers in the 1990s. Look at what they could afford compared to today.

https://notthebee.com/article/this-womans-parents-were-public-school-teachers-in-the-1990s-look-at-what-they-could-afford

This young lady makes some astute observations . . .

[Absaroka]

I dunno about that. She's pretty vague.

I'm willing to believe that lakefront property is up a lot - the population has doubled since her parent's halcyon days, and God hasn't doubled the number of lakes. But the general 'people today are living in economic hell compared to the boomers back then' doesn't track my life experience, as people like to say. I just looked up the house I lived in during high school, and it last sold for $290k in 2021 (the 'zestimate' is in the mid 300's FWIW). This was considered middle-to-upper middle class at the time. But the house was 1100 sq ft, had no air conditioning (we slept on the basement concrete in August), had one bath - just a tub/commode/free standing sink, not a vanity cabinet. Formica cabinets, etc. Mom stayed home during the week because, like the vast majority of our neighbors, we only had one car and Dad drove it to work.

This is pretty fundamentally different from the new houses I see advertised as starter homes today.

The young people I know today who did what my parents did - work hard, be willing to relocate for better opportunities, etc, seem to be living a materially more affluent lifestyle than equivalent careers provided in the 1960's and 1970's. I'm open to counterarguments, but they will have to be a lot less facile than that young lady's video.

[M L]

This man took before and after photos of Costco prices and they’ll break your heart ????

https://notthebee.com/article/this-man-took-before-and-after-photos-of-costco-prices-and-itll-break-your-heart-

I'm not joking, you might need a box of tissues for this one (if you can afford them still).

This guy walking around Costco shares examples of food inflation that are WAY higher than the numbers reported for food inflation by the government.

[Sarcastr0]

Kevin Drum:

Charts of the day: Wages have beaten inflation over the past year

"Just because I continue to think that a lot of people still don't get this, here are two charts showing wages and inflation. The first starts in 2019:

As you can see, every measure of wages has risen more than inflation. Now here it is over just the past year:

Once again, wages have outpaced inflation. The poor (light blue) and blue-collar workers (green) have done the best. But everyone has made gains.

You can cherry pick all you want. If you run this chart for 17.5 months or 26.3 months, it might show something slightly different. But the most obvious and natural measures both show the same thing: worker income has beaten inflation consistently. Not by a vast amount, which is probably all for the best with inflation at the top of the Fed's mind, but still up. Purchasing power has not suffered over the course of the pandemic to now.

POSTSCRIPT: I copied these charts straight off FRED just to make absolutely sure that nobody thought I was fiddling with things in my own charts."

https://jabberwocking.com/charts-of-the-day-wages-have-beaten-inflation-over-the-past-year/

Your eagerness to talk the economy down is not that surprising.

[Absaroka]

"Wages have beaten inflation over the past year"

That's wonderful for people whose income has beaten, or kept up with, inflation. If you are, hypothetically, a federal worker whose salary and pension are fully COLA'd, inflation is not your problem. Ditto if you have a strong union that keeps your wages ahead of inflation.

Shocking as it may be, though, not everyone's income is fully COLA'd. A lot of retirement income, for example, either isn't COLA'd at all, or the COLA is capped at something like 3%. For those people any year that inflation exceeds their cap, it is a permanent cut. And those cuts compound for the duration of retirement. Over, say, a 20 year retirement those can be very substantial cuts. Moreover, this isn't a risk one can effectively hedge; inflation adjusted annuities have disappeared from the market.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it's not evenly distributed. I'm not saying the economy is a rocket at the moment.

But ML is still talking out of his ass by focusing only on inflation and not wages.

[Mr. Bumble]

So what are you going to believe, the charts or your own eyes?

[Life of Brian]

The chest-thumping about not having cherry-picked felt like he doth protest a bit too much, and sure enough.

The first graph starts at the very not-cherry-picked date of July 2019, and thus includes a nice juicy period pre-COVID where wages shot up and CPI actually went down, giving wages a head start before the COVID crash and inflationary cycle.

The second graph starts at the very not-cherry-picked date of July 2022, and thus captures only a time frame where inflation had cooled off a great deal.

Starting at the actually not-cherry-picked date of April 2020 (you know, right when the bottom dropped out of the job market and the inflation-spurring spending spree started) unsurprisingly gives a very different picture.

Unlike Drum, I'm actually going to link to the underlying graph itself so folks can play with it without reinventing the wheel.

[Sarcastr0]

He spoke to your accusation of cherry picking:
You can cherry pick all you want. If you run this chart for 17.5 months or 26.3 months, it might show something slightly different. But the most obvious and natural measures both show the same thing: worker income has beaten inflation consistently.

actually not-cherry-picked date of April 2020
That is *absolutely cherry picked* You admit it, but are too dumb to realize what you admitted to. Covid happened; you can't just pretend it didn't happen.

[Life of Brian]

He spoke to your accusation of cherry picking:
You can cherry pick all you want. If you run this chart for 17.5 months or 26.3 months, it might show something slightly different. But the most obvious and natural measures both show the same thing

Right: that was the "protest too much" part. Again, read; think; THEN respond.

Aside from flowery labels, he makes zero, zilch, nada effort to explain why those two time slices are "the most obvious and natural." As I explained (and you flatly ignored), they're both highly opportunistic: the first waters down inflation; the second elides most of it.

Covid happened; you can’t just pretend it didn’t happen.

Dude, you crack me up. That's exactly why I picked the starting date I did, which I also clearly explained. The response to COVID is the entire reason we're having this conversation. The time span I included shows that response, unconfounded by Drum's opportunistic roping in of a period just before that which got him the result he wanted.

Objectively justify a start date of July 2019. He didn't, and you can't.

Objectively justify a start date of July 2022. He didn't, and you can't.

[Absaroka]

I'm a little confused. The claim is "But the most obvious and natural measures both show the same thing: worker income has beaten inflation consistently."

That's true over the interval he picked: the last 12 months. It's not true over e.g. the last 24 or 36 months. What definition of 'consistently' is he using?

[Sarcastr0]

I think the issue is that picking a single interval and essentializing it gets you various results.

But the trend is that wages are outpacing inflation.

I and Kevin are not saying the economy has been gangbusters, but the simplistic talking point about inflation isn't going to get you there. Not honestly at least.

[Absaroka]

"I think the issue is that picking a single interval and essentializing it gets you various results."

Well, sure. I'd agree with 'one can pick endpoints to get various results'. But that's a lot different than 'has beaten inflation consistently'.

"But the trend is that wages are outpacing inflation."

That has been my impression, but the FRED chart LoB posted doesn't seem to show that.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's simple enough. The amount of wages is rising, but income inequality is rising faster. So you can have wages outpacing inflation on average, while most people are ending up worse off.

[Life of Brian]

The amount of wages is rising, but income inequality is rising faster.

Yeah, that seems well supported by the two indicators on the chart I linked that are WAY lower than the broader income measures (i.e., they're just catching up to where they were in April 2020):

"Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over"

"Average Weekly Hours of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, Manufacturing"

[Life of Brian]

Ah, just noticed I pulled hours rather than earnings for manufacturing. Corrected chart here. Still only grows at about 2/3 the rate of the CPI.

[Nige]

Everyone's suddenly joining Occupy Wall Street.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Who you gonna believe, a liberal blogger? Or the Official statistics, that show Real Median Household Income sharply down since 2019...

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

[Sarcastr0]

These are new goalposts. A moment's thought on why wages and income are not the same. Get with it, man.

And quit with the weak-ass ad hominem - I was not appealing to Kevin Drum's authority, but to his numbers and arguments.

[Sarcastr0]

Your new goalpost of income not wages was of course an big thing the right brought up a couple of weeks ago.
Turns out to be cherry picked as well! Because it's not the only measure of income. I know this because Kevin Drum talked to it when this talking point first came out in mid-September.

"here are all the different measures of income that I could round up. All of them are measured from the final quarter of 2019 to the most recent quarter of 2023 using the usual CPI index. The exceptions are the Census Bureau numbers, which are annual and use the C-CPI chained index.

The Journal, naturally, is focusing on the worst number because it fits the point they wish to make. The reality is that, adjusted for inflation, almost every measure shows that average incomes are about flat."
https://jabberwocking.com/average-earnings-today-are-about-the-same-as-just-before-the-pandemic/

Call him liberal all you want, but he's making an argument and you should consider speaking to it.

[Absaroka]

I'm getting more confused by the minute. We have a quite rosy 'worker income has beaten inflation consistently' and the somewhat less cheery 'The reality is that, adjusted for inflation, almost every measure shows that average incomes are about flat'.

Those are a bit in tension.

[Life of Brian]

Looks to me like since his first article he played with the dates more and found he could get rosier numbers backing his start date up to July 2019 rather than his original October 2019 (which as arbitrary as it was, at least was an even three-year span).

[Brett Bellmore]

The last time we discussed that tension, somebody claimed that the $25 per year increase in real income over several years was meaningful, because the government's economic stats are obviously valid out to at least three places.

Myself, looking at that graph what struck me is that we'd never before had that sort of absolutely billiard table flat period in the numbers. Which makes me suspect they'd been adjusted just enough to keep them from going down, and somebody forgot to add some noise to make it less obvious.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't believe the government's numbers, so I don't get why you even have equity to speak on this.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m getting more confused by the minute. We have a quite rosy ‘worker income has beaten inflation consistently’ and the somewhat less cheery ‘The reality is that, adjusted for inflation, almost every measure shows that average incomes are about flat’.

Abrasoka - as I stated above, wages and income are different.

[Martinned]

As are average, median, and "worker" figures.

[Absaroka]

Well, in the two quotes I see 'worker income' and 'average income'. I don't see the word 'wages'.

And I get that income=wages*hours worked, but I'm not sure what your point is there. If you are proposing the thesis 'the economy is going great' and you mean 'income is down, but it's because wages are up and hours worked down, and the extra leisure makes us better off that the foregone income' or something, I think you/Mr. Drum need to spell out the precise thesis better.

[Sarcastr0]

Income != wages*hours work. There are other sources of income than wages. I don't know the details of the differential and its interaction with inflation, but it certainly explains the discrepancy. ML came in talking inflation, and ignoring wage increases. Which he knows better.

My thesis is explicitly not that the economy is doing great, (though I do think it's doing fine)
Limited to this discussion, it is as I said above: "I and Kevin are not saying the economy has been gangbusters, but the simplistic talking point about inflation isn’t going to get you there. Not honestly at least."

[Sarcastr0]

Bottom line - I buy into Kevin's point that the GOP is talking down the economy with a focus that is ridiculous:

"Roughly similar percentages of Democrats and Republicans agree that their personal financial situation is good. However, only 5% of Republicans say the national economy is good."

https://jabberwocking.com/americans-dont-think-the-economy-is-bad-republicans-do/

The comments here are hard to ignore on that front. Just abuse of economics in service of lying about the economy for partisan reasons. Everyone does it a bit, consciously or unconsciously. But boy is it at a fever pitch at the moment.

[Martinned]

It's the same if you ask about specific things, like "Is the S&P up or down this year?" Republicans say it is down, Democrats say it is up. (It's up 12%.)

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

What we're listening to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Lt-H_y7ig

[Darth Buckeye]

There is no “Today in Supreme Court History” post today. I am super-bummed out. It’s my birthday and I was looking forward to see what momentous event occurred on October 5th.

[Mr. Bumble]

Captcrsis did not review a porno.

[Magister]

Apparently Earl Warren was also a sleazy male stripper, Bumble, if that makes you hard feel better.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Don't know about SCOTUS history but on this
date in MLB Jim Lonborg pitched a one hit shutout against the Cardinals to tie the 1967 World Series at 1-1.
Yastrzemski had 2 HRs in the 5-0 win.

[Frank Drackman]

Yaz was overrated, I could play leftfield at Fenway, and how did the 1967 Series end?
OK, Yaz is a great Amurican, just don't like that he's one of the many natural righthanders who hit lefty for the (minimal) advantage of facing right handed curve balls breaking away from them and the shorter distance to first base.

Frank

[BrotherMovesOn]

He had a couple good seasons!
There's a plaque of him somewhere in NY state.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He earned a Triple Crown.

Three batting championships (nine seasons in top ten).

Eighteen all-star games.

Seven Gold Gloves.

Seven seasons as outfield assists leader.

Twenty-second (non-pitchers) in wins against replacement (three seasons leading league, seven seasons in top ten).

Top twenty in win probability contributed (seven seasons in top ten) .

Second in games played.

Ninth in hits.

Tenth in total bases.

Ninth in doubles.

Home runs: 452 (six seasons in top ten).

Sixth in walks.

Thirteenth in extra-base hits.

Five seasons leading as on-base leader (ten seasons in top ten).

But only 168 stolen bases, so the overrated assertion is . . . another example of the stupidity of this white, male, right-wing blog's fans.

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry, stick to Foo-bawl.

[Ridgeway]

Yaz is a legit Hall of Famer, but having been the best player on the Rd Sox for a long period of time (especially if you ignore Jim Rice -- black doncha know), he is a bit overrated by Sox fans. He is no Mantle or Mays, or Ted Williams for that matter.

Lest I be branded a deluded Yankees fan, I look at Derek Jeter very similarly.

And for true heterodoxy, I'd lump Musial in there as well.

[grb]

Darth Buckeye : "It’s my birthday...."

Happy Birthday!

[Magister]

Today in Supreme Court History: October 5, 1953
Chief Justice Earl Warren takes the oath.

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/05/today-in-supreme-court-history-october-5-1953/
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/05/today-in-supreme-court-history-october-5-1953-2/

I think I can only post two links; change 2021 to 2022 and -2 to -3 at the end to get the 2022 post. Same content three different years, but different comments.

Happy Birthday! Don't say we didn't get you anything.

[Dan Schiavetta]

https://www.captcrisis.com/post/today-in-supreme-court-history-october-6

[Magister]

Ninth Circuit had relied on its own precedent, which prohibited such practices, in granting habeas, but 1996 statute restricting habeas only to where state court misapplied federal law refers only to federal law established by the Court (which has been silent on this issue) (this strikes me as odd; Thomas, who wrote the opinion, seems to be saying only SCOTUS can declare federal law

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted habeas relief in federal court (although perhaps mostly to prevent death row inmates from delaying execution through repeated litigation). Only for law established by the Supreme Court seems even stronger than "clearly established" to overcome qualified immunity. The Supreme Court apparently doesn't mind the restriction on lower courts as long as its own authority is not reduced.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Jerry B.]

Watch “Playing Frisbee in North Korea” on PBS or Prime.

[apedad]

Just FYI . . . .

Top ten places to retire according to one recent survey.

1 Tampa, FL
2 Scottsdale, AZ
3 Fort Lauderdale, FL
4 Orlando, FL
5 Miami, FL
6 Casper, WY
7 Denver, CO
8 Cincinnati, OH
9 Charleston, SC
10 Atlanta, GA

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-places-to-retire/6165

[Mr. Bumble]

As always, subject to change without notice.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hurricanes, heat domes, bigotry, droughts, half-educated hayseeds, floods . . . this is the dream for which 80-year-olds?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Excellent choices for brief retirements.

For those with longer prospects, pick someplace with outstanding medical services.

[Martinned]

This may amuse one or two people here.

To own a car in Singapore, a buyer must bid for a certificate that now costs more than $106,000 (S$145,000), equivalent to four Toyota Camry Hybrids in the US, as a post-pandemic recovery has driven up the cost of the country’s vehicle quota system to all-time highs.(...)
The quota, offered through a bidding process, has made it the most expensive city in the world to buy a car, with the certificate for a large car more than quadrupling from 2020 prices on Wednesday to a record S$146,002 ($106,376.68). (...)
Including COE, registration fees and taxes, a new standard Toyota Camry Hybrid currently costs S$251,388 ($183,000) in Singapore, compared with $28,855 in the US. A small, government-subsidized flat in Singapore costs about S$125,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/04/singapore-cost-car-certificate

[John F. Carr]

The high fee creates an incentive to buy a more expensive car, not a Camry, because there is little difference between $250,000 and $280,000.

Some crowded cities have used an even-odd rationing system. Each license plate is only permitted on the street on alternate days or alternate weekdays. Such policies encourage families to buy two cars instead of one. There was a critical report in one of the major journals 5-10 years ago saying these policies didn't work in practice.

[Martinned]

The high fee creates an incentive to buy a more expensive car, not a Camry, because there is little difference between $250,000 and $280,000.

That's not how rational decision making works. You might prefer a bigger car over a smaller one, but whether you're willing to pay $30,000 extra for the bigger one should not depend on the price of the COE.

[Martinned]

*Nuance: except for the income effect.

Having to pay $100,000 for a COE might mean you can no longer afford to pay that extra $30,000, or it might mean you are so much the poorer in real terms that you're no longer willing to pay the $30,000. But I can see no rational decision making model that makes people *more* likely to spend $30,000 on a bigger car if they've just spent $100,000 on something else.

[David Nieporent]

But I can see no rational decision making model that makes people *more* likely to spend $30,000 on a bigger car if they’ve just spent $100,000 on something else.

If a company offers a Small for $5, and a Large for $10, there is no rational reason why renaming Large to Medium for $10, and adding Large for $15, should cause more people to buy the $10 item. But it does.

[Martinned]

100%. But John F. Carr talked about "incentives", which is normally used to refer to rational decision making, not psychological effects.

[Randal]

I took the original post to be slightly misworded. It doesn't mean that any given individual is more likely to buy the expensive car so much as that the high cost of the certificate is only affordable by people who also tend to choose expensive cars.

[Martinned]

Yes, you're definitely likely to end up with a city that has more expensive cars, on average.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hard to see anything "amusing" about this.

[Martinned]

You're not a fan of market-based solutions to scarcity problems?

[Mr. Bumble]

What scarcity?

[Randal]

Space on the roads, you nit.

[Martinned]

(Road) space in Singapore.

[John F. Carr]

Al Jazeera observes the 50th anniversary of one of the Arab-Israeli wars, which meant nothing to me at the time. The resulting oil crisis had some visible effects.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/10/6/how-the-october-war-changed-the-world

[Frank Drackman]

Tricky Penis Milhouse’s “Finest Hour” saving Israel from the Moose-lum Hoards, I don’t care if he was an anti-semitic prick,

Operation Nickel Grass was a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Over 32 days, the United States Air Force (USAF) Military Airlift Command (MAC) shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition and supplies in C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft between 14 October and 14 November 1973.[1][2]: 88  The U.S. support helped ensure that the State of Israel survived a coordinated and surprise attack from the Soviet-backed Arab Republic of Egypt and Syrian Arab Republic.

Frank

[Martinned]

I think we typically refer to that war as the Yom Kippur War.

[David Nieporent]

(((We))) certainly do. I'll take your word for the fact that Europeans do so, too.

[Martinned]

I've never heard it referred to any other way, and a quick click through some different language versions of Wikipedia suggests that's what it's called in any Latin-script language I tried.

[SRG2]

Apparently in Muslim/Arab circles it is also referred to as the Ramadan War as it took place during the month of Ramadan. But until now (((I))) had never heard it called anything other than the Yom Kippur War.

[John F. Carr]

I have always known it by that name. The US has had closer ties to Israel than the Arab world. Al Jazeera is the other way around.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hillary proposes re-education camps for political opponents.

[jdoeford]

you're trolling, right?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I provided the link.

[jdoeford]

Sure, a link to a video in which she said of extreme Trumpists: “When do they break with him? . . . [M]aybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members. . .” It was obviously intended as a joke, you can even see the interviewer chuckle. Not saying it was funny, but yes I get the sentiment. I’m sure I’ve said something similar before. It does not mean reeducation camps.

Look I’m far from a Hillary Clinton fan. But I’m a bit concerned because lately there’s a lot of chatter from rightwingers about the need to resort to violence against leftists, based on flimsy claims that otherwise leftists will en masse physically attack rightwingers first.

[M L]

"chatter from rightwingers about the need to resort to violence against leftists"

We're just joking about that, obviously. Lighten up man!

[Magister]

'Tis true, conservatives suck at comedy.

[jdoeford]

M L: Uh who’s “we”? Do you extol violence against leftists?

I mean yeah, I have no doubt some rw’ers out there only talk about violence as a joke. Just as Clinton here is joking (I’m not sure you disagree...and in any event she doesn't even joke about *violence*). But some sure appear to mean it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It wasn't obvious to me that it was a joke, and it doesn't seems like it was obvious to CNN either, since the headline was, "Clinton calls for 'formal deprogramming' of MAGA 'cult members'" and not, "Clinton jokes about 'formal deprogramming' of MAGA 'cult members'"

[jdoeford]

Which headline do you think makes more money for CNN?

[jdoeford]

If you really thought she was communicating that she favors seizing people for expressing rightwing viewpoints and putting them in education camps…

I dunno man…I think you gotta chill. (No mockery intended.) I’m not a leftist but I read enough leftists to be pretty sure this isn’t on the radar of any Democrat in power. Media get clicks by spinning that story, tho.

[SRG2]

I started watching the 1970 Western "Barquero" last night. It's not exactly a spaghetti Western but it is close enough FAPP, and with Lee van Cleef and Warren Oates, two great sweaty actors*, what's not to enjoy?

Who is also in it is the spectacular Marie Gomez (who was also in the Western "The Professionals"), I am surprised that Russ Meyer never cast her.

*The category "Great Sweaty Actors" (and actresses) is a useful one, including such past Hollywood stars as Humphrey Bogart and Sidney Greenstreet, and others like Ed Begley, Rod Steiger, M Emmett Walsh, Ava Gardner, Ellen Barkin...